Abortion is a very divisive subject that people don’t typically enjoy discussing, but it is such a common procedure these days that discussing it is necessary. People could argue for what seems like forever about whether or not abortion should remain legal or how the law can better regulate abortions based on how far into the pregnancy a woman is and why she is considering terminating the pregnancy. While we may never come to a unanimous decision, we should at least agree that abortions in order to save the life of the mother are justified.
Consider a twenty-seven year old mother of four who has a history of moderate yet controlled pulmonary hypertension and is being seen at her pulmonologist’s office for worsening symptoms in mid-October …show more content…
Utilitarians argue that without abortion, women, such as the woman in the case study, would be forced to carry out a large number of pregnancies over the course of their reproductive lifespan that they may not be able to handle physically or that could potentially put them at a greater risk for disability or death. Utilitarian’s would also add that “…women’s physical and emotional distress caused by pregnancy; the risk of complications or death in childbirth; disruption of her employment, education or other life plans; and unhappiness caused by a loss of personal control and freedom” all serve as examples as to how a woman might suffer if abortions were not allowed. (Vaughn, 2010, 300) Mill utilitarians would support the practice of abortion by claiming that a woman must be allowed the freedom to decide what happens to her own body, which in the case includes the attached fetus (Vaughn, 2010, 301). A utilitarian would also argue that an act promoting pleasure is good and an act that is promoting pain is bad. Although this may come into some grey area, it can be said that in this case, aborting the fetus would save the mother’s life. This would provide happiness for a greater number of people including her partner, her children, and other family members, whereas carrying the pregnancy …show more content…
It seems as though the conclusion that the Ethics Committee came to was rooted in the double effect doctrine, but this does not seem to stand as justification for that particular abortion. The Ethics Committee deliberated about the woman’s situation, Sister Margaret Mary McBride was the woman who came back to the physician with the results and stated that “a termination of the pregnancy, if the mother wanted it, was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life” (English, Haddad, and Veatch, 2015, 211). This conclusion was reached on the basis that a good action was intended; in an abortion such as this, the good action of saving the mother’s life is intended. Where this argument has its fault is that the good effect cannot arise from the bad effect, and for this case that is not true. For this case, the mother’s life being saved is only achieved through the termination of the pregnancy and ultimately the death of the fetus. The double effect doctrine seems to only stand as justification for abortions to save a woman’s life if she is having an ectopic pregnancy or has uterine cancer, and needs a particular organ removed to save her
Consider a twenty-seven year old mother of four who has a history of moderate yet controlled pulmonary hypertension and is being seen at her pulmonologist’s office for worsening symptoms in mid-October …show more content…
Utilitarians argue that without abortion, women, such as the woman in the case study, would be forced to carry out a large number of pregnancies over the course of their reproductive lifespan that they may not be able to handle physically or that could potentially put them at a greater risk for disability or death. Utilitarian’s would also add that “…women’s physical and emotional distress caused by pregnancy; the risk of complications or death in childbirth; disruption of her employment, education or other life plans; and unhappiness caused by a loss of personal control and freedom” all serve as examples as to how a woman might suffer if abortions were not allowed. (Vaughn, 2010, 300) Mill utilitarians would support the practice of abortion by claiming that a woman must be allowed the freedom to decide what happens to her own body, which in the case includes the attached fetus (Vaughn, 2010, 301). A utilitarian would also argue that an act promoting pleasure is good and an act that is promoting pain is bad. Although this may come into some grey area, it can be said that in this case, aborting the fetus would save the mother’s life. This would provide happiness for a greater number of people including her partner, her children, and other family members, whereas carrying the pregnancy …show more content…
It seems as though the conclusion that the Ethics Committee came to was rooted in the double effect doctrine, but this does not seem to stand as justification for that particular abortion. The Ethics Committee deliberated about the woman’s situation, Sister Margaret Mary McBride was the woman who came back to the physician with the results and stated that “a termination of the pregnancy, if the mother wanted it, was appropriate since the goal was not to end the pregnancy but to save the mother’s life” (English, Haddad, and Veatch, 2015, 211). This conclusion was reached on the basis that a good action was intended; in an abortion such as this, the good action of saving the mother’s life is intended. Where this argument has its fault is that the good effect cannot arise from the bad effect, and for this case that is not true. For this case, the mother’s life being saved is only achieved through the termination of the pregnancy and ultimately the death of the fetus. The double effect doctrine seems to only stand as justification for abortions to save a woman’s life if she is having an ectopic pregnancy or has uterine cancer, and needs a particular organ removed to save her