Introduction
The article “Abortion election results: Kentucky rejects constitutional amendment on abortion” looks at the ethical issues surrounding federal authorization of abortion. Honderich (2022) summarizes Kentucky’s rejection of a constitutional amendment that would remove the right to abortion from federal law. The vote resulted in a majority of voters (51.4%) opposing the amendment, which according to Honderich (2022), is a significant victory for abortion freedom advocates for the public. Since Kentucky is a conservative state, the results of the vote are surprising and again bring up the ethical side of abortion.
Points of View on Abortion
There are two opposing positions presented in ethical theory on this issue. The liberal position refers to the pro-choice view–the mother’s life dominates the fetus’s potential life (Jacker, 2022). This position relies on utilitarian theory, which prescribes doing things in a way that brings maximum utility and pleasure to most people. In maintaining a pregnancy, the question arises about how desirable it was for the mother and why it happened. The involuntary or accidental conception will not lead to the happiness of motherhood, so abortion is legitimate.
The conservative position refers to pro-life opinions – the life of the fetus is equated with life, having a person, and an already growing child. Jacker (2022) says that in this context, abortion is immoral and violates the rights and freedoms of future human beings. This position relies on virtue theory and deontological knowledge, which argue that abortion is immoral because women violate the sacred right to the life of any creature. According to this theory, women violate the principles of virtue and the laws of nature about the natural continuation of conception – pregnancy and subsequent birth.
Pro-Choice
First and foremost, the decision to allow abortion and return it to federal law could lead to fewer unsafe abortions. Women would have access to gynecological care and be able to have abortions legally without having to go to clandestine facilities or resort to intentionally damaging their genitals (Jacker, 2022). Second, allowing abortion would make couples responsible for contraception, sexual health, and birth planning. Abortion is not a means of contraception, but couples will understand that the methods they choose to protect themselves when ineffective are not sentences (Robinson, 2021). They will still get help and avoid unwanted health problems.
Responsibility to conception and the decision to have a child will also be increased: couples will understand that gynecological care can be provided in any case, and even a failed pregnancy (frozen or if the fetus has malformations) can be safely resolved. Third, abortion is a guarantee that an unwanted pregnancy that occurred during rape will not be a burden on a woman’s health and soul. Rather than continuing to carry an unwanted child, the woman will choose the security of her mental and physiological state. Honderich (2022) suggests that the decision to abort is already a burden, and encouraging prohibition will exacerbate women’s mental state. Allowing abortion is an opportunity to prevent teenagers and adult women from acting rashly during pregnancy.
Pro-Life
The decision to ban abortions could hurt the country’s overall demographics. A state-level abortion ban does not result in fewer abortions: on the contrary, women continue to have abortions and mutilate their genitals to avoid an unwanted child. In addition, banning abortions would hurt poverty and equality. According to Jacker (2022), people of color are more likely to have abortions, and given the conservative nature of the abortion ban, this category will suffer. Because pregnancy, childbirth, and child support are expensive, poverty will increase: many people will not be able to pay for pregnancy care and safe delivery. Consequently, poverty will increase, and happiness indices will fall markedly.
Among the positive consequences of an abortion ban, it is likely to strengthen religious and philosophical currents, which will further consolidate the pro-life communities that already exist. These people will give birth to as many children as possible and encourage other couples to do the same, but the chance that they will take responsibility for unwanted children is too small. Räsänen (2021) suggests that utilitarianism does not consider the multifaceted nature of the abortion decision, so the moral right must be dominant. Therefore autonomy is not a justification for killing a fetus. It is an additional argument in favor of the prohibition of abortion. It asserts that the main difference in these positions is the severity of the mental and moral consequences of abortion.
Conclusion
In my moral system, abortion is an act that women are forced to do if there is a problem of unwanted pregnancy. I do not support abortion as contraception, but I do not believe anyone should limit autonomy. I disagree with pro-choicers because they put a woman’s life below that of a potential human being. In my value system, achieving equality is one of the major concerns in the United States. A group of white men of conservative views should not be allowed to prohibit half the population from choosing autonomy over the tried and tested heavy burden of forced motherhood. Many states have banned abortion entirely, showing the lack of morality per se and understanding of freedom of choice in our society. No moral beliefs about whether a fetus is or can become a human being should take precedence over an already existing human being with feelings and emotions.
References
Honderich, H. (2022). Abortion election results: Kentucky rejects constitutional amendment on abortion. BBC News. Web.
Jacker, N. S. (2022). Abortion and bioethics: Principles to guide U.S. abortion debates. The Conversation. Web.
Räsänen J. (2021). Liberal utilitarianism –yes, but for whom? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees, 30(2), 368–375. Web.
Robinson, C. (2021). The ethical dilemma of abortion. Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East, 3(1), 10–19. Web.