Abortion And Right To A Child (Applied Ethics)

Front 1

Abortion; The Right to a Child

Back 1

Abortions are becoming more and more common in the world – it is legal in many countries and millions of abortions are performed every year. Religious organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church campaign against abortion, but women’s rights groups (for example) campaign for greater access to abortions.

Front 2

The Sanctity of Life

Back 2

Humans are made in the image of God, and therefore all life is precious and sacred. Abortion intentionally destroys a foetus - the Bible says “before I formed you in the womb I knew you”. Many organisations would argue that it is “playing God” to end a human life, and destroys the foetus’ potential. Christians would consider abortion to be a taking of innocent life and it is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church – one Pope referred to abortion as the merciless slaughter of innocent foetuses. Life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder. C of E use double effect if woman has been raped, child will be severely handicapped or either may die. The child has a right to live, but the mother has a right to choose what she wants to happen to her body.

Front 3

Personhood

Back 3

There is much debate as to when life begins (at conception, at birth or at some point in between) and thus when the foetus should receive protection under law. Should status increase incrementally as the foetus gets older or should it be absolute at one end of the other? Opponents of abortion argue that the foetus has the potential to become a human life, whereas others argue that a fertilised egg is too different from a human to be classed the same; it is merely a ball of cells. Personhood may be given when the foetus is viable; it can survive birth and live outside the womb. Is a foetus a person or a potential person? The definition of personhood is unresolved, but general contains: consciousness, rationality, self-awareness. ENSOULMENT?

Front 4

Infertility and Right To a Child

Back 4

About 1 in 10 couples cannot identify their fertility problems, and there is a lot of emotion attached to childlessness which may make people go down a route which they otherwise would not. IVF is an uncomfortable process and women would not go through it unless they had to, but there is the danger of a “slippery slope” and people wanting designer babies.

Front 5

Is the child 'a Gift'??

Back 5

* There is a social norm that heterosexual couples (often married) will have sex and have children
* Homosexual couples/single people go against the social norm for having children
* Technically these people are able to have children through IVF, but does that make it right?
* Abraham and Sarah: Sarah was too old to have a child so God let the slave girl Hagar get pregnant for her – if God had not been happy with this Hagar would not have borne a child

Front 6

Is the child 'a Right'??

Back 6

* Surely if two individuals who are married have the right to have a child then a single person or a homosexual couple also have this right; it should not change because of their sexuality or their biological ability
* In Genesis, God commands (divine command) man and woman to “be fruitful and multiply – we should reproduce to carry on our line

Front 7

Natural Law

Back 7

* Abortion goes against the primary precepts of preservation of the innocent and continuation of the species through reproduction - would destroy the telos (purpose – Aristotelian) of sexual intercourse
* Women are naturally equipped to have children – spontaneous (i.e. natural, not medical) abortions often occur if there is a chance of severe abnormality in the child, thus it could be argued that nature will perform abortions if it is necessary without the need for medical intervention
* Abortion is therefore absolutely wrong

Front 8

Natural Law pt2

Back 8

* The issue of consequences is irrelevant, as natural law is deontological
* Double effect could permit abortion in very limited circumstances, but not if it is intended to kill the foetus; a hysterectomy for cancer would kill the foetus but would be intended to protect the mother; this is permissible, likewise for ectopic pregnancy removals
* Would not support IVF/surrogacy/embryo research as it is “playing God” – surrogacy could be considered adulterous (brings a 3rd person into a relationship)
* Fertility treatment could be considered good if it allows an infertile couple to follow the primary precept to reproduce?

Front 9

Problems

Back 9

* General problems with deontological theories – there is no room for consideration of other factors such as the mother’s wishes, and does not take possible consequences into account

Front 10

Situation Ethics

Back 10

* Christian theory, C of E, therefore would follow sanctity of life principle as a general rule – human life is intrinsically valuable
* However, in certain circumstances (if the woman has been raped, the child will be severely handicapped or the parents would be unable to support a child) an abortion might be the most loving thing to do
* Joseph Fletcher was a supporter of IVT – he considered it a humanising of the natural purpose, not a detraction from it
* God gave children to infertile women “she who was said to be barren is now in her third month” so it may be more loving, thus we should do so if modern science makes it possible

Front 11

Problems

Back 11

Are there conflicting absolutes? (so principle and most loving thing)

Front 12

Kantian Ethics

Back 12

* Decisions are based upon the categorical imperative to decide where our duty lies
* Abortion seems to be universalisable in that the principle “every time a woman wishes to have an abortion she should have an abortion” is an acceptable, non-contradictory one
* However, the decision depends on whether or not we view the foetus as a person; if we do then an abortion would be treating the foetus as a means to an end, which is forbidden by the categorical imperative, therefore even abortions in cases of severe handicap or rape would be forbidden by Kant

Front 13

Kant differentiated between humans and animals, due to the power of Reason

A foetus is not a rational being, and therefore can be used?

what are the two responses to this?

Back 13

* Kant proposed in intermediary category between things and humans for infants/children where they are protected from harm
* .......also...Kant is not directly against IVF or surrogacy but would not want extra embryos wasted as this would be treating them as a means to an end and therefore going against the categorical imperative

Front 14

Problems

Back 14

* General problems with deontological theories – there is no room for consideration of other factors such as the mother’s wishes, and does not take possible consequences into account
* Depends very much on the “personhood” status of the foetus, which is made unclear

Front 15

Utilitarianism(act) : Generally in favour

Back 15

* Life is instrumentally valuable (means to an end) rather than intrinsically valuable
* However, there may be long-term guilt involved for the woman and her family members, therefore ultimately more pain than pleasure would be caused

Front 16

Rule Utilitarianism: Generally against

Back 16

* Abortion is killing, which is a rule which should be obeyed (but personhood?)

Front 17

Preference Utilitarianism : Generally for

Back 17

* The mother has a preference. Does the foetus? Peter Singer accepts that killing a foetus is not the same as killing a “person” as the foetus has no preference
* IVF and other fertility treatments have potential happiness but also much potential pain if unsuccessful

Front 18

Problems

Back 18

Depends on "personhood" and whether or not potential pleasure/pain of the child is included