The debate over abortion has been raging for quite some time in our culture. In recent times, one observes that abortions have become commonplace. Most supporters primarily argue with respect to autonomy and women’s rights with respect to abortion. On the other hand, the pro-life supporters argue with the fact that the act of abortion results in the killing of a fetus. Since the act of killing is morally and ethically despicable, pro-life supporters use this argument as a foundation. On a moral basis too, Kantian ethics renders abortion as an immoral act for a number of different reasons. The primary reason, however, is Kantian ethics’ emphasis on the duties of a parent with respect to a child, whether born or unborn.
Premise 1 - Most anti-abortionists put forth the argument that fetuses look like babies. Since they resemble human babies pro-life supporters are against the practice of abortion. (Marquis 189) Also, these supporters argue that the amount of cruelty that one resorts to during the act of killing is despicable. (Marquis 189) Here, Marquis is saying that the act of killing is a painful and a cruel act on the victim (in this case, the fetus). In case of an abortion, one should understand that the fetuses in question are human fetuses. The very act of abortion is an extremely painful one – for the mother and quite possibly even for the fetus. (Marquis 193) An act of this nature when inflicted on a human being amounts not only to murder, but murder with a high degree of cruelty. This is especially true since the act, albeit indirectly inflicts wanton pain on the living entity. Most of us would hesitate to inflict such pain, even on animals. Therefore, one must consider how a rational person could consider inflicting a similar amount of pain on a human fetus. The killing of human fetuses in this manner is an important premise for stopping this abhorrent practice.
Premise 2: The second premise, that goes against abortion is the status of the fetus and its future. The moment one establishes the fact that the fetus could, arguably, be human, the argument could swerve to the fact that killing such a fetus would tantamount to depriving it of its future and related possibilities. (Marquis 192) Most people would agree that it is wrong on several counts to kill little babies, the same theory gets applied to the case of killing fetuses as well. In any case, one should comprehend that fetuses are a few developmental steps away from being born as babies. Therefore, abortion comes very close to violating the principles that prohibit the killing of defenseless babies. The ‘future-like-ours’ theory as proposed by Don Marquis is an important premise for opposing abortion. (Marquis 192) Society must understand that abortion is more or less the same as a human killing. Abortion, therefore, has a profound effect on the future lives of the unborn fetuses. This a very strong premise for ending abortion.
Kant’s Theory: This essay would now apply Kant’s theory to the issue of abortion and examine the moral implications. One can examine by primarily understanding the status of the fetus since Kant’s Theory is applicable to human beings, in general. At the moment under consideration, the fetus may not be a rational being. However, post development, one could consider the fetus to be a potentially rational person. Due to this potential, many feel that society must accord the same level of respect and protection that it would otherwise give to any human being. Given this view, the abortion of a fetus amounts to destroying its potential for humanity and becomes a serious moral wrong. (Papadaki 146) However, since Kantian ethics also places an equal importance for all human beings, one must also consider the will of the mother in terminating the pregnancy.
The Categorical Imperative proposed by Kantian ethics prohibits any person from using any other human being merely as a means, but as an end. (Papadaki 151)Therefore, according to Kant, treating a human merely as means, not only indicates disrespect towards humanity, but also indicates the commission of an immoral behavior. Papadaki highlights the plight of a woman that the Society (the patriarchal elements of a Society) uses as a means to keep the fetus alive. This is especially true in cases where abortion is illegal and she is forced to continue the pregnancy. (Papadaki 151) But the more debatable question (and the one this essay will focus on) is about the manner in which the theory views the fetus and its life. To address this problem, Papadaki invokes Kant’s thoughts on children and parents. In these thoughts, Kant clearly mentions that an act of reproduction is a decision to bring a person into the world without his or her consent. (Papadaki153) Having done so, the duty of taking care of that child by not abandoning or harming it falls irrevocably on the parents. Kant recognizes that any default in this matter from the parent’s side would be a moral fault of the parents. However, the case under discussion involves the well-being of a fetus that might develop someday into a rational agent(but is presently not a rational agent) and hence these ethics would only be partly applicable.
One can consider that if one values abstract rational nature in a similar manner as human rational nature, these traces of life (the fetus) also deserve equal respect. (Papadaki163) Kant’s moral theories do provide an ethical solution and understanding of the issue of abortion. However, people arguing the point on the pro-choice side as well are also likely to consider these arguments. However, Kant does describe the obligation of a parent to his or her child. A fetus will develop into a child and is, in fact, a child of those parents at the time of its birth. Therefore, the act of abortion would likely be immoral from this standpoint.
Opposing View: The opposing view on abortion also considers the feminist arguments based on autonomy for women. These arguments state that one should not treat women as mere child-bearers and that they should have the autonomy to abort a pregnancy. In doing so, the pro-choice supporters believe that society would then accord a status of a rational human being on women. Such a status would come with all the rights and privileges that the law bestows on the male members of the society. The choice to abort also gives women the freedom to undergo abortion by exercising their own free will. Karen DeCrow, President of National Conference (NOW) feels that no one can be against a woman’s right to consider abortion as an option. (Zeigler 251) For most pro-choice supporters, the autonomy and the rights of women take a far higher priority over those of the fetus.This autonomy enables a woman to make an informed choice with regards to abortion.When the rights of a woman on the topic of abortion come into perspective, the topic of the resultant autonomy and the choice that a woman should make in the matter also come up. Most feminists and pro choice supporters have used this particular view of women’s rights and autonomy as a central point to strengthen the pro-choice arguments. However, having examined this view, it becomes essential to consider and examine the counter argument in question.
Counterargument: Although, the argument put forth by most feminists do not hold up very well, one must examine the views on the issue of women’s rights and autonomy arguments. In today’s day, the strongest argument of pro-choice begins with a demand for more autonomy for women as well as the right to abortion. As Mary Zeigler puts it, in contrast, the early feminists felt that abortion was one of the greatest wrongs perpetrated against women. (Zeigler 255) One should understand that these early arguments made a lot of sense. A woman who underwent an abortion also suffered from immense physical and mental stress, or even possible trauma in cases of forced abortions. (Zeigler 266)
A similar counterargument on autonomy for women on the abortion issue has been put forth by Velleman. He believes that it is undeniable that the opportunity to have an abortion will enhance the autonomy of those women with unplanned pregnancies. However, the question really arises for the large majority of women who do face a pressure to abort the fetus against their will. (Denbrow 220) Basically, Denbrow is trying to emphasize the plight of those women who would have chosen to give birth, but face external pressure to abort. In such cases, the availability of an option for legal abortion will, in fact, be detrimental to such a woman’s autonomy. In such a case, pressure from an abusive partner or pressure from a regressive society to abort can prove to be highly counterproductive. Giving a woman in such conditions extra options might make it more difficult for her to take the one she would otherwise have rationally chosen according to her desires and values. (Denbrow 220) At the same time, preventing someone who wishes to give birth from having a child is an offense to her fundamental capacity for self-determination. One can observe the tendencies in a few societies or cultures that tend to force women to undergo selective abortions. Such acts seriously undermine the arguments of women’s rights and autonomy and render such rights non-existent. In the absence of such rights, autonomy too does not exist. This tendency strongly undermines the arguments for women’s rights and autonomy in abortion and practically tends to falsify the notion of autonomy for women with respect to abortion.
Conclusion: Without a doubt, the issue of abortion is indeed one of the most burning topics of debate over the last few decades. The main premises of this debate lie in the primary belief that is very wrong to kill a human being and more so when the killing is seemingly cruel in nature. The second premise is the ‘future like ours’ argument put forth by Don Marquis. Most supporters of either pro-life or pro-choice argument have debated these points in most forums. These are some of the most important points that keep recurring in arguments on both sides as well as when one tries to apply the theories of morality. While pro-life supporters argue in the ‘future like ours’ direction, the pro-choice supporters argue about women’s rights and autonomy. The reality, however, is masked to a very large extent in the resultant din and noise, which makes it impossible for either side to gain a decisive moral victory over another.
The application of Kant’s theory to the problem is partly helpful since the theory considers the mother and her status in the problem along with that of the fetus. As a result, the mother cannot choose to abort the fetus without running the risk of moral reprimand according to Kant’s theory, although the theory although sympathizes with her as a rational being. One can also consider other arguments put forth by Kant such as the relationship between a parent and a child. On this issue, the Categorical Imperative solely fails to solve this problem. Although the Categorical Imperative does assign some rights to the fetus, it also accords similar rights to the mother.
Lastly, the viewpoint of women’s rights and autonomy on the subject of abortion helps to explain the pro-choice argument to some extent. The counterargument, however, weakens their claim to an extent and asserts our view that one should not consider mere right and autonomy in isolation. Instead, one must also take into account cases where a woman is forced to undergo abortion under pressure from an abusive spouse or a regressive society. For a woman, the associated guilt of the act in such cases would far outweigh any privileges gained through rights and autonomy.
In conclusion, the arguments in this essay lead one to conclude that abortion is morally wrong.
Works Cited
Denbrow, Jennifer. “Abortion: When Choice and Autonomy Conflict.”Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice 20.1 (2013): 216 – 228. Print.
Marquis, Don. “Why Abortion is Immoral.” The Journal of Philosophy86.4 (1989): 183 - 202. Web. 06 Dec 2014.
Papadaki, Lina. “Abortion and Kant’s Formula of Humanity.” Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies22 (2012): 145 – 166. Web. 06 Dec 2014.
Ziegler, Mary. “Women’s Rights on the Right.” Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice 28.2 (2013): 232 – 268. Print.
