Moral Philosophy of Abortion - Essay Example

Moral Philosophy of Abortion

Introduction

Abortion has been a topic of many discussion, where different scholars and debaters have given their thoughts trying to argue whether it should be legalized or remain considered as a crime. On the same note, many philosophers have tried to reason on the same subject of abortion where some of them think it should remain legal when others believe that it should not be allowed. In this paper, I will examine the position of abortion using the thoughts of Emmanuel Kant on metaphysics and ethics. In addition, I intend to apply John Stuarts Mill’s thought about utilitarianism. In the development of this work, it will it will try to examine the point of rationality and what is good for the general society concerning the termination of pregnancy. For instance, many feminist movements have been colossal in communicating about women’s right concerning decisions about abortion. On the other hand, many government bodies and religious groups have been condemning the act of abortion claiming that life begins at conception and should be protected (Warren 9). The world health organization (WHO) also says that life begins at conception. Besides, radical feminists argue that the society should not put impediments to women concerning their reproductive health and the decision concerning abortion. They believe that if the pregnancy threatens the health of a woman, then it should be terminated. In more a more sense, they claim that health is viewed in three areas which include the mental, physical, and social domain. These are the arguments that this paper intends to test against the moral philosophy.

Kantian Theories and Abortion

Emmanuel Kant as a moral philosopher considers a behavior morally acceptable if it stems from reason. In this respect, it is fundamental for every individual to generate ethical thinking contingent to the laws derived from the cognitive faculty (Manninen 89). According to him, self-control, restraint, and abstemious reflections are codes of the belief that lead to peculiar values and can change contingent to what an individual chooses and contemplates. The fundamental question that people need to answer is that which try to confirm if abortion rational. In responding to this question, other aspects must be explained. For example, what are the moral rights of the unborn child while still attached to the mother’s body? Is it a favor that the mother allows the fetus to stay in her? This is a question that requires precise understanding. Those who take the stand that abortion should be allowed feel that the fetus remains in the mother’s womb under the whims of the mother. An example to explain this has been explained using the violinist case. The violinist is in a critical situation that needs a support of another individual. The individual that supports has a blood component that supports the violinist existence while his is under purification, an exercise that has to go on for two weeks, meaning that the violin would depend on the person to whom he gets the support for all that period.

On the other hand, the violinist pays nothing for the support, while the person supporting him too has certain matters to respond to during such time. If the individual giving the support decides to leave, then the violinist patient dies. Being that the exercise took longer time, the individual who was supporting him decided to withdraw his support, and the violinist died. The question here is that is the person who withdrew his support morally responsible for the death of the other person? The answer would be no since the situation was causing the person giving the support to suffer according to those who take that stand. This is the same case that the pro-abortion arguments have been exploiting to support their standpoint. They believe that the fetus lives in the mother’s womb as a privilege and not as a moral right. They think that there is no moral obligation that the mother should contain in regards to the situation of the child.

However, there is a puzzle to solve in this situation, which must also be explained clearly. According to Kantian metaphysics (Kant 8), individuals should treat others in the way they would want themselves to be treated. As they claim that only those with the rational ability deserves justice, people like Susan Feldman should understand that an individual is a being in transition. He or she starts life from being irrational to the point of gaining rationality. At the same time, it should also be conceited that if everybody has been going through the same process to become a normal person, then in the moral realm, it should be attached a moral responsibility to another to support the unborn child to grow to maturity. In other words, the mother was raised in the same way as a little child, and she should also be ready to five the same support to another person to continue in the ecosystem. Making it a deliberate decision that someone only makes at will denies other beings the moral right that they should get (Marquis 51). Therefore, a woman must not have any reason to terminate the pregnancy. As Kant puts it, morality is the only good with no qualification. Good will and moral values are inborn attributes that every individual must poses to be morally adroit. Therefore, those people who look at abortion only on one lens like Manninen do not qualify in this sense. We can also end this section by giving his position of rational will and happiness. The function of the rational will is to yield ethical judgments which go together with the moral values. Kant argues that the rational will obligates a person to comprehend the moral responsibility of freedom and choice.

Utilitarianism and Abortion

Utilitarianism was coined out by Stuarts Mill believes that behavior is only good if it generates the general good of the majority. According to him, any behavior must seek to elicit happiness for the magnitude number. Concerning the topic, abortion is morally right if it is supported by many people and wrong if many people perceive it wrong (Mill 11). As he defines morality “Morality is important to create a society where everyone is happy, but doing the reverse is integrally wrong. Therefore, every individual behavior should strive to produce happiness for all” The challenge with the statement is that majority will be consistent with something that violates other people’s moral rights. In this sense, something deeper must construe in order to take a stand in the argument for or against abortion. According to Bertha Alvarez’s works on "Rethinking Roe v. Wade” (12), it is imperative to involve the judiciary in solving the problem. However, the matter needs some fundamental underlying cognitions before taking the turn of legal justice. For instance, the law is made with the concept of the majority, which utilitarianism support. In fact, it is okay to involve the law in responding to this matter, but it should get much of rational thinking than being instigated by the law.

What this means is that people will only appeal to the fear of the punishments that follow breaking the law but will not get the foundation of the moral sense. In reckoning what Kant says, a human being should not treat as a means to an end but as an end in himself or herself. Therefore, the question of abortion should not be left in the hands of another person to decide dependent on what generates happiness to him or her, but it should be viewed according to what is morally justified. According to those who support that abortion should be allowed, they rely on the law that says that it is okay to terminate the pregnancy if the health of the mother is endangered by it. They say that the life of the mother may be in danger physically, emotionally and socially. Therefore, the mother should get her space to decide whether to keep her pregnancy or not. This issue has other segments of understanding than just looking at the life of the mother. For example, most of the advocates of this notion are appealing to some factors related to women subordination, feeling that the society of men is giving a lot of pressure on them concerning what they do with their lives. The question to ask would be that why should they attack the source of their predicaments rather than channeling their grievances towards the unborn child? In this sense, their argument is appealing to emotions and not reason.

Moreover, women should understand that the decision to accept pregnancy before it became real was conceptual and should remain so to allow the child to survive (Manninen 78). Many people pose the argument that some cases of pregnancy arise from bandits like rapists, and drug effects where a criminal drugs a woman to have sex with her and later gets pregnant, The issue in this sense should be to pursue the convict and subject him to the force of the laws that deal with such matters. In addition, if the society would understand what it means to be morally sensitive then nobody will do such a thing. Therefore, the whole matter lies with moral obligation and not any other thing.

Conclusion

Philosophers have tried to reason on the same subject of abortion where some of them think it should remain legal when others think that it should not be allowed. According to Kant, self-control, restraint and abstemious reflections are codes of the belief that leads to peculiar values and can change contingent to what an individual chooses and contemplates. The fundamental question that people need to answer is that which try to confirm if abortion rational. Those who take the stand that abortion should be allowed feel that the fetus stays in the mother’s womb under the whims of the mother. Furthermore, this work confirms that good will and moral values are essential attributes that every individual must poses to be morally adroit. Therefore, those people who look at abortion only on one lens like Thomson do not qualify in this sense. We can also end this section by giving his position of rational will and happiness. The function of the rational will is to yield ethical judgments which go together with the moral values. Kant argues that the rational will obligates a person to comprehend the moral responsibility of freedom and choice.