There are certain situations that require critical thinking about the most favorable deeds that would effectively help those involved deal with the issues involved. A hypothetical case of failed contraception, genetic disorder and parental disagreement, for example, highlights such a situation and in turn calls for a philosophical approach in a bid to forge the best solution. In the case mentioned above, a couple with two children is devastated after a birth control method fails and the woman gets pregnant. When the woman feels that there are various reasons that would drive her to procure an abortion, the husband is adamant intimating that the unborn should not be denied the right to live (Kitcher, 2004). The purpose of this study is to examine the ideas of Immanuel Kant as presented in his formula of universal law which is also called the categorical imperative. Kantian theory will be applied to confront various approaches that the pregnant woman uses to justify her stand which she is adamant to stick to. The philosophical approach is expected to advice the Ethics Discussion Service member on the ideal process in counseling the couple in a dilemma.
Kant, a strict observer and advocate of morality, argues that an individual should never entertain acts that would not be applicable if they were adopted as a universal law. Bill and Besty are in conflict because Besty feels that there are many reasons that make her unprepared for another child. To begin with, the couple already has two children. Besty intimates that another child would be a burden to her. She is shocked to learn that she is pregnant and argues that it would be difficult to handle another child on top of their two children aged ten and seven respectively. Kantian philosophy comes in to defend the unborn by observing that the act would fail if it were set as a universal law (Kemp, 1958). Just because one has had the number of children she needs cannot be used to justify an abortion when another child is conceived. Bill, her husband, is firm in his argument that the child should be allowed to live. He even suggests that Besty carries the pregnancy through with the aim of giving the child for adoption rather than deny it the chance to live.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Contraceptive failure is another reason that Besty presents for her choice of abortion. She believed that she was well prepared not to conceive because she had invested in contraceptives. It is the failure of her birth control method that put her in the situation that puts her morals to test. Bill, an observer of morals, insists that Besty should not terminate a life just because a contraceptive has failed (Kitcher, 2004). To Bill, it is equivalent to murder and feels that the contraceptive failure should not be taken as an excuse to deny the unborn a chance to live. The categorical imperative approach would question whether the idea would be universally acceptable if it were adopted as a universal law. It refuses to concur that one should resort to abortion simply because a contraceptive has failed. Although the sexual encounter is between Bill and Besty the fetus conceived becomes a third party that morality requires it be allowed to develop and live. Agreeing with Besty and taking it as a universal law would erode the moral fiber of the society. People will engage in careless sexual behavior in awareness that a conception will not present new responsibilities (Kemp, 1958). Abortion would be the order of the day, and morally it would corrupt the society. Kantian ideals, therefore, will parallel Bill’s insistence that the unborn should be allowed to live.
Besty further argues for an abortion by pointing out that her family had a history of Down syndrome. In this light, she is paranoid that the child she conceived may end up affected by the genetic condition. She believes that she will be incapable of handling a disabled child and may end up neglecting the other two children. Bill argues that the two children they are bringing up are healthy and it is not a must that the third child will suffer from the condition Besty is speculating. To clear the air, the two agree that amniocentesis would help ascertain whether the child is affected by the condition. Bill agrees to support her through the abortion process in the results indicate that the child is afflicted. Unfortunately, the tests confirm Besty’s worst fears, and she immediately requests an induced abortion. But Bill, out of moral persuasion, disagrees with her stand. Again, Kantian theory of categorical imperative challenges Besty’s decision. Kant would synthesize the implication of her choice to carry out the abortion if every woman were to adopt it. It challenges the view of the disabled as a bother that should be eliminated. It would be against morals if every pregnant woman in the universe were to be allowed to procure an abortion if she realized that she was carrying a deformed child (Kitcher, 2004). The act, if it were universalized, would also rub the disabled community the wrong way. It looks down upon the disabled and victimizes them for conditions that are not brought about by their doings. More so, there is likelihood for the community turning into mass killers through speculation. Women who are not ready to bring forth a child may resort to conspiracies that would permit them to do away with the pregnancy.
As a member of the Ethics Discussion Service, I would advise the physician to discuss with the couple to desist from resulting to abortion. From a moral perspective, it would be inhuman to deny the unborn a chance to live disregarding all the reasons presented by Besty in her case. Notably, Bill is of the idea that the child can even be given off for adoption if at all the problem was about raising it. The special needs that come with disability may scare the mother, since she may be entitled to a greater responsibility of taking care of the child. More so, disability should not be taken as a hindrance to family development (Kitcher, 2004). In fact, there are individuals who have weathered their handicapped condition to end up as useful members of the society. On the other hand, no one is immune to disability as it can even strike adult or children. And since it would be immoral to eliminate such individuals after a handicap the same should apply to the unborn.
In conclusion, Immanuel Kant has set us in the right direction towards the assessment of morals in his theory of categorical imperative. His argument, which highlights that there is need to observe our acts through the lens of universal law, challenges us to imagine ourselves on the receiving end. More so there is need to scrutinize every related situation and come up with a bipartisan solution. Otherwise, cases like Besty’s would greatly dent the morality if we were to take matters from face value. Besty, for example, seems to be shifting goal posts as she offers many reasons that would allow her to procure an abortion. Bill, on the other hand, is more logical in his approach since he tries to convince Besty that adoption is a workable offer that denying the unborn the right to life.
Reference
Kemp, J. (1958). Kant's Examples of the Categorical Imperative. The Philosophical Quarterly (1950), 8 (30), 63-71. doi:10.2307/2216857
Kitcher, P. (2004). Kant's Argument for the Categorical Imperative. Noûs, 38 (4), 555-584. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3506214 ON 19/4/2017
