Essay On Ethics Of Abortion

Ethics of Abortion

The moral community defines the intentional killing of a non-aggressor to be a wrongful act. However, they accept the killing of a non-human, provided that one can present sufficient moral benefit from the action, like the hunting of animals for food. Analyzing these two acts, we find that the difference lies in the beings’ values upon which we place. Intuitively, we agree on the basis that humans have the right to life and that we have an obligation to protect it. I raise the question: In regards to the human fetus, where on the continuum of development can you place human value?

With the start of human life unclear, relying on our intuition becomes ineffective; thus leaving that obligation up for debate. Should we grant a full set of moral rights to a fetus on their first trimester as we do a fully developed person of moral standing? The answer is yes. In accordance to Emmanuel Kant’s ethical theory, the act of abortion, in direct violation to the first and second formulation to the categorical imperative, is morally wrong. I defend the human value of a fetus from the moment of conception upon the following Kantian grounds: denying or removing another person’s future of a life cannot be (1) universalized nor (2) is it acting in a way that treats others as ends in themselves.

Medically speaking, an abortion is the termination of a fetus or pregnancy by means of medical (pill) or surgical processes. They can be performed as early as the first trimester to as late as 21 weeks, which is commonly referred to as “late-term abortions”. Recent studies show that half of all pregnancies in the United States are unwanted, of which 4 in 10 are aborted. The topic of abortion picked up momentum since the ruling of Roe vs....

... middle of paper ...

... upon a maxim where at the same time can be willed as a universal law. To decide whether an action is moral or not, Kant says to simply imagine a world whereby that action is performed universally without it resulting in a logical contradiction. In this case, the act of aborting a fetus cannot be universalized without also bringing about a major contradiction. If you are to respect a developed person’s moral right to life, you must also recognize that person’s rights in its developmental stages. Placing human value upon a fetus at the moment of conception protects the fetus as a person throughout its development from abortion, because to abort a developing person is to deny or remove that person’s future of a life. Universalizing this action means that we are to deny everyone’s future, resulting in a major contradiction. This imagined world therefore cannot exist.