Is abortion wrong or is it right?

The community, too, shapes a child's conscience. It will come as no surprise to parents that children have built-in hypocrisy detectors. ("But Mommy, if it's wrong to lie, why did you tell her she looked beautiful?") If the football coach preaches winning above all, and if Mom lies to get her child excused from class in order to take another day of vacation, and if Dad reams out a teacher who reprimanded his daughter for cheating, "children learn not to take moral messages seriously," says Damon.

Heart and head will take a child only so far, however. "I suspect that if you sat down [the first-grade shooter] when he was quiet and calm, before this happened, and asked, 'Is it bad to shoot someone?' he would have said yes," says psychologist Laurence Steinberg of Temple University and director of a MacArthur Foundation program on juvenile justice. How much he understood about the consequences of shooting and the finality of death is unknown. But choosing not to undertake a horrific act requires the third ingredient of conscience: a gut-wrenching aversion to wrong. "Gut-wrenching" is not merely a figure of speech: it means the racing heart, sweaty palms and churning stomach that moral individuals would feel if forced to, say, burglarize a house. Some people simply lack this stress response, but probably not because of a genetic defect. When Adrian Raine of the University of Southern California recorded how 15-year-olds' heart rates, EEGs (a measure of brain activity) and other factors changed in response to stress, he found some cool customers who were not fazed by anything. Compared with kids with a normal stress response, they had a greater chance of being criminals at the age of 24. Perhaps low arousability makes kids seek out excitement and danger, Raine suggests. Or maybe it makes them fearless. "Kids who come from a bad home environment, who are battered from pillar to post, may become inoculated to stress," says Raine. "Their nervous system may simply not be wired to ring a warning bell" when they are about to do something dangerous--or wrong. This brain wiring may be what's missing in kids who "know" right from wrong but fail to act on it.

Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Think: Would you feel right if you engaged in the activity inquestion immediately after singing songs and praying prayers ofdevotion to God? Would you feel pure before God if you stopped inthe midst of the act and asked His blessings on it?

Arkes would have the Greens and their lawyers make the foundation of their case the truth that abortifacients are morally wrong. No doubt it is a worthy project to defend the truths of the natural law. But that is primarily a battle for the public square and legislative arena, not the courts. And disagreement about this moral truth need not prevent us from seeking religious freedom—the Greens were asking, after all, for an exemption from mandated coverage of FDA-approved items with which many Americans, if not a majority, have no moral qualms.

Is it the right or wrong thing to do.

Arkes and I agree that there is no natural right to do moral wrong. But having the wrong (i.e., mistaken) religious beliefs need not entail doing any moral wrong at all. Thus, religious liberty, understood as the right to act according to even false religion, need not involve a right to do a moral wrong. Indeed, understanding the nature of the religious good and our duties to seek it provides “coherent grounds of argument” fully “tethered” to human flourishing, the basis of natural rights and natural law.

When we find polished, accomplished people invoking now a “right to be wrong,” a line that cannot form a coherent ground of argument on any matter, we may see the signs of an argument soaring with metaphor, but now untethered.

What Is Wrong–and Right–With the Alt-Right - The …

In all honesty I probably would have blown it eventually, the way I was drinking and acting out, but then at the start of my second year something happened. A massive Latino student movement sparked up on campus. That shit almost never happens but there it was, the real deal and, desperate for anything like a community, I jumped right the fuck in. That solidarity more or less saved my life. Made everything in workshop bearable because I suddenly had a group of people on campus who pulled for me, a group of people who saw me. Not a bad movement either—we scored some solids against the University and that also gives you a ton of heart. (One of our crowning triumphs, something I still take pride in, was that we were able to push through our first fiction faculty of color in the MFA program, Helena Maria Viramontes—how perfect is that? If I wrote it in a book no one would believe it—too pat—but that’s exactly what happened. Helena came to campus too late for me but not for all the other students who have since benefited from her genius. Helena was exactly the faculty I had dreamed about during my MFA; she came out of the tradition of Chicana feminist artists, of women of color artists, the tradition of resistance, and in her workshop you better believe race existed and was not an interloper or an aberration from True Literature; it’s a social force which all of us must learn to bear witness to.)

Right vs Wrong - Essay by Afg420 - Anti Essays

The Green family and their lawyers framed their case in the way that the law required—and one can hardly fault them for arguing their case so as to win. Moreover, Arkes’s description of their position is incomplete. The Greens relied not only on their belief that life begins at conception but also on their belief that it is wrong to do anything that might kill that life. Should they have really made the truth of their beliefs the core of their legal argument—especially when we live in a regime that has declared a constitutional right to abortion and when the drugs and devices in question are FDA-approved?

Moral Choices: Right vs. Wrong - Divergent Essay

Apart from the unlikely success of such a litigation strategy, consider its broader implications. Does an Orthodox Jewish butcher in a case about serving pork have to prove that eating pork is immoral? Or, for that matter, what about an Orthodox Jewish prison inmate: to succeed in a suit requiring the prison to serve him kosher meals, does he have to prove the righteousness of kosher dietary rules? And how about the Little Sisters of the Poor: will that case hinge on their proving that they have the right moral beliefs about all twenty FDA-approved contraceptives? Do we really want to discard Madison’s advice and empower the government to adjudicate religious truth?

How it works

• 

  You submit your order instructions

• 

  We assign an appropriate expert

• 

  The expert takes care of your task

• 

  We send it to you upon completion