Despite numerous discussions and studies regarding the advantages and disadvantages of abortions from social, physiological and psychological perspectives, the issue remains a problematic area that requires an additional analysis. In order to embrace the concern fully and understand the implications of the pro-abortion decision, one should consider integrating both the consequentialist and the deontological standpoints into the conversation.
By using a combination of the consequentialist, or utilitarian, and deontological philosophies, one will be able to see the issue through the lens of contemporary legal standards and the viewpoint of common sense. Because of the necessity to recognize the right of a woman to make choices concerning her own body, as well as the fact that, legally, a fetus cannot be called a human being, abortions should be allowed.
When studying the problem from the consequentialist perspective, one will realize that abortion is the right of a woman to make choices concerning her own body. By depriving a woman of an opportunity to select abortion as a possible alternative to childbirth, one destroys the principles of democracy and the idea of women being independent people (Muda, Niszczota, Białek, & Conway, 2018). Specifically, the concept of abortion should be seen as a surgical intervention upon which a woman has the right to decide (Muda et al., 2018). By foisting the choice to give birth to a child on a woman, one will subvert the principles of democracy and deprive women of their ability to choose in the matter.
In addition, the deontological philosophy can be seen as the means of defending the use of abortion as a method of family planning. Specifically, the proposed viewpoint suggests that a fetus does not have the legal status of a human being, which justifies the choice of abortion as an acceptable one (Muda et al., 2018). The specified stance concerning the use of abortion as a method of family planning should not be regarded as a successful identification of a loophole in the modern legal system (Muda et al., 2018).
Instead, one needs to recognize the fact that, biologically, a fetus does not qualify as a human being, which entails the absence of any rights that a human being would have in the specified scenario. Thus, accepting the idea of abortion as a possible choice in the family planning process becomes not only reasonable but also the only possible way of addressing the controversy.
Approaching the case in favor of abortions from the consequentialist perspective, one should mention that the specified choice allows celebrating a woman’s right to manage her own body. In turn, the deontological philosophy implies that it is one’s moral duty to ensure that the rights of a human being, which a fetus is not, are met (Muda et al., 2018). The described viewpoint makes a choice in favor of abortion not only possible but also reasonable. By considering the problem of abortion from the standpoint of utilitarianism and deontology, one will inevitably come to the conclusion that abortion is ultimately the right of a woman (Muda et al., 2018).
Specifically, one will realize that giving a woman an opportunity to make decisions concerning her own body is the only possible solution to the current dilemma concerning abortions. Similarly, the consequential approach will point to the sensibility of abortion as the tool allowing a woman to exercise her right in making a decision concerning childbearing.
Reference
Muda, R., Niszczota, P., Białek, M., & Conway, P. (2018). Reading dilemmas in a foreign language reduces both deontological and utilitarian response tendencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(2), 321-339. Web.