The controversy involved in abortion develops from the ethical arguments adopted by people in the two stories of the issue. Apart from the legalization arguments, a new controversy regarding who holds the powers of allowing the practice has emerged. In the new controversy, men argue that they have a role to play in deciding their unborn children's fate. On the contrary, women argue that their position gives them more power to act on the fate of their children.. The ethical egoism and social contract approaches can be used in explaining the sources of these two controversies. Women use the ethical egoist approach to argue that they must be given the autonomy and mandate of deciding their unborn children's fate. Through this approach, women state that their ability to ensure child development for nine months gives them the moral authority to decide children's fate ( Austin, 2019) . The ethical egoistic approach is also used to support abortion, whereby the principles of freedom are brought into consideration. In essence, those supporting abortions argue that everyone is entitled to make their own choices regarding what they want in life. Therefore, abolishing abortion violates people's will and freedoms.
The social ethicist approach is also used in making claims on the legalization of abortion. According to this approach, denying women the ability to decide on their children's fate through the illegalization of abortion is a violation of their rights, including gender equality rights. In essence, these two ethical approaches have a significant role to play in the abortion controversies. The social ethicist theory is also used by men in arguing that they have a crucial role to play in deciding the fate of the fetus. The theory promotes social living based on harmony, by advocating for self-centered decisions that are beneficial to everyone. In essence, men argue that the fetus is formed through the contributions of both female and male cells. Therefore, according to social ethicist theory, harmony can only be realized by giving the two contributors a chance to decide the fate of the fetus.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Kantian categorical imperatives, the first formula states that everyone must act in ways that are universally acceptable. Kantian’s second formula restricts people from using themselves and others as means; instead, people should be treated as ends ( Baron, 2018 ). The Kantian argument can be critical in the evaluation of morality in the topic of legalizing abortion. According to Kant, those supporting abortion must be willing to let it become a universal law. In such an argument, people supporting abortion would be supporting an argument that it is ok if they were aborted by their parents. Using the second categorical imperative that humans should treat others as the end rather than means, it is evident that Kant would oppose abortion. In essence, killing an innocent fetus would imply using it as a "means," rather than the end. For instance, most people conduct abortions to protect their health ( Austin, 2019) . Through the second imperative, such acts would be regarded as using a child a means to help oneself. However, those supporting abortion would also use Kantian ethics to argue that fetuses cannot be termed as persons.
Annotated Bibliography
Austin, M. W. (2019). Ethics and abortion: Two opposing arguments on the morality of abortion. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201906/ethics-and-abortion
In this article, Austin (2019) discusses the controversies regarding the issue of abortion. Austin begins his article by showing how the US, in 2019, introduced more than 350 abortion laws. Additionally, 10 more states signed bans regulating this practice. In tackling the topic, Austin defines "personhood" as the moral status granted to an entity. In essence, he states that if entities are people, thus they have moral status (p. 2). Throughout the paper, the author presents the two sides of the issue without advocating for any of them. His argument is also based on abortion morality rather than a legal and constitutional basis. Dividing the paper into pro and against sides, Austin develops a conceptual argument based on various moral theories, including Kantian ethics. The article's supportive and opposing sides focus on the fetus's personhood, which paves the way for the application of Kantian ethics. According to Austin, people have various characteristics, which can be used to explain the ban of abortion. First, all persons have consciousness or awareness of self, external world, and ability to experience pain. People also can reason, communicate, and gain self-motivation. Therefore, using the personality argument, fetuses are not people because they do not possess the personalities of people. In his article, Austin argues, "Therefore, they are not persons. They do not have a right to life, and abortion is morally permissible" (p. 3). I agree with the author's argument because he bases his argument on Kantian ethics, providing him with an opportunity to develop his view on the two sides of the controversy. This article will be critical in understanding the research topic, as it will enable me to understand the two sides of this controversy. The article also enables me to understand the various ethical arguments that can be used in this topic.
Marquis, D. (2021). An argument that abortion is wrong. California State University Library. https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/160/marquis.html
In his article, Marquis (2021) defends the argument that abortion must be abolished because it is morally wrong. In his argument, Marquis defines "fetuses" as developing human beings (p. 1). He begins his article by affirming that fetuses are living beings whose lives must be protected. Marquis also argues that women have the right to manage their bodies by deciding what to do with them. However, he states that there is a boundary between controlling self and interfering with another being's life and stability. In essence, Marquis argues that even though women have the power to manage their bodies, they should never use their powers to destroy lives. While defending the view that fetuses are living beings, Marquis states, "An argument that fetuses either have or lack the right to life must be based upon some general criterion for having of lacking the right to life" (p. 3). Through this quote, Marquis implies that before deciding if fetuses have rights to live, people must consider the origin and conceptualization of life. In defending the idea that fetuses have life, Marquis bases his argument on the idea that all people, regardless of their race, gender, or any other social alienations, have the right to live. Consequently, he argues that fetuses can be categorized as any other species rather than the human species; hence they must be protected under the human rights' Acts. He argues, "Thus, the syllogism that generates the conclusion that fetuses have the right to life is apparently sound" (4). I agree with Marquis's argument because it clearly defines fetuses as people, thus enabling the development of the concept of human rights. I agree with how the author develops his argument before arriving at his conclusion that abortion is ethically wrong. The article is highly important to me because it will enable me to develop a credible argument on the abortion controversy.
Miller, C. (2018). Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law. Taylor-Francis Online. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2018.1468594?casa_token=9xnTU2G87Z8AAAAA:4xlqPbjmT2yz16ST3eiGf53EIuiqQHzbfY8YH93aNwiZRHi58C4cZrkYN_faNdh11XhTDxZKDkNjdJMW
The author of this article, Calum Miler, is a Professor at Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, UK. In this article, Miller (2018) describes the various arguments about abortion based on morality, law, and personhood basis. Using her legal expertise, Miller is able to incorporate the legal actions regarding abortion into the morality and arguments of personality. She begins by defining morality as “the principles that help people in the distinction between good and bad things in the society" (p. 4). In essence, if morality defines what is good and what is bad, then the legality of action can be based on its morality. Throughout the paper, Miller supports the legalization of abortion by using the basis that women have the rights to privacy, autonomy, and other rights that protect them against the obligations of having to keep a fetus. In essence, she argues that subjecting women to the illegalization of abortion is sex inequality, which must be addressed both on a moral and legal basis. For instance, she argues, "If a fetus is a person – a full rights bearer – then abortion usually constitutes homicide" (p. 2). Even though I agree with the author's conceptualization of this controversy, her arguments are in most instances contradictory. For instance, she argues that fetuses are human beings and entitled to live, yet in her latter developments, she argues that fetuses' lives are held at the mercies of their mothers. The article is important to my study as it will guide me in developing a distinct argument regarding the ethics of abortion.
McLean, M. et al. (2019). When the law makes the door slightly open: Ethical dilemmas among abortion service providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Medical Ethics. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0396-4#citeas
In their article, McLean et al. (2019) conceptualize the instances when abortion providers are faced with moral dilemmas. The authors begin by developing a background argument regarding Ethiopia's legalization of abortion, which aimed at reducing maternal mortality cases. McLean et al. visited various healthcare clinics in Addis Ababa, collecting providers' views on the issue of abortion. In essence, they established that most providers in the country are faced with ethical dilemmas on whether to provide the services or to abstain from such an activity. The authors define abortion legalization as "Instances where rape or incest was involved in the pregnancy, where the fetus has incurable deformities, when the mother is mentally or physically unfit, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life" (p. 4). In essence, women subjected to such scenarios are in Ethiopia allowed to exercise abortion. Despite the practice being legal, most providers find it difficult to perform it, owing to their religious and cultural beliefs that life is precious and must be preserved. The authors state, "One health worker had experienced a case where refusal led to the patient dying from unsafe abortion and recalled how much the experience had a transformative impact on his attitude towards abortion" (p. 5). In essence, even those objecting to the practice of religious beliefs sometimes find themselves supporting it to save mothers' lives. I agree with the authors, as they clearly show the perceptions of healthcare professionals towards abortion. The article is also important in my research as it provides religious and cultural considerations into the abortion controversy.
Svenaeus, F. (2018). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy , 21 (1), 77-87. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-017-9786-x
In his article, Svenaeus (2018) investigates the ways through which phenomenology can help in guiding people's perceptions towards abortion ethics. The author begins by introducing the concept of feminist philosophy into the arguments of abortion. He, however, presents phenomenology through the medical lens. He outlines how people perceive a fetus through the lens of life and lifelessness. He argues that pro-choice proponents base their ideas on the concept that pregnant women have the right to terminate their pregnancies as the fetuses are part of them. In essence, he defines a fetus as "part of a pregnant mother, embedded to their choices in life" (p. 5). While I do not entirely agree with the author because of his conceptualization of the topic, I agree with him that the fetus is a part of the pregnant woman; and the decision regarding its development should only be made by the carrier. This article will be critical in understanding feminist philosophy on the issue of abortion.
References
Austin, M. W. (2019). Ethics and abortion. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/201906/ethics-and-abortion
Baron, M. W. (2018). Kantian ethics almost without apology . Cornell University Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vi5zDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=kantian+ethics+scholarly+articles&ots=1hJBLx7dpT&sig=NbSIkvVNAkSyMnJ-prW1EC2eQAo
Marquis, D. (2021). An argument that abortion is wrong. California State University Library. https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/382/readings/160/marquis.html
McLean, M. et al. (2019). When the law makes door slightly open: Ethical dilemmas among abortion service providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Medical Ethics. https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-019-0396-4#citeas
Miller, C. (2018). Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law. Taylor-Francis Online. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2018.1468594?casa_token=9xnTU2G87Z8AAAAA:4xlqPbjmT2yz16ST3eiGf53EIuiqQHzbfY8YH93aNwiZRHi58C4cZrkYN_faNdh11XhTDxZKDkNjdJMW
Svenaeus, F. (2018). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy , 21 (1), 77-87. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-017-9786-x
