Abortion is one of the most hotly contested subjects in the social circle. Defined as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy through medical devices or surgical intervention, abortion was decriminalized in 1973 (Al-Hadrawi, 2016). Over the years however, the issue of abortion has been one of the root causes of segregation in the United States. Most of the times, the deliberation is thought to be liberal versus conservative, democrat versus republican, but more precisely it is pro-choice versus pro-life. It is not surprising to witness two different factions of exponents when it comes to the abortion deliberation in a democratic state like the United States. For some section of the population, abortion is completely wrong since it is a major threat to the existence of human values and also upholding of morality. Another section of the general population maintains that in the case of a life-threatening situation severely compromising the wellbeing of the mother, then from an ethical viewpoint, it is advisable to carry out abortion. Besides these two groups however, there is a group of people who are not certain on whether to support or campaign against abortion (Al-Hadrawi, 2016). The ambiguity around abortion stems from the fact that it presents individuals with ethical, religious, and psychological dilemma all at the same time.
To begin with, a pro-life standpoint is against the idea that the freedom to opt for the termination of a pregnancy - for any reason whatsoever including when the mother does not want to have the baby- is dependent on the would be mother. Pro-life enthusiasts argue that it is morally/ethically wrong to kill a fetus since it has the potential to life. The argument is that a fetus is like a full-grown human being; therefore, killing it is just like killing an individual (Marecek, Macleod & Hoggart, 2017). Pro-choice on its side takes the opposite perspective. Supporters of abortion presume that there is no fixed definition of human being in the womb. Pro-choice enthusiasts reckon that a fetus is nothing but a group of cells existing in the womb and it is not right to call such groups of cells a human being. If aborting a fetus is wrong, then amputating a leg or a hand following an accident is also wrong and must also amount to murder (Marecek, Macleod & Hoggart, 2017). Pro-choice standpoint is therefore the belief that a woman should have the autonomy to consider an abortion in the wake of an unwanted pregnancy.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are several dimensions relating to abortion if viewed from the moral angle. It is practically impossible to provide an accurate legal judgment concerning abortion in quick time since as mentioned earlier, the subject is exceedingly complex and every possible question is likely to raise several sub-questions as well as sub-parts. Several questions without definitive answers continue to be thrown around these two ethical viewpoints. Questions such as where life begins, and what is the right thing to do in the case of rape or disease are some of the concerns about the welfare of the fetus or the mother. Also, matters such as justice, autonomy, beneficence as well as quality of life come into consideration when discussing abortion as an ethical dilemma (Ruggiero, 2015).
Furthermore, questions such as whether healthcare providers should deliberately compromise the life and existence of an unborn baby to guarantee the autonomy of the mother; and whether justice is served when a woman is denied the complete freedom; while at the same time forsaking justice and autonomy to a potential life, also remain hugely unanswered (Ruggiero, 2015). From a virtue moral standpoint, however, the responses to the several difficult questions concerning abortion are hugely influenced by intrinsic moral values that an individual possesses. Innate moral values are dependent on an individual’s set of beliefs as determined by such factors such as religion (Ruggiero, 2015). Christians for example, are likely to draw their moral values form the teachings of the Bible. The Bible narrates that life begins following conception and not after physical birth as some may want to believe (“When is the fetus ‘alive’?” 2014). From a moral contention, ardent Christians are likely to campaign against abortion. Atheists on the other hand, subscribe to the belief that happiness for the greatest number is the ultimate goal of life (utilitarianism) (Olberding, 2015). Therefore, the happiness of the majority is what matters most which explains why abortion might be validated. Since abortion is widely regarded as a moral issue, controversies are bound to arise among people subscribing to various moral codes.
To help advance this discussion, it is important to further analyze controversies and conflicts revolving around the issue of pro-choice abortion campaign. As mentioned above, the pro-choice stance champions for the mother’s complete autonomy in her healthcare. Proponents of this viewpoint believe that life does not begin immediately following fertilization of the egg. They, instead, hold it that life begins at viability. Viability is defined as the point in which the fetus has a real chance of survival without being directly attached to the mother’s organ systems (McCarthy, O’Donnell, Campbell & Dooley, 2018). Therefore prior to birth, the fetus is regarded as a mass of tissue rather than a human being and which forms part of the female body. Abortion is therefore a woman’s autonomous healthcare decision. Denial of freedom of abortion to any pregnant woman in this case therefore, compares to striping off such women their complete sovereignty in healthcare (McCarthy, O’Donnell, Campbell & Dooley, 2018). Pro-choice advocates also ask such questions such as what happens in the case of scenarios such as sexual defilement. An example is a rape situation where victims do not get to choose when to get pregnant. Proponents of abortion in such like scenarios hold that it is wrong to force a woman to live with the repercussions of episodes of violence as it would be unjust towards such victims (Zald, 2017). This stands even if it means ending another life; the fetuses’.
Moreover, pro-choice advocates augment that not only the mother risks suffering, but also children born of rape or any other means that have not been adequately planned for may also suffer a great deal. Children born of rape or by young girls with no adequate means to raise a child will most likely have their quality of lives compromised as well as hurt the mothers’ wellbeing (Zald, 2017). Regarding this dilemma, pro-choice patrons argue that there is no justice in introducing a child into the world when it is well clear that they are destined to living under inadequate conditions of life. Pro-choice adherents use this clause to strengthen their claim on the fact that they are not pro-abortion. They do not campaign for abortion as a method of birth control but rather advocate for the certainty of better lives for children. Instead, they endorse sex education and provision of contraceptives to all sexually active women as the rightful birth control measures (McCarthy, O’Donnell, Campbell & Dooley, 2018). However still, if a woman has the desire to terminate a pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, she should be accorded complete freedom over her body. Furthermore, pro-choice backers are also against the idea that healthcare decisions should be defined by legislations and persuaded by politicians. Depending on an individual’s sets or virtues and moral standards, healthcare decisions should be completely self-directed (Katz & Tirone, 2015).
The controversies around abortion as an individual’s healthcare decision do not stop here. Liberals who support abortion argue that it should be nothing more than a question of a woman’s right. One of the main reasons why liberals are for the idea that abortion should be an individual’s decision is their quest for diversity (Ruggiero, 2015). However, here is where the real problem emerges. By the year 2016, it was estimated that more than 58,586,256 abortions have been medically performed in the United States alone following its legalization in the 1973. This is more than ten times the deaths all the American wars combined were able to cause and the figures continue to rise at the turn of every year (Ertelt, 2016). From an original point of view, I am tempted to imagine of how many beneficial beings would have been living today had abortion been illegal in the United States and all other nations that sanction willful termination of pregnancies. Yes, there is no denying the fact that sometimes pregnancies arise from unwanted scenarios and there exists a likelihood of emotional turmoil following such conceptions. Nonetheless, this emotional turmoil is often short-lasting. These children whose lives are compromised can develop into individuals who get to touch very many lives in such enormous ways by the most insignificant of acts. Who knows whether had these children whose lives have been prematurely ended over the years been alive, we would already be having solutions to most life threatening disease epidemics and global concerns? Who are we to dictate whether a life is worth living or not? Who are we to assume that great things, ideas, or minds cannot come out from an unlucky situation such as mental retardation or rape? Furthermore, the quality of life may be compromised for one but this however has got nothing to do with another life being drastically improved elsewhere. The Bible says in Jeremiah 1:5 (New King James Version) that, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” I therefore find it hard to support the idea of abortion of a preconceived, potential life. How about if every woman began thinking of her pregnancy as a prospective way in which the ultimate inventor of the cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS, or rather the next president or the next Nobel Peace Prize winner would be introduced into the universe? They would definitely have to think twice before deciding to end such potential lives. What a puzzle for liberals who champion for abortion for any reason whatsoever and at any time under the documentations of the pro-choice freedoms.
Application of Kant’s Categorical Imperative to the dilemma around pro-choice abortions helps further this discussion. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is a philosophical concept that evaluates the motivation for undertaking certain actions. The categorical imperative implies a moral code that is absolute or rather unconditional for all agents in question, the claim or validity of which is not dependent on any concealed cause or end (Kohl, 2015). Oliver Sensen (2015) also had his say on what Kant’s categorical imperative is. He expressed that an imperative refers to an action that a person must take. For example, if one intends to better his/her grades, they have to study hard. It is imperative that such people conduct research, complete class assignments, invest adequate time on private studies and complete anything else it might take to enable them pass their exams. Sensen went a step further to explain that an action is imperative when it is considered categorical; when it is true at all times and also in all possible situations. With reference to ethical decisions, Kant argued that moral choices are guided by a categorical imperative (Kohl, 2015; Sensen, 2015). The categorical imperative in this situation refers to an action that one must take regardless of what the circumstances might be. It is a must (imperative) for any ethical person to make decisions based on the categorical imperative. In other words, anybody who considers themselves ethical abides by a given set of moral codes regardless of the situations they are in. Kant’s categorical imperative applies to the dilemma around pro-choice abortion in two different ways. To begin with, Kant’s philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy leans towards the idea that if it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy so as to save the life of the mother, or life of the fetus, or prevent a baby from being born with life-threatening deformities or infections, then abortion must be done. Therefore, under no circumstance should a mother plan to terminate the life of a fetus she is carrying for reasons that can be compromised. Aside from this understanding of Kant’s categorical imperative with reference to pro-choice abortion, the philosophical concept also focuses on the society at large. The theory is for the notion that any woman who hails from a society/family that does not support termination of pregnancies must not for any reason, consider an abortion process. This is derived from the understanding that an ethical person follows a given set of moral codes no matter their situation (Kohl, 2015). However, women born and raised in societies that do not strict regulations against abortion are free to do as they please.
Divine command theory is another deontology encountered before in the readings. This moral concept proposes that an action is right if God has pronounced it to be so. Such actions are obligatory if and only if they are commanded by God. Therefore, moral obligations arise from God’s commands, and the appropriateness of any action that a person takes is dependent on the action being performed because it is a duty, and not because of any desirable consequences that may arise from such actions (Harrison, 2015). Therefore, if God commands that people do not abort because it is wrong, then no matter the situation one is in, they should never consider abortion (Danaher, 2019). This encompasses such scenarios as when the mother’s life is threatened and even when the life of the baby itself is endangered as well or when there exist great risks of children being born with severely life threatening conditions.
To help close this discussion on pro-choice abortion, it is important to focus on how the two deontological approaches to morality discussed above compare and also expound on what my preferential concept to determining ethical codes is. Kant’s categorical imperative is my preferred concept to addressing the quandary witnessed on the subject of pro-choice abortion. First and foremost, the theory is in line with my moral beliefs as a Christian; that no one has the right to take life (Exodus 20: 1-17, New King James Version). Moreover, Kant’s categorical imperative also goes a step further to provide the circumstances under which this commandment can be reasonably compromised. I strongly believe that even though abortion is wrong, in a situation where a fetus’s survival chances highly limit the chances of survival of the mother, then it is appropriate to consider abortion. Thus, the divine command theory fails as it maintains that not only is it wrong to abort (life begins at fertilization), but also that it is against God’s commandment against killing (Harrison, 2015). The divine command theory does not offer a compromise on the issue of abortion regardless of what is at stake. According to the theory, a mother should rather die in an attempt to bring a baby into the world; the same baby whose life would be severely endangered following the death of the mother. Personally, it is wrong to lose a life and risk yet another in such a preventable way. Another reason I am pro-Kant’s categorical imperative stems from the fact that if God had commanded anything, then it would definitely be morally obligatory regardless of how wrong it might seem in the eyes of man. For example, if God had commanded murder, then people would kill each other regardless of the fact that this would leave many children orphaned, deny children their right to parental care and love and would also prevent adults from experiencing love. Furthermore, normal family lives would also be disrupted.
References
Al-Hadrawi, H. (2016). Is it moral to kill an innocent person? The moral dilemma of abortion. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 7 (8), 792-795.
Danaher, J. (2019). In the defence of the epistemological objection to divine command theory. SOPHIA, 58 , 381-400. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0622-9
Ertelt, S. (2016). 58,586, 256 abortions in America since Roe v. Wade in 1973. LifeNews.com . Retrieved January 31, 2020 from https://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/14/58586256-abortions-in-america-since-roe-v-wade-in-1973/
Harrison, G.K. (2015). The ethypuhro, divine command theory ad moral realism. Philosophy, 90 (1), 107-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819114000424
Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2015). From the urgency line to the picket line: neoliberal ideas, sexual realities, and arguments about abortion in the United States. Sex Roles, 73 , 311-318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0475-z
Kohl, M. (2015). Kant on determinism and categorical imperative. An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 125 (2), 331-353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/678370
Marecek, J., Macleod, C., & Hoggart, L. (2017). Abortion in legal, social, and healthcare contexts. Feminism & Psychology, 27 (1), 4-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353516689521#
McCarthy, J, O’Donnell, K., Campbell, L., & Dooley, D. (2018). Ethical arguments for access to abortion services in the Republic of Ireland: recent developments in the public discourse. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44 (8), 513-517. doi: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6597-9761
Olberding, A. (2015). A sensible Confucian perspective on abortion. Dao, 14, 235-253. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11712-015-9433-2
Ruggiero, V.R. (2015). Thinking critically about ethical issues (9th Ed.). 2 Penn Plaza, New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Sensen, O. (2015). Kant on human dignity reconsidered. Kant-Studien, 106 (1), 107-129. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2015-0009 .
When is the fetus ‘alive’? BBC. Retrieved January 30, 2020 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml
Zald, M.N. (2017). Social movements in an organizational society (1st Ed.). New York: Routledge.
