The Moral Question Regarding the Issue of Abortion Using Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Inserts His/her Inserts Inserts Grade (03, 12, Ethics of Abortion Introduction Abortion ishighly debated issue in today’s world. It is one of those moral problems that are still not resolved. Both, people who support abortion and those who oppose it are quite rigid in their support and opposition. The right to take life is that of God and therefore many argue that abortion is immoral. Others argue that abortion does not involve taking a human life and it is morally permissible to abort a child. Both sides have their own arguments and it is very difficult to take one side. Usually the debate on the issue of abortion is based on the definition of human life, as both sides disagree as to what human life is. In this paper, an attempt will be made to resolve the moral question regarding the issue of abortion using utilitarianism. The issue of abortion will be evaluated using the utilitarian ethics and solutions will be proposed. The issue of abortion will also be discussed and arguments of both sides will also be evaluated. A brief description of utilitarianism will also be included in the paper. The Issue of Abortion Abortion involves human induced ending or terminating pregnancy. In the process of abortion, the embryo is removed before achieving human life form. Abortion is considered a moral issue all over the world. Some regard as taking away an innocent life. Mostly the criticism regarding abortion comes from religious circles. The argument made those who oppose abortion is that it is a process which disallows a life from coming into this world and therefore it is equal to murder. Moral question regarding abortion is also raised because basic freedom of the living being is violated. People compare it with murder, and therefore abortion remains a controversial issue all over the world. Pro abortionists argue that abortion is not equivalent to murder because it does not involve taking a human life. People who support abortion argue that it is important to protect the rights of a woman, and if she is not willing to bring a human life in the world then this is her right and it should be accepted. The preference should be given to the right of the woman, instead of unborn child. Pro abortionists also argue that parents are in the best position to decide about the future of their life and family, and therefore their decision should not be questioned or challenged when it comes to abortion. The main difference of opinion in both the schools of thought arises from the definition of a human life. Anti abortionist argue that a fertilized egg is a human being and therefore terminating it is equal to termination of a human life (Gutting, 1). On the other end, pro abortionists argue that human life is not achieved until a child takes up a human form, usually after several weeks of the pregnancy. This is the crux of the debate between the two schools of thought and it is not easily possible to take a side. There is no consensus as to what is human life and therefore this debate is yet to be resolved. Utilitarianism: A Brief Introduction Utilitarianism is a well known ethical theory forwarded by John Stuart Mill which argues that the morality of an action can be determined by analyzing the consequences of that action on the majority members of the society. If an action yields maximum happiness or benefit for a maximum number of people then the action is morally permissible. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentalist ethical theory where morality of the action is determined by the consequences of those actions and nothing else. Utilitarianism determines the wrongness or the rightness by evaluating the action on the basis of the ‘good’ or ‘benefit’ it causes to the overall society or the maximum number of people involved. Utilitarian ethics ignore universal standards or any other standards for evaluating an action and place all weight on the consequences of the action and the positive or negative effect on the action on all parties involved. Utilitarianism does not argue for the individual good of the people but takes into account the maximum benefit of the most number of people involved. This is why utilitarianism is so popular. The good of everyone is taken into consideration while determining the morality of an action. The ease with which utilitarianism can be applied to many situations is also a reason of its popularity. Abortion and Utilitarianism Some philosophers like Peter Singer argue that the issue of abortion can be resolved using utilitarianism (Singer, 135). As mentioned above, utilitarian school of ethics evaluates actions based solely on the consequences of those actions. This is why utilitarianism evaluates abortion solely on the overall ‘good’ in causes to the maximum number of people in the society. Abortion affects many parties including parents especially the pregnant women, the fetus which is being aborted, and to a certain extent the overall society. In order to resolve the issue of abortion, it is important to analyze the effect abortion has on all the parties involved. Consequentilist ethics focuses on the consequences of an action and therefore the consequences of abortion on all parties involved will prove extremely helpful in solving the debate surrounding abortion. Firstly, it is important to understand the consequences of abortion on the parents and especially on the pregnant women. A pregnant woman is probably the most important party involved in the abortion. It is important to understand the effects of abortion on the pregnant woman. A woman might decide to abort her baby because of a number of reasons such as health issues the delivery poses the mother, lack of support that can be provided to the child, or for any other reason. The main thing common in all the reasons for abortion is that the interest of the pregnant mother is kept at heart. A person is in the best position to decide about his or her interests, and therefore there is no doubt that a pregnant woman is also in the best position to decide about how the decision of abortion will affect her life. Abortion will only be chosen by the pregnant woman if she thinks that the decision will bring her more benefit than brining a child in the world. It is therefore safe to suggest the consequences of abortion on the pregnant mother are mostly positive. An extreme condition would be that the abortion would somehow endanger the life of the pregnant woman, and in that case the abortion will have negative consequences for the mother. But it is safe to assume that the act of abortion, when granted by the pregnant woman, is beneficial to the pregnant woman because she is in the best position to decide about her own interests in life. Brining a life in the world has significant financial and social cost, and therefore a mother is in the best position to decide whether to bring a new life or not. It has been assumed above that a mother is in the best position to decide about her own future benefit. All the social and financial cost, or at least a significant portion, of a human life has to be endured by the parents and therefore they are in the best position to decide about their future ‘benefit’. This is why it is clear that the consequences of parents approved abortions are overall positive for the parents. The second party involved in abortion is the human fetus. Human fetus is obviously negatively affected from abortion because it loses a chance to a human life. The consequences of abortion on a human fetus are therefore negative. Many people argue that the right of pregnant woman is more important than the right of a human fetus (Andre & Velasquez, 1). It is important here to clarify that utilitarianism only takes into account the consequences of actions, but the level of importance of parties involved can play a role in evaluating the overall benefit or detriment of an act. The third party involved in abortion is the overall society. The consequences of abortion can only affect the overall society in extreme cases where the society has dangerously low population and the survival of the society is in jeopardy. Only in such a case, abortion can have a negative effect on the society. Other than this, society in general is not majorly affected as a result of an abortion. Conclusion From analyzing the issue of abortion from the utilitarian lens, it is clear that abortion has overall no negative consequences on all parties involved and therefore utilitarianism support abortion. The consequences of abortion are positive in general and these benefits are not achieved at any significant costs. This is why it can be safely concluded that utilitarianism resolves the issue of abortion and regards abortion as morally permissible, if it is carried out with the consent of the parents. Works Cited Page Andre, Claire & Velasquez, Manuel. Forcing Pregnant Women to do as They're Told: Maternal vs. Fetal Rights. Issues in Ethics, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1988. Print Gutting, Garry. On Abortion and Defining a ‘Person’. The New York Times, 2011. Web. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/on-abortion-and-defining-a-person/ Singer, Peter. Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus. Practical Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 135. Print Read More