Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
- Do they use key words from the title or question?
- Do they answer the question directly?
- Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
Christians should never agree with abortion. Discuss
"In conclusion, although the foetus may not be a full human yet it still has that potential to be one, so that needs to be taken into account. God also should only have the power to give and take away life as Christians see everyone as Gods creation so therefore he should only have the right to take away our lives since he created us. But Christian should still agree with abortion in some circumstances such as the ones required by 1990 Human and Embryology act, which are if the mental or physical health of the mother or any existing children are at risk or if their was a risk that the baby would be born seriously handicapped. The reason for this would solely be to protect the people who are already alive and fully human which is very important for lots of Christians."
To what extent is abortion a justified action?
"In conclusion, it is apparent that it is up to the individual as to whether they feel abortion is morally right or suitable for them. Obviously, circumstances with regards to finance and relationship change, and in some cases abortion seems the only sensible option. However, it is important to consider all the options available and other factors such as religious beliefs, which may effect the final decision
Matthew Goodwin 10MA English Coursework"
Discuss and evaluate ethical dilemmas - Euthanasia
"A case which would have been an excellent milestone did not go to court as the child in question died in his home from cerebal palsy. The parents of Thomas Creedon, who could not hear or see, claimed that their son was paralysed, had constant fits, was in constant pain and suffering by being forced to stay alive. The Times newspaper states that 'Thomas's doctors wanted to continue feeding him and were set to oppose his parents application. They disputed the Creedons belief that he was constantly in pain. Mrs Creedon had said "Thomas has a very distressing existence and I find it difficult to see how the medical profession in this particular area is prepared to perpetuate that suffering, no matter what the realistic outcome is likely to be.".'This was a case of distress for Mrs Creedon.
Euthanasia raises many questions, is a doctor a judge or is he just a doctor, is one who involves oneself in euthanising another a saint or a sinner? What constitutes unbearable pain, whose dcision is it? All of these questions and many more all constitute to the cloudy and complicated legal system. Should euthanasia be legalised, is it right."