Kantian View On Abortion
Abortion, a medical procedure that is the process that is done to terminate a fetus life. This is a universally controversial topic that majority of people have different opinions about whether its ethical or not. The main way that people can find out more information to formulate an opinion, is from these few philosophers named Judith Thompson, Immanuel Kant and Don Marquis. These philosophers share different viewpoints, Thompson believes abortion is morally permissible, but only in certain cases. What cases are these? Kant’s perspective believes that no human should be killed, no matter what the circumstances. Kant would argue not permissible. How would a Kantian argue abortion impermissible? Don Marquis raises the question how could a Kantian argue the abortion is permissible, if they believe that killing is morally
…show more content…
wrong? After analysis I prefer Thompson’s philosophy to be used to help solve the ethical issue of abortion.
In Defense of Abortion Thompson states her points about how abortion is morally permissible in certain cases. In her article she mentions three cases that is was permissible to abort a child is conception that occurred over non-consensual sex, the fetus is endangering the mother’s life, and instances where the mother took preventable contraception to avoid this idea. (Thompson). In each of these cases she provides theories to support her points towards abortion.
Thompsons first case she mentions, is where a woman endures non-consensual sex. Thompson believes if this has occurred to a mother, then it is morally permissible to abort the child. She gave a theoretical situation called the violinists where a violinist was kidnapped by musician enthusiasts and woke up by being hooked up to machines, not by the violists will. In this case, its morally permissible because you have the right to your own bodily integrity, and that the fetus doesn’t have the right to life. (Thompson). The next case that Thompson mentions is the mothers own right to life. She uses the another thought experiment, but with a different scenario. “Suppose you filed yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child--you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.” (Thompson). Since the mother is the one being told to die, but not the child, Thompson mentions that “a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death.” (Thompson).
Thompsons last case, she presents that states abortion is morally permissible is the burglar scenario, where the burglar would metaphorically be the fetus. The scenario states that if a woman opens her window, even with knowledge that there are such things as burglars, that the mother was voluntarily letting the burglar in, referring to voluntarily having intercourse. She adds in what if the mother had put up bars to prevent having a burglar come in, but a burglar came in by defect in the bars. (Thompson). This would be discussing the fact that she could have used some sort of birth control to prevent this, or she did and there was a defect in the contraception. Another perspective to look at abortion is through the Kantian perspective, which “is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.” (Anscombe).
A person who believes in Kant’s theory would argue that abortion is impermissible, because it’s not the right thing to do. Kant believes no matter the circumstances that happened to cause the pregnancy, it still wrong to kill a person. For example, if a women were to get pregnant from rape, or she can’t afford to raise a child, its morally wrong to terminate the fetus. Kant also follows the formula of the universalizability test, the universal law states that the “actions must apply to everyone and always result in good.” (McKnight). For example, with the topic of abortion, if every woman that were to get pregnant resulted to an abortion than humans would be an extinct race. Since abortion doesn’t follow the universalizability test and the action of killing is wrong no matter the circumstance, then abortion is immoral and not permissible by the Kantian
perspective.
Don Marquis, makes three points regarding to abortion, one that “its morally wrong to deny anyone a future of value…” (Rader 2015). Secondly, “in most cases abortion is wrong because its deny the fetus a future of value.” (Rader 2015). Lastly, he mentions that “most cases abortion is morally wrong.” (Rader 2015). When marquis mentions the phrase “most cases” that abortion is immoral, that becomes a flaw in his philosophy. (Rader 2015). This statement could result in abortion being permissible in all cases. Here are a few examples of a theories that could be questionable about Marquis argument that makes abortion permissible in all cases, even though Marquis believes abortion is morally wrong it’s because it deprives a fetus of its future of value. Consider this example where the life of the fetus will take the life of the mother. How will the kid feel growing up without a mother? Is that a “future of value?” (Marquis 186). Another situation could be that a child that has a heart condition, and is going to only live to 2 years old. Is that a “future of value?” (Marquis 186). Marquis would consider himself a Kantian but a Kantian believes that a fetus is a person and Marquis doesn’t mention that a fetus is a person, in his essay Why abortion is Immoral? He believes that abortion is morally wrong and is not permissible because it deprives the fetus a future of value. Marquis argument reveals a flaw; it shows that Marquis arguments leads people to believe that abortion is morally permissible in all cases, because there are instances where the fetus wouldn’t have a good future and the mother is saving the fetus from that future.
In all of the information gathered about abortion and all of the arguments provided by these three philosophers, some questions were answered about how abortion is permissible in certain cases through Thompsons argument and not permissible is shown by Kant’s argument, and also how could a Kantian believe an abortion is permissible in all cases is shown in Marquis argument. Out of all of these arguments, I believe that Thompsons essay in Defense of Abortion she provided a valid argument in determining whether abortion is ethical. After talking about such a controversial topic, it all comes down to the mother’s decision whether or not she terminates the fetus. It’s her body her decision.
wrong? After analysis I prefer Thompson’s philosophy to be used to help solve the ethical issue of abortion.
In Defense of Abortion Thompson states her points about how abortion is morally permissible in certain cases. In her article she mentions three cases that is was permissible to abort a child is conception that occurred over non-consensual sex, the fetus is endangering the mother’s life, and instances where the mother took preventable contraception to avoid this idea. (Thompson). In each of these cases she provides theories to support her points towards abortion.
Thompsons first case she mentions, is where a woman endures non-consensual sex. Thompson believes if this has occurred to a mother, then it is morally permissible to abort the child. She gave a theoretical situation called the violinists where a violinist was kidnapped by musician enthusiasts and woke up by being hooked up to machines, not by the violists will. In this case, its morally permissible because you have the right to your own bodily integrity, and that the fetus doesn’t have the right to life. (Thompson). The next case that Thompson mentions is the mothers own right to life. She uses the another thought experiment, but with a different scenario. “Suppose you filed yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child--you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man.” (Thompson). Since the mother is the one being told to die, but not the child, Thompson mentions that “a woman surely can defend her life against the threat to it posed by the unborn child, even if doing so involves its death.” (Thompson).
Thompsons last case, she presents that states abortion is morally permissible is the burglar scenario, where the burglar would metaphorically be the fetus. The scenario states that if a woman opens her window, even with knowledge that there are such things as burglars, that the mother was voluntarily letting the burglar in, referring to voluntarily having intercourse. She adds in what if the mother had put up bars to prevent having a burglar come in, but a burglar came in by defect in the bars. (Thompson). This would be discussing the fact that she could have used some sort of birth control to prevent this, or she did and there was a defect in the contraception. Another perspective to look at abortion is through the Kantian perspective, which “is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.” (Anscombe).
A person who believes in Kant’s theory would argue that abortion is impermissible, because it’s not the right thing to do. Kant believes no matter the circumstances that happened to cause the pregnancy, it still wrong to kill a person. For example, if a women were to get pregnant from rape, or she can’t afford to raise a child, its morally wrong to terminate the fetus. Kant also follows the formula of the universalizability test, the universal law states that the “actions must apply to everyone and always result in good.” (McKnight). For example, with the topic of abortion, if every woman that were to get pregnant resulted to an abortion than humans would be an extinct race. Since abortion doesn’t follow the universalizability test and the action of killing is wrong no matter the circumstance, then abortion is immoral and not permissible by the Kantian
perspective.
Don Marquis, makes three points regarding to abortion, one that “its morally wrong to deny anyone a future of value…” (Rader 2015). Secondly, “in most cases abortion is wrong because its deny the fetus a future of value.” (Rader 2015). Lastly, he mentions that “most cases abortion is morally wrong.” (Rader 2015). When marquis mentions the phrase “most cases” that abortion is immoral, that becomes a flaw in his philosophy. (Rader 2015). This statement could result in abortion being permissible in all cases. Here are a few examples of a theories that could be questionable about Marquis argument that makes abortion permissible in all cases, even though Marquis believes abortion is morally wrong it’s because it deprives a fetus of its future of value. Consider this example where the life of the fetus will take the life of the mother. How will the kid feel growing up without a mother? Is that a “future of value?” (Marquis 186). Another situation could be that a child that has a heart condition, and is going to only live to 2 years old. Is that a “future of value?” (Marquis 186). Marquis would consider himself a Kantian but a Kantian believes that a fetus is a person and Marquis doesn’t mention that a fetus is a person, in his essay Why abortion is Immoral? He believes that abortion is morally wrong and is not permissible because it deprives the fetus a future of value. Marquis argument reveals a flaw; it shows that Marquis arguments leads people to believe that abortion is morally permissible in all cases, because there are instances where the fetus wouldn’t have a good future and the mother is saving the fetus from that future.
In all of the information gathered about abortion and all of the arguments provided by these three philosophers, some questions were answered about how abortion is permissible in certain cases through Thompsons argument and not permissible is shown by Kant’s argument, and also how could a Kantian believe an abortion is permissible in all cases is shown in Marquis argument. Out of all of these arguments, I believe that Thompsons essay in Defense of Abortion she provided a valid argument in determining whether abortion is ethical. After talking about such a controversial topic, it all comes down to the mother’s decision whether or not she terminates the fetus. It’s her body her decision.