ETHC 445 Week 3 Course Project Milestone – Abortion

Student Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name:

Date

The topic of abortion has sparked significant moral debate, with various ethical perspectives providing diverse viewpoints. In this discussion, we will explore the moral controversy surrounding abortion through the lens of two ethical theories: ethical egoism and social contract theory. We will aim to present both positions without bias, allowing for a clearer understanding of how these philosophical viewpoints approach the subject. As medical technology advances, procedures such as abortion, which is used to terminate pregnancies, have become more accessible. While it offers health benefits to individuals who are facing difficult circumstances, the practice also raises complex ethical dilemmas. Each year, approximately half a million abortions are performed in the United States (Rachels, 2018). This widespread practice has led to ongoing debates about its morality, with pro-life advocates considering abortion as “murder,” while pro-choice supporters argue that individuals should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies (Rachels, 2018).

Ethical Egoism and Abortion

Ethical egoism, as described by Rachels (2018), holds that the fundamental principle of morality is self-interest. According to this view, individuals make decisions based on what is best for themselves, without regard for moral obligations to others. Ethical egoists believe that an individual’s decision to have an abortion is justified if it aligns with their own self-interest, such as not wanting to take on the responsibility of raising a child. This philosophy prioritizes personal well-being above external ethical considerations. However, ethical egoism is not without its complexities. According to the concept of “commonsense morality,” ethical egoists recognize that certain actions, such as keeping promises or avoiding harm to others, are essential to maintaining a moral society (Rachels, 2018). In the case of abortion, pro-life advocates view it as a form of murder, which violates the moral principle of not causing harm to others. Ethical egoists might justify abortion, as long as the decision serves the individual’s self-interest, particularly if they are unable to financially support a child or are otherwise unprepared for parenthood.

In contrast, social contract theory, as explained by Rachels (2018), emphasizes the idea that rational individuals will agree to abide by rules and regulations that promote the welfare of society. These rules are shaped by societal norms and the collective interests of its members. When applied to the issue of abortion, social contract theory can support either side of the debate. If a society faces overpopulation, for example, regulations mandating abortion might be considered morally acceptable to maintain social stability. On the other hand, in a society struggling with mass extinction or a significant decrease in population, abortion could be viewed as immoral, as it would limit the potential for population growth. Social contract theorists believe that morality is dictated by societal norms, and thus, whether abortion is seen as moral or immoral depends on the social context and the values of the community. According to McLean et al. (2019), abortion procedures also carry significant risks, such as maternal death, which further complicates the ethical discussion. This “silent pandemic” highlights the dangers involved in abortion, as it not only takes the life of the unborn child but can also jeopardize the life of the mother. From a social contract perspective, this raises a dilemma between personal obligations to one’s family and the broader societal duty to preserve life.

The Nursing Code of Ethics and Abortion

In light of these complex moral considerations, the nursing profession also faces ethical dilemmas related to abortion. According to the American Nursing Association’s Code of Ethics, nurses are tasked with promoting community health, preventing disease, restoring health, and alleviating pain and suffering (Zahedi et al., 2013). This code places patient care above personal beliefs, suggesting that if a pregnant woman’s life is at risk, an abortion may be morally justified to save the mother’s life, even if it means forfeiting the life of the unborn child. This highlights the importance of prioritizing the well-being of the patient, particularly in cases where a pregnancy threatens the mother’s health or life.

References

Denis, L. (2007). Abortion and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 37(4), 547–579.

Gugliotta, G. (1996). Ethical dilemma of medical abortion. Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), 155(1), 18–19.

Kain, P. (2009). Kant’s defense of human moral status. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47(1), 59–101. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.0.0083

McLean, D. N., Blystad, A., & Miljeteig, I. (2019). When the law makes doors slightly open: Ethical dilemmas among abortion service providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0396-4