have an abortion. Secondly, and most importantly, Isabel is tested and the baby is going to be healthy - completely normal. Thus, there will be no added difficulty in caring for the child and furthermore, the child will be well suited for the "present-day" conditions". That is something that prochoice advocates claim to be declaring as important. Therefore, does the minor gender difference that the couple comes to know by way of checking for abnormalities entitle them to abort the child? No, not even prochoice advocates could agree here. In fact, it makes the action more immoral especially since the child will be healthy and there sole basis for having an abortion is backed by a mere preference of healthy boy over healthy girl. ("Abortion", pp2-3)In the "Stealing" Case, I applied the principle of reasoning using this central argument: Preserving human life is far more important than property rights. This is consistent with the abortion cases in that life takes the highest precedence. Without human life there can be no goodness or badness, justice or injustice, honesty or dishonesty, freedom or lack of it. (Thiroux, p162) Furthermore, this notion of life being held in the highest regard takes priority over any other principle or moral reasoning; in the particular case of "Stealing", it would be life over property rights.In the "Animal Rights" Case, the principle of reasoning was applied to prove that experimenting of animals for use of cosmetics was not justifiable when, in fact, there was a greater issue of imposing torture on innocent creatures. Again, there is a regard for the living creature; this notion is consistent in all three cases. The main moral philosophy in all cases involves revering and respecting the living being; nothing can justify killing a baby, starving a family, or inflicting torture when the tradeoff is personal preference, property rights, and cosmetics. There is no straightforward answer to whether ...
