Applied Ethics

Abortion; The Right to a Child

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 womens rights groups (for
example) campaign for greater access to abortions.

The Sanctity of Life

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.

Personhood
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?

Infertility and the right to a child

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.

Is a child A GIFT?

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

Is a child A RIGHT?

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

Applied Ethics

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

command) man and woman to be

fruitful and multiply we should
reproduce to carry on our line

Natural Law

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
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 3 rd person into a relationship)
Fertility treatment could be considered good if it allows an infertile couple to follow
the primary precept to reproduce?

PROBLEMS

General problems with deontological theories there is no room for consideration

of other factors such as the mothers wishes, and does not take possible
consequences into account

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Situation Ethics

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

Applied Ethics

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

PROBLEMS

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

Applied Ethics
Kantian Ethics

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, noncontradictory 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
Kant differentiated between humans and animals (you can use an animal
as a means to an end) because of human power of reason. A foetus is not
a rational being, and therefore can be used?
There are two responses to this:
o Foetus has potentiality and will be able to reason in the future
o Kant proposed in intermediary category between things and humans for
infants/children where they are protected from harm
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

PROBLEMS

General problems with deontological theories there is no room for consideration

of other factors such as the mothers wishes, and does not take possible
consequences into account
Depends very much on the personhood status of the foetus, which is made
unclear

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Utilitarianism

ACT UTILITARIANISM: generally in favour

o Life is instrumentally valuable (means to an end) rather than intrinsically
valuable
o Abortion should be allowed if it is maximising pleasure/minimising pain (e.g.
rape) child cannot feel pleasure/pain if it is dead, woman can be affected
forever if she has to have baby
o However, there may be long-term guilt involved for the woman and her
family members, therefore ultimately more pain than pleasure would be
caused
RULE UTILITARIANISM: generally against
o Abortion is killing, which is a rule which should be obeyed (but personhood?)

Applied Ethics

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM: generally for

o 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

PROBLEMS

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

is included