Abortion: For the Greater Good? (PHI 208: Ethics & Moral Reasoning, July 15, 2018)

Abortion: For the Greater Good?

Ethical Question: Is the restriction of abortion rights an unjust restriction on a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices?

In 1972, the Supreme ruled in favor of Jane Roe who claimed that banning abortion was unconstitutional. The Roe v. Wade case permitted states from restricting a woman’s abortion rights up during the first thirteen weeks (Thames, 2018). This ruling ignited an ethical debate still presently argued.  While it is illegal to deny a woman the right to an abortion, it is limited to the first thirteen weeks of pregnancy. Some restrictions may prevent physicians from performing emergency, life-saving procedures surrounding termination.

Placing restrictions on abortion does not decrease the number of abortions sought as the Guttmacher Institute (2018) explains, “Abortion rates are similar in countries where abortion is highly restricted and where it is broadly legal. The abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 women in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 in countries that allow abortion without restriction as to reason—a difference that is not significant” (para. 4). Even since the passing of Roe v. Wade obtaining a legal abortion remains an issue of safety as the Guttmacher Institute reports, “Of the 56 million induced abortions that took place each year during 2010–2014, an estimated 25 million (45%) were unsafe. In all, 55% of abortions each year were safe, 31% were less safe, and 14% were least safe” (para. 4). Legal abortions are substantially safer as Manian (2014) reports, “Between 2000 and 2011, 1.52 million women in the United States used medication abortion. Of that group, only 612 suffered complications requiring hospitalization” (p. 1331).

Besides health risks, it is a woman’s private and personal choice whether she is ready for motherhood. It is unethical to restrict a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions.

Part 2: Ethical Argument

The ethical focus of the argument of abortion is the, “Autonomy (of the woman) and rights (of the woman and unborn child). The maternal-fetal relationship and assessing the best interests of potential children also provide considerable scope for ethical discussion” (Jones & Chaloner, 2007, p. 45).  Some argue that, “For a woman to have equal rights regarding sexual freedom, abortion must be freely available” (Jones & Chaloner, 2007, p. 47). Others argue that abortion is simply murder as, “Abortion is the perceived morality - or otherwise - of actively ending the life of an unborn human being” (Jones & Chaloner, 2007, p. 45). One opinion is that a fetus does not have rights until it is no longer dependent on its mother claiming that a, “Fetus may be considered only a potential life which is reliant on the pregnant woman for existence. The woman is already an individual, fully formed life and must, according to this view, have preference over the potential life of the fetus” (Singer, 1993, p. 47).

An unplanned pregnancy can create stress and financial strain on the entire family. Due to the possible health-related issues involved with childbirth, the ability for a doctor to withhold important health information from a patient, or abortion-restrictive measures which prevent other medical procedures, the risk may outweigh the reward. Without the necessary support and family framework established with a planned pregnancy could expose a child to conditions conducive for participation in criminal activity. Through the utilitarian theory one can demonstrate that an unwanted pregnancy can create a great deal of suffering for the woman, her family, and society overall; therefore, it is unethical to restrict a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices.

Part 3: Explanation and defense

Philosopher Jeremy Bentham established hedonistic utilitarianism under the philosophy that pleasure and pain are measurable outcomes. Bentham’s basic ideas met much criticism. In the 19th century John Stuart Mill decided to define morality further by establishing that utilitarianism follows “The Greatest Happiness Principle” which asserts that, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Thames, 2018, section 3.2, para. 2). Utilitarianism believes that outcomes that create the most happiness or reduce the most suffering would define the action behind it as moral (Thames, 2018). Utilitarianism maintains that, “If Action A results in happiness for ten people and unhappiness for one person, and Action B results in happiness for one person and unhappiness for ten people, then Action A will usually be the right choice” (Thames, 2018, section 3.3, para. 4). While utilitarianism seems to imply that the individual does not matter and that sacrifice for the greater good is required, this is not always the case (Thames, 2018). Because the core principle of utilitarianism is to choose the greater good or least harm overall by applying the ethical theory to abortion restrictions, one can conclude that limiting a woman’s options can have severe implications for a woman, her family, and society.  

Forcing a woman to become a parent does not guarantee that she is ready to be a responsible or good parent as Prusak (2011) states, “All of us engage in activities which have foreseeable risks; that does not imply that we agree to accept responsibility for those risks” (p. 315).  By allowing a woman to adequately prepare for the motherhood role and decide for herself when (and if) she is ready is beneficial overall as the woman will feel more mentally and financially prepared for the role, thus creating a stronger social network for a child. While researching correlations between contraception and crime rates, Hill, Siwatu, and Granger (2012) concluded that, “Children who possess low social capital investment have a higher probability of participating in criminal activity. Adopting specific technology may allow an individual more time to set up a family network that will deter their child from participating in criminal activity” (p. 102). 

One of the highest reported reasons a woman chooses to have an abortion is financial issues (Thames, 2018). Financially, “A family will spend approximately $12,980 annually per child in a middle-income ($59,200-$107,400), two-child, married-couple family. Middle-income, married-couple parents of a child born in 2015 may expect to spend $233,610 for food, shelter, and other necessities to raise a child through age 17” (Lino, 2017, para. 2). This average does not factor a child’s continued education. Forty-nine percent of women who obtain an abortion have an income below poverty-level, and 26% of those cases fall 200% below poverty-level (Thames, 2018). Currently, state and federal tax-funded programs exist to aid mothers who cannot financially support a child. Tax-funded programs take funds from the taxpaying population per child. Raising a child is costly and creates hardship for people in poverty. Community, state, and federal programs exist to assist those in need, but this reallocates resources from other programs. An unwanted pregnancy creates a financial burden on the woman, her family, and society if the family is unable to provide full financial support.

Part 4: Objection and Response

Deontology maintains that one should not complete an action that one would not want to will into universal law. One could argue that there is no difference between killing a fetus in utero and killing a child outside the womb. If one deems it immoral to a kill a child at any stage of life, then it would be unethical to end a child’s life during pregnancy. To further that argument, “A fetus is an innocent human being. It is morally wrong to kill an innocent human being. Conclusion - it is morally wrong to kill a fetus” (Jones & Chaloner, 2007, p. 45). If one would not want to create a world where it is morally acceptable to kill a child or any human being, then abortion would be morally reprehensible and should be restricted.

            While defining abortion as murder is a compelling argument, deontology does not consider all parties affected by restricting abortion rights. Primarily, deontology does not specify at what point a fetus is considered a viable being. According to Giubilini and Minerva (cited in Hawking, 2016) fetuses, “Are unable to value their own existence; as such they do not qualify as persons under this definition and therefore neither possess the pre-requisite for a right to life” (p. 313). Secondly, deontology does not consider the physical duty required of a mother. Judith Jarvis Thomson provides the scenario of a famous violinist whose kidneys do not function, but will in nine months. For the violinist to survive, another body must support him while his kidneys heal. Thomson argues that the violinist, like a fetus, has a right to life, but that that means life should not end unjustly. Thomson (1971) claims that, “Nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, or of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive” (p. 61–62).  

Part 5: Conclusion

            Even with the passing of Roe v. Wade, the topic of abortion continues to divide the United States. Deontology argues that the act of abortion is murder. Utilitarianism considers the consequences of the action and explains that the ethical choice is the one which benefits the majority or creates the least amount of suffering. Since a woman is the only one fully aware of her financial, mental, or physical situation, it is a woman’s right to choose. Abortion restriction does not decrease the number of abortions obtained but instead increases the number of unsafe abortions performed. Both pregnancy and abortion have risks and this choice is a protected, private health matter. Abortion is a decision only a woman can weigh for the best outcome for herself, her family, and her community; to deny or restrict that choice is unethical

References

Giubilini, A. & Minerva, F., (2013). After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? J Med Ethics , 9, 261–263.

Guttmacher Institute (2018, March).  Induced abortion worldwide: Global incidence and trends. Guttmacher.org. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide

Hawking, M., (2016). The viable violinist. Bioethics, 30 (5), 312-316.  doi:10.1111/bioe.12206

Hill, J., Siwatu, M., & Granger, M. (2012). Safe sex, safe communities: Analyzing the link between contraceptive usage and crime rates. Southwestern Economic Review, 39(1), 89-106.

Jones, K., & Chaloner, C., (2007). Ethics of abortion: the arguments for and against. Nursing Standard, 21(37), 45-48

Lino, M. (2017, January 13). The cost of raising a child. USDA.gov. Retrieved from https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child

Manian, M. (2014). The consequences of abortion restrictions for women's healthcare. Washington & Lee Law Review, 71(2), 1317-1337.

Prusak, B., (2011). Breaking the bond: Abortion and the grounds of parental obligations. Social Theory & Practice, 37(2), 311-332.

Singer, P. (1993). Practical ethics (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? Introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.

Thomson, J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66