{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020538243626062325, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.422727272727273, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Autonomy's Dominion: Dworkin on Abortion and Euthanasia

Controversies over abortion and euthanasia are, among other things, controversies about the scope of personal autonomy. Liberals on these issues argue that respect for personal autonomy requires that individuals be free to make such choices. Conservatives on abortion and euthanasia, on the other hand, think that autonomy is rightfully limited when an individual seeks to take human life. In either case the issue is whether personal autonomy in the disputed decision is a fundamental value and, if so, whether social or moral concerns about taking human life are sufficient justifications for limiting autonomy. Ronald Dworkin, the noted legal philosopher, has written an elegant and impressive book-Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom-that emphasizes respect for autonomy as the solution to the life-and-death dilemmas of abortion and euthanasia. While many other thinkers have reached this conclusion, few have confronted as forthrightly as Life's Dominion does the religious or spiritual nature of these dilemmas. Dworkin views controversies over abortion and euthanasia as reflections of personal views about the intrinsic sanctity of human life, and not about the rights or interests of fetuses or comatose patients per se. Because such views are so clearly religious or spiritual in content, they should