Human Values And Ethics Vs. Philisophical Ethics HUMAN VALUES AND ETHICS VS. PHILIOSOPHICAL ETHICS “They had discussed it, but not deeply, whether they wanted the baby she was now carrying. ‘I don’t know if I want it,’ she said, eyes filling with tears. She cried at anything now, and was often nauseous.
That pregnant women cried easily and were nauseous seemed banal to her, and she resented banality” (p. 389 Alice Walker The Abortion). It could sound familiar to many of us. Either in personal life or while discussing and debating, whether during college courses or encircled by close friends, I am sure that each and everyone of us has come across with the issue of abortion, developing a distinct, individual opinion about that particular subject. What we think about abortion will be a function of what we think about sex, about reproduction, about the beginning of human life, about responsibility, about killing, about sexual equality, and about religion. Actually, there is little in life to which the issue of abortion is not in some way related.
It is not surprising, then, that there is so much disagreement about what abortion is and whether of not it is good, bad, or neither. At the root of the controversy is a basic value judgment about the human status of the fetus; does it have any rights, and should the fetus be considered a person. The question of abortion is compounded by a related issue — the right of a woman to control her own body. First, I would like to say a few words about the legal issues of abortion. We all know that abortions were prohibited many years ago by various cultures and countries.
Pregnant women, not having a choice, were forced to perform illegal abortions, sometimes done not by doctors but by herbalists. Without much of technology, they tried to induce the bleeding, scraping off the walls of the uterus in attempt to remove the fetus. As a result of internal and external bleeding, blood infection and other side effects, many women died. Not only through some historical periods, but during the twentieth century it continued to happen. Even here, in the United States, in 1969, most state laws prohibited abortion, unless the life of the pregnant woman was threatened.
In the mid-1960s, the estimated death rate for abortions performed in hospitals was 3 deaths per 100,000 abortions; the rate for illegal abortions was guessed to be over eight times higher than that — 30 deaths per 100,000 abortions was a rough estimate and almost certainly conservative. For minority and poorer women, it was certainly very much higher (statistics are taken from “Moral Revolution” by Kathryn Pyne Addelson, from Twenty Questions: . . .). My point is that “abortions will surely continue, as they have through human history, whether we approve or disapprove or hem and haw” (Barbara Ehrenreich, Is Abortion Really a “Moral” Dilemma? p. 425 Twenty Questions: .
. .) Therefore, it is much better for abortions to take place legally and under proper medical supervision. I think that here, a person committed to utilitarian ethical theory would agree with me because according to my conclusion it would produce more amount of good for the greater number of people — by doing abortions legally, more women could afford it and less of them would die. As a result of my little discussion, I believe that performing abortions should remain legal as it is of 1973. However, whether the issue of abortion is ethical or not, is the subject of the following discussion. In order to discuss the ethical issue of abortion, first of all, I would like to turn to and illustrate the central factors, which might lead a woman, or a married couple, to the decision concerning the termination of her pregnancy.
It could be one (or a few put together) of the following circumstances: 1) a woman got pregnant due to rape; 2) the health of the woman or the unborn child was at a serious risk; 3) a woman did not plan her pregnancy; it was “accidental”; 4) a woman changed or was persuaded by others to change her mind about having a baby. I don’t think that many people would oppose the moral status of abortion in pregnancy due to rape. Judith Jarvis Thomson did a beautiful job in describing the similar situation, where she pretended that you were kidnapped, and without your personal approval, the famous violinist was plugged into your kidneys, because otherwise he would die. In elaborating and expanding her essay, Judith drove to a conclusion that “.. nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even nine months, in order to keep another person alive” (p.
289 Contemporary Issues In Bioethics). Let’s say you have done a good deed, you’ve suffered through nine month with the violinist. You let him to use your kidneys; he is alive; you are a hero; everybody is happy. In the case of rape, however, the consequences would not be as nice and easy. A woman would not know who the father of her baby was: either he was a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or someone else.
She would definitely know though, that he was not a normal person: he was a rapist. Now she is left alone to take care of this child if she cannot make an abortion. What answer could she give to the question, “Mammy, where is my daddy?” posed by the child, couple of years from that time, if he or she is born. Besides, this child would be genetically predisposed to become a rapist too. Moreover, the woman in question has already suffered tremendously from the act of rape and the physical and psychological aftermath of that act. It would be especially unjust for her to have to live through an unwanted pregnancy owing to that act of rape. After these kinds of arguments, I do not think that many people would try to convince me otherwise.
“Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn’t come into existence because of rape;” (p. 284 Contemporary..). From the readings I’ve done, I have found out that there are some people, who actually regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother’s life. I don’t know who these people might be, but this is ridiculous. I absolutely disagree with the notion that the act of abortion should be considered immoral, if a mother is trying to save her own life.
In one of our class discussions, we came to a conclusion that it is wrong to kill an innocent person in order to save your life. Of course this argument is a subject to debates and quarrels; as Judith Jarvis Thomson has shown that it also depends on a situation. Killing of an innocent person is undoubtedly wrong, however, the fetus is not a living person. Therefore, ” . .
. it cannot seriously be thought to be murder if the mother performs an abortion on herself to save her life. It cannot seriously be said that she must refrain, that she must sit passively by and wait for her death” (p. 285 Contemporary . . .).
Hence, I can conclude that a woman can protect her life against the danger imposed on her by the unborn child, even if doing so causes its death. Utilitarians would choose abortion as the right thing to do in both of these cases. It would minimize unpleasure and bring greatest amount of good to the maximum number of people — for a pregnant woman and her family. To my opinion, a person who is committed to Kantian theory, would argue against abortion on the premises that a moral act is the one that is done from one’s duty. One of the women’s duties is to produce and bring up children; therefore, it would be considered immoral, according to deontological ethical theory, for a woman to have an abortion.
Moreover, Kant was very influenced by the …