Critical Analysis of a Moral Choice by Mary Gordon
Moral dilemmas often confront individuals from time to time. One of the common issues that cause a moral dilemma is abortion. Also, abortion has elicited unending debate in nearly all realms ranging from religion, legal, and societal norms. Liberals are supporting abortion, while those inclined towards conservatism have continued to oppose it. In her short story, A moral Choice, Mary Gordon talks about abortion and issues surrounding this sensitive topic. Therefore, this paper seeks to critique Gordon’s work with a focus on the essay’s coherency, defensibility of the made assumptions, sufficiency, and reliability of the evidence, and credibility of the essay.
The presented thesis is reasonable. Even though abortion is a contentious issue with opponents and proponents striving to win the debate, abortion remains to be a moral choice. This implies that it is upon the involved couple or woman to decide whether to have an abortion or not regardless of the legal status. For instance, Gordon holds that she had three abortions. The first one was done when abortion was illegal. The second one was done when abortion was legal, but there were still strict rules that regulated it. The third one occurred when abortion laws have been made less strict. This shows that nothing has changed concerning abortion. The only difference is the presence of written laws that permits it. The presented reasoning is coherent in defending abortion as a moral choice.
The assumptions behind the claim are defensible. Gordon has demonstrated that individuals are faced with unique circumstances; hence, a third party should not be involved in making a decision for them. For example, she holds that sometimes individuals feel that they have had enough children whom they can comfortably support, others have a career at stake, and others may not be sure whether they want to raise a child together. Some of the presented assumptions have been based on Gordon’s life experiences. For example, her first abortion was prompted by the need to safeguard her career. Therefore, it is imperative to conclude that the presented assumptions are defensible, and there is sufficient and reliable evidence.
Lastly, Gordon has avoided being biased. She does not oppose nor support abortion. Gordon takes a neutral ground, and provides first-hand experiences concerning abortion, earns her the required credibility. Gordon is pro-choice and pro-life, which implies that she supports the protection of life and respects an individual’s choice concerning abortion.
Abortion remains one of the areas where there is a lapse in freedom and human dignity. Here, Gordon has always responded and will still respond that she is pro-choice and pro-life. In this part of society, religion and government should refrain from compelling individuals to make a certain decision, it should remain a decision to be made by an individual, but after being counseled.