Ethical Dilemma Surrounding Abortion

            Moral decay and degeneration of ethical and moral values, as well as cultural ties, have, to a greater extent, diluted the societal norms and values, thereby making vices to be part and parcel of human life in the present world. Consequently, there are a lot of obtuse activities taking place in society and the world over. There is a wide gap between the ethical virtues and the events that take place around human lives across the globe. The vices are the norm of the day across all sectors of human life: be it corporate world or social life, ethical dilemmas have become a commonplace (Ruggiero, 2012).In the corporate world, cases of financial embezzlement have become part and parcel of virtually all institutions. Government institutions, on the other hand, are engaging in mega deals of corrupt activities where billions of taxpayers’ funds are siphoned for selfish personal gains. Yet again, in healthcare, cases bordering ethical dilemmas are unlimited, ranging from the negligence of duty to omission of the proper procedures to wrongful prescription, among others. In every situation, there are always reasons that justify every action taken as well as rights against such actions. One of the contested cases that raises ethical dilemmas is that of abortion, where there are individuals who believe that abortion is justified (pro-choice commentators) and those who are viewing abortion as a vice (pro-life advocates). The following presentations seek to discuss in detail the ethical dilemma surrounding the issue of abortion. It will draw majorly form the categorical imperative perspective to the difficulty as provided for by Immanuel Kant.

Thesis Statement

The case of abortion is a hot topic that is contestable in the USA. Some views are pro-abortion as well as views that are countering the act like a vice. In the context of pro-choice, abortion is perceived as a mechanism through which the life of a parent can be spared or help in eliminating unwanted pregnancies ( for instance, those conceived out of illegal acts). The pro-life advocates, on the other hand, perceive abortion as a vice that contravenes the right to life, goes contrary to the constitutional provisions, and goes contrary to the Will of God apart from causing causes psychological torture.

Pro-Life Arguments

Human rights activists who support the dignity of human life argue that all human life forms are sacred and holy and, therefore, should not be taken away by anybody since this constitutes injustice. They posit that abortion goes contrary to the provisions of the Constitution by the fact that it deprives the unborn and the infants’ freedom to life as provided for in the Bill of Rights. Going by this reasoning, abortion is considered a criminal activity and, therefore, an offense since it is tantamount to murdering innocent souls. Consequently, women that engage in this unethical act are equal to murderers and should be convicted of murder and charged in the court of law.  The pro-life commentators thus advocate for the security of the lives of the unborn. The assertions by the pro-life advocates resonate well with the views of Immanuel Kant: the German psychologist who developed the “Golden Rule,” which demands that the action of every human being should be that which resonates with what they would appreciate their fellows doing to them. Abortion is also deemed to be unhealthy as it is associated with several health complications that are likely to be experienced by mothers who engage in the vice. Such difficulties may eventually lead to the death of the mother. Thus, it is perceived as a harmful act since it threatens the life of not only the child but also the mother.

Another proposition by the pro-life advocates is that abortion is against God’s will (ProCon. 2019). According to this school of thought, life commences at the time of conception, and therefore any move to destroy the embryo (zygote) is wrong since it is considered as taking the life of an individual. Alluding from the Holy Bible, pro-life advocates point to the conversation between God and Jeremiah in which God categorically confirmed to Jeremiah that He (God) knew Jeremiah even before he was born. In this context, it is apparent that abortion is akin to murder since it destroys life form in its early stages of development. Besides, the bible expounds on the pan of God to sanctify human life. Thus any act that destroys what God had blessed is not only unethical but illegal and immoral prima facie. The bible also provides that none has the moral authority of taking away another person’s life as supported by the commandments of God (thou shall not kill). Tied to this view is the social construct in which the norms and taboos of virtually all societies world over hate the act of killing since, under ethical consideration, life is supreme. The societal norms demand that every person in the community should be treated with dignity and respect since every person was created entirely in the assessment of God.

Additionally, since society is perceived to be rational, taxpayers would not wish to cooperate in crime. Thus nurse aided abortions are acted against the wishes and views of the members of the public. In light of these provisions, it is ethically justifiable to posit that abortion contravenes the provisions of rational and moral societal construction as provided in the views of Kant, no human being has the prerogative to exploit others for their selfish personal gains since this is not justified even in Pareto Sense.

Lastly, abortion brings forth psychological torture, agony, and trauma to the mother who commits it. Psychologists have established that those who commit abortion live in pain and suffering after the episode since they discover the latter that they have actually killed. Quite often, such agonizing situations lead to mental disorders and, in most cases and consequently lead to the death of the parents in some cases.  Engaging in abortion is, therefore, wrong and illegal since it predisposes the lives of those involved in it to the risk of losing their lives apart from the fact that it is an act of murder in itself.  Kant argues that every person should rejoice in taking part in activities that they can boldly associate to without fear.

Pro-Choice Arguments

Pro-choice advocates on their account believe that abortion is done for good reasons and therefore justified. One such argument that is advanced by pro-choice advocates is that abortion can help in avoiding complications to the life of the mother. This school of thought posits that in circumstances where the pregnancy is considered to harbor perceived danger to the life of the mother, then abortion is justified in such a case.  The pro-choice advocates hold that it is better to water spill than the port be broken since a sound port can always be used to fetch more water. Consequently, the death of one kid through abortion is seen as inconsequential since the mother can still conceive more pregnancies and give birth to replace the one who was aborted.

Additionally, pro-choice advocates also argue that nurses are always under the duty of care to perform their best to ensure that the clients under their supervision are safe. As provided for under the ethical principle of beneficence, the actions of a nurse should always leave the client (patient) with maximum benefit. Therefore, when the pregnancy is perceived to because of the problem, pro-choice advocates posit that it should be aborted. Nurses may consequently be obliged to support abortion because they are tied by the ethical principle of beneficence that gives the mother a priority over the unborn developing in the womb (McCurdy, 2016).

Again, pro-choice activists also assert that unexpected pregnancy and pregnancies that are conceived as a result of criminal activities such as rape are supposed to be aborted. The reasoning posited, in this case, is that the pregnancy will make the mother reminisce of the scene, thereby causing them a lot of trauma.  Additionally, pregnancies arising from abuses like incest should also be aborted since such children are excommunicated and even rejected from the society thereby causing them a lot of pain and suffering. Thus the pro-choice advocates feel that abortion is a relatively better remedy that does not expose them to human suffering due to rejection by the society. Marecek, Macleod, and Hoggart (2017) for instance argue that children born from rape cases will always remind their mothers of the lousy ordeal apart from the fact that they will lack the benefit to enjoy full parental care since they will require someone to call a father. Consequently, by aborting such pregnancies, the healing process is hastened, and the mother can recuperate much better. Further, in the case of child abuse, the pro-choice advocates feel that such pregnancies may be aborted since they may result in unplanned births that may lead the child to a tough life. This reasoning is based on the notion that when the mother is not prepared to take care of the kid, then it would be needless to bring forth a kid that would lead difficult life on earth; so abortion is seen as a potential solution to the inherent suffering that the kid may experience.

Lastly, pro-choice crusaders also argue that sometimes abortion may be necessitated by the prevailing social conditions such as high levels of poverty that is believed to likely affect the lives of the mother and the child adversely may justify abortion to reduce suffering to the kid. Moreover, the pro-choice advocates also argue that where social transformations such as sudden death of the father to the unborn that makes the mother to be incapacitated to take care of the child, it would be okay to abort to solve the problem early enough.  Lowen (2019) opines that abortion may be justified when the mother is too young to the extent that carrying the pregnancy till delivery time may threaten her personal life, then the mother should be allowed to abort to save her life. Pro-choice advocates also support abortion on the grounds that they may help in improving the standard of living and quality of life for the households. For instance, they argue that since governments may approve abortion as a policy of regulating the human population, so it is justified. Again, sometimes NGOs have advocated for abortions on the grounds that it helps in raising smaller sizes of families that the parents can take care of effectively hence helping to improve the quality of life and the living standards of people.

Personal Stand

Following the arguments presented on either side of the debate regarding the case of abortion, as well as considering both the social and spiritual tenets that form part of the fundamental fabrics of life, it is conspicuous that abortion is a vice and thus illegality on the legal jurisprudence.  The provisions of the Bill of Rights also offer full backing to this position thereby making it more constitutional to protect every life. Again, the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) acknowledges that life is precious and provides protection to human life. Therefore acting contrary to the provisions of the Constitution is illegal and worth punishment. I therefore consider the pro-life as a more justified argument since it has backing from all quarters: social, moral, Christian and legal aspects that make its arguments to resonate well with the golden rule. Also, the pro-life arguments are backed by the Biblical teachings on the value and worth of human life. Moreover, there are better alternatives that can be explored to overcome the justifications postulated by pro-choice advocates; for example, in the case of rape, therapeutic counseling, and psychosocial support can help the mother to overcome the situations of trauma and agony that comes with such an experience. Additionally, there are several possible avenues that physicians can explore to ensure that the safety of the parent is maintained while at the same time, protecting the right of the infant as well.

Conclusion

Human life is precious and sacred. The bible and Christian perspective of social life advocates for the sanctity of life. The moral and ethical reasoning also provides that no one is allowed to take the life of another since such an act is against the norms and values of society. On legal grounds, the law provides under the bill of rights for freedom to life. Such freedom should not be limited in any way. Therefore, when an individual decides to commit an abortion, then the person contravenes the provisions of the law and the Constitution. Though there are several dissenting voices that advocate for abortion as a remedy to certain compelling circumstances, it has been established that there are better alternatives that can be explored to overcome such challenges without necessarily committing murder through abortion. When examined in light of Immanuel Kant’s lenses, then abortion is nothing less than a social evil and a crime that the society should not tolerate at all. Furthermore, the Federal constitution also abhors the act. Bearing in mind that the emancipation of mankind and the signing of the UDHR sought to provide freedoms that are entitled to humankind as provided in the Bill of Rights in full measure, the society should not condone abortion since it undermines these provisions.

References

Lowen, L. (August 10, 2019). Why Women Choose to Have an Abortion. ThoughtCo.

Marecek, J., Macleod, C., & Hoggart, L. (2017, February 1). Abortion is legal, social, and healthcare contexts – Jeanne Marecek, Catriona Macleod, Lesley Hoggart, 2017. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959353516689521

McCurdy, S. A. (2016, February). Abortion and public health: Time for another look.        Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102173/

ProCon. (2019, May 9). Pros & Cons – ProCon.org. Retrieved from             https://abortion.procon.org/

Ruggiero, V. R. (2012). Thinking critically about ethical issues (8th ed.). New York: Mc-  Graw Hill.