.. nature and it’s laws. He was arguing that everything in nature operates in conformity with certain rules and standards. More specifically, Kantian personal moral law — “categorical imperative” says the following: “Act as if the maxim [that is the subjective governing principle] of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (p. 31 Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals).
Now, could you imagine what it would be like, if abortion had became ‘a universal law of nature?’ The existence of human species would come to an end. Therefore, I think that deontologists, based on the facts I’ve just given, would consider abortion in general as an immoral thing to do. Nevertheless, I think, that in two cases I have just presented (rape and danger impinged on a woman), a Kantian theorist might say that a woman was raped and stripped out of her autonomy. In order to preserve her autonomy at least for a little bit, she should be able to make a choice. In these kinds of situations, I think it is better to simply remain a person, who is not committed to any theories and try to slide in to the other person’s shoes, try to see how she feels.
According to ethical relativism, which views that what is right or wrong and good or bad is not absolute but variable and relative, depending on the person, circumstances, or social situation, each society and culture would examine abortion differently, according to their rules and principles. By the way, much of the opposition to abortion throughout the time in history had come from religion. For sexual intercourse was procreation the making of a new life. Thus, anything that interfered with fertility was immoral. This viewpoint changed during the first half of the 20th century, when many religious bodies accepted new ideas on birth control.
The method chosen by a couple was declared to be their own decision. The Roman Catholic Church condemns all forms of birth control. Eastern Orthodoxy traditionally permits only abstinence but has not sought to prevent the distribution of contraceptives. In Judaism there is a long tradition of the use of sterilizing potions, vaginal tampons, and even abstinence during famines. In Islam the Koran advocates marriage and procreation but has no clear objection to birth control, allowing a liberal interpretation.
In Japan and Eastern European countries, however, abortion is used routinely to end unwanted pregnancy and is not regarded as a moral issue. In Europe by 1992 only Ireland had a complete ban on abortion (this information is taken from the Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia). As you can see there are absolutely distinct views upon different ethnic groups. Moreover, in our society there are people who differ in their opinions: the prolife activists generally have less education and income than the prochoice activists, but are more likely to be married and to have more children. I assume that animals do not have these kinds of problems, and even if they do, they cannot do much about it.
If the poor creature is sick, it can only sit there and wait for its destiny to take place, unless a HUMAN interferes. There is no such a thing as “unwanted ” pregnancy for animals. Also, I would assume that no one knows an animal, except Homo Sapiens. Even though, most of the time animals have more than one newborn, they try to take care of everyone, especially of those that are smaller and weaker. I personally had been a witness to these acts a couple of times, when my cat had its kittens. If we (humans) are the members of the same kingdom (Animalia), what makes us so special and unique that not only we perform abortions, but also claim to have a right to do that? First of all, human advance in technology, especially during the last fifty years, makes it possible to engage in protecting oneself from pregnancy and in disposing the “unwanted” fetus from mother’s uterus.
I think no one would oppose that no other animal, except us, uses contraceptives and involves in such activities. Why? Well, I have described two cases already, one in which a mother is raped and the other when the life of the mother is put at risk because of the pregnancy want a child at first but later, because of some exclusive circumstances, thought otherwise and changed her mind. These are two of the remaining factors that I have listed earlier in this essay, concerning with the question of why would a woman want to carry out an abortion. I would want to look more closely at each of these cases and analyze them separately. Let’s assume a woman voluntarily engages in intercourse; even if she practices safe sex, there is always a chance for her to become pregnant and both partners know about it. Despite that, they involve in sexual activity and irreversible happens — a woman or a girl gets pregnant.
I used a word girl not accidentally. First, I want to cover the case of teenage pregnancy. In this particular example, a young girl, let’s say thirteen years of age becomes pregnant. Could abortion be considered as a morally wrong deed for her? Should she become a mother then? I absolutely agree with those who would argue that teenage sexual activity is morally wrong. There is no doubt about that.
Usually, at thirteen years of age they do not know what they are doing and probably don’t feel much either. However, this is not the question I am trying to get at. There is a pregnant girl thirteen years of age. Could you imagine her becoming a mother, while being a kid herself? I think that — is immoral. Even if she have had developed physically and physiologically early, you would agree that her mind is still at the premature stage of development — that of a youngster.
It would be wrong psychologically for her to become a mother; she is a child herself. Therefore, I would argue if such a situation has happened. Even though it should not, abortion is the proper and morally rightful course of actions. You may say however, “We are agree with what you are saying, and are willing to make exceptions for women who are raped, have health problems due to pregnancy, or those who are in their teens. We would leave their dilemmas up to their personal decisions and would not consider abortion as an immoral act in those sorts of situations. But what about a healthy woman in her mid-twenties, who is consciously engages in sexual intercourse and becomes pregnant as a result of that?” Here, nonetheless, I would like to highlight my earlier point and to show that humans are extraordinary kinds of species because of the interaction and care for their children. Many other animals try to bring up and provide the necessities for their offsprings just for the first few months of their existence; soon afterward, when their babies are “mature,” they are on their own.
In case of people, most of us try to support, care, protect and be right beside our children, whenever they need us. From the very first second, when the newborn takes its first breath, the woman has a special kind of responsibility, issuing from the fact that she is the baby’s mother. Parents assume great amount of responsibilities for their children till the end of their lives. It is widely held that active killing even for mercy is morally unacceptable. Holders of this view say that it is morally more acceptable to let a patient die than to kill for mercy.
Some philosophers argue that the results are the same, but most hold that there is a difference-authorizing killing would set a dangerous precedent, and it is simply wrong to kill actively. I personally, think otherwise. I know that this question is very arguable, with both sides having very strong accounts and reasons. However, I think that quick death would be easier for a patient to end his sufferings. I would consider that as a moral act too.