Questions and inquiry methods

Ethics and Morality; Abortion

In review of the two organizations regarding abortion - NRLC and NARAL, there appears to be a varying degree of different arguments from each side. There is also an abundance of opinions that are politically charged, ethically driven, morally substantiated and overall supported by a plethora of information.

NRLC is the National Right to Life Coalition and is entirely comprised of values supporting the banning of abortion and heightening the awareness through pro-life agendas. NRLC's primary argument lies in their belief that babies or "fetuses" are human beings and are innocent lives. It is because of this belief that the sole objective of the NRLC is to protect these innocent lives.

The NARAL is a pro-choice, non-profit foundation aimed at promoting the choice of mothers to terminate their pregnancies. The NARAL's main objective lies in their belief that a women has the right to privacy and the right to choose what to do with her body and the body of her child.

Using cognitive research and analysis methods to assess each of the two sides websites, there was no lack of information readily available. Though the NARAL provides substantial support for their opinions, I was more apt to agree with the arguments made by NRLC.

NRLC provided information that I was not previously aware of. Some of this information detailed the functions of a child at the age where most children are killed by abortion. These "fetuses" are able to laugh, smile, suck their thumb, and do a variety of different things that only a human can do. They are human, and they are alive. To stop them from being alive is to kill them, to kill them is murder. These are some of the opinions and arguments by which I have come to sway my agreement more in the Direction of NRLC.

Ethically speaking, the NARAL provides a strong argument about the rights of women, and I do think there is much to be said for that. However, as NRLC proclaims, someone has to look out for the rights of the children that are being murdered everyday. It would appear that since the NARAL is supposedly so adamant about human rights, they would see the relevance of the rights of the people they are fighting to kill.

The NARAL's arguments are, regardless of my opinions, not substantial enough nor supported enough to validate the terms for which they argue. As compared to the passionate objectives seen through the mission statement and the overall morale concepts held by the NRLC, I believe NRLC depicts a stronger case.