Guiding Question
Is it morally right to abort a child purely on the basis that the potential mother is incapable of financially supporting the child?
Thesis
This essay will employ ethical argumentation to argue for the right to abort for pecuniary reasons and against the contention that finances alone are not a basis for abortion.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Introduction
From a legal perspective, the issue of abortion has been settled under the US laws currently in application, but the moral question relating to abortion is the subject of common discourse. Most people seem to agree that abortion on health ground is acceptable. They even seem to agree that when the woman has been raped, an abortion is still the right course of action, but what happens when unwanted pregnancy has resulted from sexual intercourse between two consenting adults has not been agreed. The woman happens to conceive but based on her social stratum level and pecuniary capacity, she is sure that she cannot be able to sustain the child. Would the woman still be justified to procure an abortion under the circumstances? One side of the argument is that canvassing the reasons why a woman has an abortion is in itself morally and ethically wrong as it places a burden on women, which men will never be placed under. Others will argue that it is irresponsible to have unprotected sex then purport not to be able to handle the consequences. Lack of money under this approach can, therefore, not be considered as justification for having an abortion. Under objective ethical arguments upon which this essay is based, something must be either right or wrong as opposed to relativism (Pollard & Massey-Chase, 2006).
Case Study
Pauline (not her real name) is 21 years old and currently jobless. She has vocational training, but has no stable job. Her two elder sisters had a child each as teenagers. The children are lovely but have been a major pecuniary burden for the family with everyone in the family having to chip in to take care of them. Pauline is not in a relationship but she met Jon (not his real name) at a birthday party and they seemed to connect. After several drinks and a lot of dancing, they ended up in Jon’s loft where they spent the night. In the morning, they had a productive “two grownups having a good time” conversation and decided that none was ready for a committed relationship. Pauline has not seen Jon yet but after missing her menses for two months, she took a pregnancy test and realized that she is pregnant. She wants to have an abortion purely on the basis that she will never be able to take care of the kid, more so having seen how her family is struggling with the kids of her siblings.
Arguments in Favor
The Mill’s Utilitarianism Perspective
The consequentialist theory of utilitarianism may have originated from Jeremy Bentham but the undisputed father of modern utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. Mill argues that right or wrong must be determined based on whether or not a decision brings pleasure or pain, the extent of pleasure as juxtaposed with the extent of pain and the number of people experiencing pleasure or pain respectively (Vaugh, 2015). In the instant case study, if Pauline has the baby, she will create pain for all the parties involved including the baby who will be born and raised poor in a country that embrace extreme capitalism. Pauline, her parents, and siblings will also suffer an intensive financial struggle for the better part of two decades if the child is born. Yet, none expressly benefits from the said birth. Under Mill’s utilitarianism, abortion is the right choice under the circumstances.
The Gender Discrimination Perspective
On the referenced night, Pauline and Jon, two consenting adults had heterosexual sex. It is possible that Jon does not even remember it. On the other hand, this night might change Pauline’s entire night unless she can undo what was undone that night. Hillary Clinton, a celebrated pro-abortion champion would argue that any argument that Pauline does not have as much right as Jon to have a social life that sometimes leads to torrid relations must be wrong since it is based on gender discrimination. Utilitarianism more so as defined by Mill favors absolute gender parity (Vaugh, 2015). If an abortion bridges the gender schism between Jon and Pauline even if only slightly, then it must be ethically right.
Arguments Against
Kantian Ethics: Deontological Ethical Theory
German philosopher Immanuel Kant bases his argument on right and wrong based purely on the character of the actor, and what the action says about the said character (Kant, 2014). This is the kind of argument that Lila Rose of Live Action would make against the position that Pauline has an absolute right to determine what happens to the fetus. Under the Kantian approach, the question that Pauline would need to ask herself is what her actions say about her character as a lady. Would she be proud of her action and perhaps publicly applaud herself for having had unprotected sex then aborting the child because she is not in a position to take care of it. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt that even Pauline herself would answer to the contrary.
The Child’s life Perspective
Science is outright that a pregnant woman has two lives within her. In some US states, a person who murders a pregnant woman at a late stage of pregnancy can be convicted of a double homicide, especially if the child could have survived outside the mother. This would make the child in some perspectives a rational human being as argued by modern Kantians such as Martha Nussbaum. Under Kantian Ethics, every rational human being must be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to an end (Kant, 2014). In the instant case, an unborn child is losing its life based purely on the mother’s opinion. No one bothers to understand what the child thinks about the situation. Many poor children have grown up to become great Americans. Pauline should give the child a chance.
Character is very important to a human thus the Kantian ethics perspective must be taken seriously. However, in the hierarchy of things, character comes secondary to needs such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and an education. Pauline’s character will not make a difference to the child when it comes to these needs, only her finances will. Kant presents a good argument but not the right argument. The issue of a child having a say on the matter can be countermanded by the contention that science has now developed the means to develop embryos purely for research that requires stem cells. This vindicates Pauline from the argument that she is trampling on the rights of another. The foregoing leaves the Mill’s based utilitarian argument that judges who benefit and to what extent if Pauline has the baby on the one hand, and if she procures an abortion on the other. It is clear beyond peradventure that several people, key among them being the baby, stand to suffer if it is eventually born to Pauline in her financial state. Yet, any pleasure to be achieved through the said birth, for any of the parties is merely a speculation. It is on this basis that the argument that Pauline is right to procure an abortion under the circumstances wins.
References
Kant, I. (2014). The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative. The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems , 87-99
Pollard, L., & Massey-Chase, R. (2006). An argument on the moral argument . Retrieved November 22, 2017, from https://philosophynow.org/issues/57/An_Argument_On_The_Moral_Argument
Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues . New York: WW Norton & Company
