The solutions I came up with in all three cases, although seemingly strong in one favor, had an underlying moderate position. Each solution to the case was deduced by carefully examining both sides of the argument. Furthermore, I evaluated the logic behind both perspectives and came up with the more compelling and rational settlement.In all three case studies, I used the principle of reasoning that implies the following: a) Logical argument, which includes supplying empirical evidence in support of ones position. b) Logical consistency, which involves avoiding fallacies and making sure that ones argument follows smoothly from one point to the next until it arrives at a logical conclusion. c) A certain detachment from feelings; this springs from reasonings formality which forces one to consider the truth and validity of what the individual and others are thinking and saying. d) A common means by which differences in feelings, opinions, and thoughts can be arbitrated. (Thiroux, p 157) This principle of reasoning and the methods it implies is what I adhered to when considering solutions to the cases. For example, in the "Abortion" Case, I had the following reasons for my argument: a) All human life is very precious, including that which is yet unborn. b)Human life begins at conception. c) Women do not have absolute rights over their own bodies when those bodies contain another life. d) Personal emotion, such as gender preference, should not determine the life or death of a potential being.In addition to the principle of reasoning, I also applied the Value of Life Principle to the "Abortion" Case. The Value of Life Principle proposes that no life should be ended without very strong justification. In the "Abortion" Case I nullified the moral justification in aborting the child. First of all, Isabel and Bill upon learning of her pregnancy have already adjusted to the idea. In other words, at that point, they have decided to not...
