Contemporary Rhetoric in Healthcare Ethics Essay

Submitted By Kimsoo1
Words: 1027
Pages: 5

PHIL 352, HEALTH CARE ETHICS | Prof. Cory, Winter 2013
Contemporary Rhetoric in Health Care Ethics, Exam

A. Pro-life bumper Sticker: “A person is a person, no matter how small”
All person has right to live even the fetus in the mother’s womb, there are no less of a person.
The slogan supports the pro-life argument on right of fetus and unborn life to live against opposition who sees unborn life and fetus as less of a person therefore has no right to live. The definition of personhood is at stake in this argument because the right to lives relies on being a person and a non-person. The question of personhood can be separated in two way by treating person as personhood as nature or personhood as function. And the pro-life group supports the idea that the person is granted a personhood as a nature and that is to say that, a child is granted personhood since the conception of a child regardless of the child is in a form of fetus or an embryotic cell. The value of unborn life is treated as a gift of a personhood that is being seen as one unique form of life as anybody else who is already living as a person and each individual needs to be seen with special dignity. According to the personhood as function, since the unborn life won’t be granted a right to live due to lack of personhood, person who are disable and limited in their abilities due to old age can be rationally seen as “less of a person”, at least not a whole one, because they don’t fulfill personhood as function, therefore their lives is meaningless and worth of dying. The opposition group that supports personhood as a function is a dangerous concept that put risks to people who are vulnerable and old because they values the idea of self-worth by functional capabilities in terms of physically and mentally which it not only targets unborn life but also people who are already living. With this argument established, it is logical to see removing fetus or embryotic cell’s mother womb can be seen as killing. By taking away one individual’s live form which it prevents individual to plans for their future permanently is violating value of person’s right to live therefore it is justice to treat removing fetus or embryotic cell as killing. Because the child is a granted a personhood by the nature since the birth, the unborn life has right to live.
A person has right to live
Unborn child lacks personhood (Because they treat personhood as function)
Lack of personhood can be removed as a “non-person” (justifies killing)
Vulnerable and old cease being a person therefore it is proper to assist them in dying or ending their life.
Opposing view
The opposing view argues that unborn child is not a person because they fails to fulfill person as a function. If the defender of this slogan were debating this opponent, the most fundamental issue that they would have to resolve in order to reach agreement is whether they define value on unborn life to conclude that it is not up to human being to decide death of another life.

B. Bumper Sticker (quoting Scott Hamilton): “The only disability in life is a bad attitude”

The only thing that would disabled a person from doing anything a bad attitude.
The slogan by Scoot Hamilton is an inspirational and encouragement slogan that supports people who are disabled in any way not to give up their dreams and hope. The definition of disability is a term used to labeled people who have certain limitation in mental or physical functioning and in skills and the slogan provides argument that the disability is not a disadvantage but rather it’s how one push their capabilities to its limits. The underlying assumption behind the opposition is that disabled people are seen as almost “less of a person” as they are inhibited in certain tasks. However, in a social construction view, there are no such thing as disability, and that everyone should be granted the same equality. It is not