Download Power Point 1 A theory is wrong when it makes you believe (in

A theory is wrong when it makes you believe (in) something which is not (entirely) true.
Ethics & Law
- Should all unethical things be illegal?
- If all lying is illegal, should all liars go to jail?
- Are ethics and law the same?
- When it is not the same, then there are no unjustified laws.
- Is there an independent norm?
- There should be a separation between legality and ethics. How are laws to be tested?
- Example: slavery.
- Is ethics just a matter of opinion?
- Ethics and freedom – free choice
What is meant by good? (in case of death penalty)
Is it required to kill all murderers?
Is it permitted in some cases?
Why be an ethical person
- It brings trust and harmony in society.
- Not having to lie, is not having to remember so much.
- Religions: ethics as a task (10 commandments).
- Ideal: what kind of person do you want to be(-come).
- Internal (integrity) + external (do good).
Way of reasoning: Relativism
- X is right = X is right for me.
- Meaning actually: I like X/X feels good.
Subjectivism: is everybody right?
Subjectivism is ethics based on each person’s own opinion. Right and wrong can be different
for different people. Personal preferences therefore play a (big) role. But are slavery, racism
and abortion matter of opinion?
- When all opinion have equal weight, then discussions are senseless.
Subjectivism is not ethical disagreement, but about personal opinions and preferences. So,
there is no real disagreement. Consequence: X is wrong = I don’t like X, which is not the
same as you should dislike X as well. That’s not ethics!
Determinism
Everything happening is inevitable, you can’t escape from it.
- Genetic: character and behaviour are determined by your DNA.
- Psychology: certain desires within you are so strong that they determine how you
think and behave.
- Causal: there is a certain order in the universe.
- Theology: God decides/determines.
Utilitarianism: pleasure versus pain and happiness versus suffering.
- More pleasure, less pain! But also: principle of utility.
- Jeremy Bentham: that what makes consequences better or worse is how much
pleasure and/or benefit they produce on the one hand and how much pain and
struggle they produce on the other.
Utilitarian ethics
Think of the consequences; the result matters. But does the end justify the means?
What makes consequence good?
- When do you know one consequence is better than the other?
- Should we pursue what’s good for most people?
- Should we consider how much beauty or knowledge can be found in the outcome
versus how much is being destroyed?
Divine comment theory: “Because God said so!”
The ethical value of an action depends on God and the correct action is the one command by
God (10 commandments). God knows what is best for you, he is in command and can
punish and reward for actions.
When do the divine commands conflict?
- It’s interpretation.
- Where they are incomplete.
- Suppose; what if you intentionally poisoned someone but have a change of heart and
can’t afford the antidote? This situation seems to be one where stealing may be
ethically required.
- Don’t murder anyone! Who? What?
- Which god? Which interpretation?
Plato and Euthyfron’s dilemma
Could God command anything to be ethical, or is God not in charge of what’s ethical?
Implications:
1. If the gods approve of things because they are ethical, then the gods really aren’t in
charge of what’s ethical.
2. It was clear before the gods decided.
-
If what’s ethical is just based on the whims of the gods, then no higher court exists
than what the gods happen to like.
If 1. is true then the DCT is not true.
If 2. is true then the DCT is absurd.
Real discussion?
What is a real discussion? Ajax or Feijenoord? Checkers or chess? Facts or opinions? What
are the criteria?
Virtue Ethics
- Development of character.
- A good character, acts good.
- Living a virtuous life is good for you and embraces what it means to be human.
- Virtues: generosity, kindness, caring, reliable, loyal etc. Habits toward goodness.
Cases of virtue and their corresponding extremes
Extreme vice
Mean virtue
(too little)
(just right)
Extreme vice
(too much)
Cowardice
Courage
Rashness
Stinginess
Generosity
Wastefulness
Insensible
Temperate
Indulgent
Shyness
Humility
Arrogance
Criticism
- Who decides which virtues are right?
- Tied to culture and time.
- Virtues can’t give exact guidance.
Moral: if they reflect a person’s values and those of society.
Immoral: if they go against a person’s (or society’s) values.
Amoral: if they are not based on values or social norms.
Sources for ethics
1.
Reason
2.
Experience
3.
Scripture (in religious contexts)
4.
Tradition (religious and non-religious)
Three features of moral action:
1. Act: The action you commit or omit. Is it right or wrong? How to describe it?
2. Consequences: The foreseeable results of our acts for good and bad.
3. Agent: The quality of the person who acts: your values, habits, motivations, experiences,
relationships, and the context in which you live.
The key: Acts are right or wrong from their consequences.
What is value?
Is the value one or many?
- Hedonist (pleasure is the one value).
- Happiness is the one value: eudemonists.
And others: knowledge, health, beauty.
Ethics of principal or duty
1.
From the Greek deontos= duty. Generally, an ethics based on duty.
2.
Many possible grounds for knowing duty: divine commands, natural law, intuition,
social contract or reason.
3.
Monistic: Kant; categorical imperative. Act only on the basis of a rule you could will for
all (universalizable). E.g. lying is always wrong.
4.
Pluralistic: there are several irreducible duties: fidelity, beneficence, justice.
Ethics of purpose
1.
Ties to other concerns and terms: character, virtue, narrative, and teleological ethics.
2.
The ancient Greek ideal: achieving human flourishing by developing oneself in
virtues, sharing one’s life with friends and participating in political life.
Why study ethics?
Moral decisions are unavoidable in a human life. Analogy: morality is a lot like nutrition.
• Principal concern: health
• The role of experts
• Disagreement (raw food?)
There are professional discussions of ethical issues in journals and we come back to ideas
finding new meaning(s) in them.
Morality: set of beliefs and practices about how to live a good life.
Ethics: conscious reflection on the acceptability of our moral beliefs.
Moral health
The goal of ethical reflection is moral health. So we seek to determine what will improve our
moral life and what will poison it.
What makes something a moral issue?
- Content: duties, right, human welfare, suffering, character, etc.
- Perspective: impartial, compassionate, etc.
Impartiality: not giving your own interest any special weight.
Moral obligations: universally binding and that is what gives them their distinctive character.
John Stuart Mill (utilitarian/do no harm).
Kant: morality is a matter of categorical imperatives.
Josiah Royce: compassion
The categorical imperative
1. Universality
2. Humanity as an End – never as a Means
3. Autonomy
Concern for Character: primary focus of morality
What ought I to do? (Kant and Mill)
What kind of person ought I to be? (Aristotle)
The Focus of Ethics
The Point of Ethical Reflection.
Ethics as the Evaluation of Other People’s Behavior
- We are often eager to pass judgment on others
- Ethics as the Search for Meaning and Value in Our Own Lives
- Ethics often used as a weapon
- Hypocrisy
- Possibility of knowing other people
- The right to judge other people and to intervene
- Judging and caring
Searching for meaning in our lives
Positive focus, aims at discerning what is good and emphasizes personal responsibility for
one’s own life.
Functions of a Moral Theory
Describe, Explain, Give strength, Prescribe and Suggest:
- Open new possibilities
- Wonder
What is ethics like?
Physics
- Clear-cut, definitive answers.
Engineering
- Several possible ways of doing things, many ways which are wrong.
Conclusion
Ethics is like nutrition:
- One studies bodily health, others moral health.
- Significant disagreement in both fields.
- Still there is substantial common ground.
9 basis for moral decisions
1. Do what the Bible tells you (Divine Command Theory)
• “What is right” = “What God tells you”.
• Being good is doing what the Bible says.
2. Follow your conscience (Ethics of Our Inner Voice)
• Conscience tells us what is right or wrong; mostly warns us for what is wrong.
• Can have a religious source or can be found in human nature.
3. Watch out for what the Bible says (Ethical Egoism)
• The only person to look out for is yourself.
• The Ethics of Selfishness.
4. Do the right thing (The Ethics of Duty – Immanuel Kant)
• Ethics is about doing right and doing your duty.
• Duty may be determined by reason.
• Do what any rational agent would do: parent’s duty to raise children.
5. Don’t dis’ me (The Ethics of Respect)
• Human interactions should be governed by respect (looking while talking).
• Respect varies per culture.
6. All men are created with certain unalienable rights (Ethics of Rights)
• The most influential moral notion of the past 2 centuries.
• Established minimal conditions of human decency.
7. Make the world a better place (Unitarianism – John Stuart Mill)
• To reduce suffering and increase pleasure and happiness.
• Purpose of morality = make the world a better place.
• High degree of self-sacrifice: consider the consequences for everyone.
8. That’s not fair (The Ethics of Justice)
• Fairness to family members as a start.
• What is fair for one, should be fair for everyone.
• Treating people equal isn’t treating them the same.
9. Be a good person (Virtue Ethics – Plato and Aristotle)
• Wants to develop the individual; good people make good decisions.
• Provides a way of integrating all the theories.
Ethics and morality
Morality can be defined as a system of criteria that determines whether a specific act under
defined conditions is right (moral), wrong (immoral), or neutral (amoral).
There are many sources of ethics and morality in use:
-
Moral codes are often derived by theologians who interpret holy books, like the
Torah, Bible and Qur'an. Their conclusions are often accepted as absolute truth by
believers. Unfortunately, each of these books contain apparent contradictions and
ambiguities. Since a person's interpretation of a holy book is heavily influenced by the
interpreter's culture, theologians within a given religion often produce very different
moral codes and theological beliefs. This places the validity of sets of moral codes
derived from the Bible and similar texts, in serious doubt.
-
Evolutionary sociobiologists view many human behaviors and elements of morality as
having originated in primate societies among chimpanzees, bonobos, and early
humans.
-
A current and very active debate involves the "science of morality" - the concept that
superior and objective systems of morality and ethics can be derived by studying
human cultures and by then applying the scientific method in order to maximize
people's well-being.
Needless to say, with such different sources from which moral systems can be derived, we
can expect to be overloaded for the foreseeable future with conflicting sets of moral codes
concerning: equality for women, equality for homosexuals, same-sex marriage, abortion
access, etc.
Is a particular act moral, immoral or amoral?
There are many criteria that people use when considering whether a given act is moral,
immoral, or morally neutral.
Moral:
- It moves the individual or society towards the fundamental principle of "equal liberty
and justice for all."
- It promotes the general well-being of people.
- It encourages individual personal growth to become all that they are capable of
becoming: emotionally, spiritually, mentally, and physically.
- It is in harmony with passages in a holy book.
- It is in harmony with the teachings of a person's religious tradition or faith group.
With this diversity of sources from which one can judge the morality of an act, we should
expect that a consensus will be impossible, and that serious disagreements will occur.
Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing: The exposure, by people within an organization, to illegal or unethical activity
and/or significant maladministration.
It can be a verbal or written communication to a person or organization in the public sector. It
can happen in the government as well as in the private sector.
The purpose is to expose the information, which can be: alleged wrongdoing, discrimination,
a policy, but mostly it is something that endangers public health or public safety.
The actions of whistleblowers are potentially beneficial to society. Lives or the environment
can be saved. Bradley Manning is an example of a whistleblower. Some people see him as a
hero, but others see him as a traitor.
Reasons for whistleblowing can be:
- Idealistic: honesty, efficiency, support for victim.
- Defensive: against being associated with an illegal act.
- Negative: dislike of supervisor, paranoia, to avoid censure.
Risks of whistleblowing: viewed as a traitor,
hated by coworkers, most of the times you
lose your job, you can develop personal
problems like a alcohol/drug addiction or
depression. So consequences are often
extreme (in some cases imprisonment).
You are protected as a whistleblower if you:
Believe that malpractice is happening, has
happened or will happen.
Are revealing information of the right type
(believe it’s true).
Reveal it to the right person in the right way
(be honest).
Advertisements need to contain something that is going to make them stand out from the rest
and attract people’s attention. Sometimes the images and language used in ads to attract
attention can be shocking and controversial. Some people find ads offensive – they can feel
angry, upset, hurt or embarrassed by ads because they refer to sex or show nude bodies,
use strong language or swear words, mock religion or people’s beliefs, depict violent
situations or show people in a demeaning way offending them (race/sexuality/disability).
These terms – TASTE AND DECENCY – are not absolutes: they are constantly changing.
Representation is the process through which the media select and re-present the world to us
through texts constructed for a particular target audience. For example, perfumes and
cosmetics are usually associated with women while young men are associated with alcohol
and sports. This leads us to believe that this is the way people are: all young women and
men, all Irish or Scottish people, all gay people, all disabled people and so on behave like
this. This is called STEREOTYPING.
Four ethical conflicts confront leaders in business:
A leader/manager achieves personal gain from a decision he/she makes)
A leader/manager must decide between loyalty to the company and truthfulness in business
relationships
A leader/manager must decide if he/she will be honest or lie; if he/she will take responsibility
for decisions and actions or blame someone else?
Does the leader/manager tell others (media or government authorities) about the unethical
behaviour of the company or institution?
Two forms of sexual harassment have been defined:
quid pro quo (Latin: this for that/ something for something) a favour for a favour.
hostile work environment
Examples:
A supervisor implies to an employee that the employee must sleep with him to keep a job.
A sales manager makes demeaning comments about female customers to his co-workers.
A teacher gives you a better grade if you have sex with him.
Arguments that it’s not immoral:
Enlivening the workplace.
Women and Men (or same-sexes) are naturally sexually attracted to one another.
Positions of power imply certain rights.
Often those being harassed ask for or cause harassment.
Arguments that it’s immoral:
Unfairness of treatment.
Creation of a hostile or offensive working environment.
Positions of authority do not imply power over personal lives.
Attraction does not imply involvement.
Harassees don’t "ask for it."
The abortion debate asks whether it can be morally right to terminate a pregnancy before
normal childbirth.
Some people think that abortion is always wrong. Some think that abortion is right when the
mother's life is at risk. Others think that there is a range of circumstances in which abortion is
morally acceptable.
The abortion debate deals with the rights and wrongs of deliberately ending a pregnancy
before normal childbirth, killing the foetus in the process.
Abortion is a very painful topic for women and men who find themselves facing the moral
dilemma of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. It's one of the most polarising moral
issues.
The moral debate about abortion deals with two separate questions:
Is abortion morally wrong?
Should abortion be legal or illegal?
But those two questions don't end the debate. If we conclude that abortion is not morally
wrong, that doesn't mean that it's right to have an abortion.
The two sides
On one side are those who call themselves 'pro-life'. They say that intentionally caused
abortion is always wrong (although it may on very rare occasions be the best thing to do).
On the other side are those who call themselves 'pro-choice' or 'supporters of abortion rights',
and who regard intentional abortion as acceptable in some circumstances.
People feel particularly strongly about abortion because there is no way of getting any
opinion from the foetus - the potential 'victim' - about the issue (as there is when considering
euthanasia), and because the foetus can easily be portrayed as an entirely innocent and
defenceless being.
The issues (ethics)
The non-religious argument about abortion covers several issues, such as:
what gives a being the right to life?
is a foetus a human being?
is a foetus a separate being from its mother?
if the foetus has a right to life, does that right take priority over the mother's right to control
her own body?
Under what circumstances, if ever, can we take an 'innocent' human life?
Is any other right more important than the right to life - for example, a woman's right to decide
what to do with her own body?
If the woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy, how do we decide whose rights
should prevail?
The case against abortion
The most common form of the case for banning abortion goes like this:
deliberately killing innocent human beings is wrong
a foetus is an innocent human being
abortion is the deliberate killing of a foetus
therefore abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being
therefore, abortion is wrong
If we follow this argument and accept that a foetus has a right to live, then we face part two
of the problem:
abortion is wrong unless it serves some right of the mother that is as morally important as the
foetus' right to life
the right to life outweighs another person's right to control her own body
therefore abortion is wrong unless it serves some greater right of the mother than the right to
control her own body
the only such right is the mother's right to live
therefore abortion is wrong unless it is to save the life of the mother
Beware of the hidden issues
Wrapped up in the ideas above are some issues that need to be dealt with separately...
it's only wrong to kill if death is a bad thing... but is death a bad thing?
what do we mean by a 'human being'?
when, if ever, does a human foetus become a 'human being'?
When is abortion legal?
Some societies ban abortion almost completely while others permit it in certain cases. Such
societies usually lay down a maximum age after which the foetus must not be aborted,
regardless of the circumstances.
At various times some of the following have been allowed in some societies:
abortion for the sake of the mother's health (including mental health)
abortion where a pregnancy is the result of a crime (rape, incest)
abortion where the child of the pregnancy would have an ' unacceptable quality of life'
(physical handicaps, genetic problems, mental defects)
abortion for social reasons (poverty, mother unable to cope with the child)
abortion as a matter of government policy (population size, improving population)
Most opponents of abortion agree that abortion for the sake of the mother's health can be
morally acceptable if there is a real risk of serious damage to the mother.
Birth control and disability
Abortion as a substitute for contraception
Some methods of contraception in fact amount to abortion during the very earliest stage of a
pregnancy. This section only deals with abortion after the first week of pregnancy.
Abortion and disability
Some ethicists dislike the argument that abortion should be allowed where the baby, if born,
would suffer from physical or mental handicaps. They say that allowing this as a reason for
abortion is offensive to disabled people; because it implies that they, and their lives, are less
worthwhile than the lives of 'normal' people. And some people with disabilities that could be
put forward as grounds for abortion argue that they would much rather be alive than have
been killed in the womb.
Other ethicists argue that whether or not people with disabilities are upset by this argument is
irrelevant. They say that the argument is wrong because it attacks the principle that all
human beings are equally valuable in their own ways. They say that it is just plain wrong to
say that one life is less valuable than another. Other, pro-life, campaigners have objected to
this argument on the grounds that it permits eugenic abortion - abortion to eliminate disabling
genes from the human race.
Eugenics and gender selection
Abortion and eugenics
Abortion has been used in the past to stop the growth of population groups, or racial groups
regarded as genetically 'inferior'. This is now regarded as a most serious breach of human
rights and a criminal act.
Abortion and gender selection
In some countries, particularly India there is a major problem with female foeticide deliberately aborting foetuses that would be born as girls. For sociological and economic
reasons parents in some cultures prefer to have boy babies. When parents can discover the
gender of the foetus in advance, they sometimes request the termination of a pregnancy
solely because the foetus is female. While selective abortion for gender preference is illegal
in India, the low proportion of female births relative to male births, together with other
evidence, makes it certain that female foeticide is practised on a large scale.
Religion and abortion
All the religions have taken strong positions on abortion; they believe that the issue
encompasses profound issues of life and death, right and wrong, human relationships and
the nature of society, that make it a major religious concern. People involved in an abortion
are usually affected very deeply not just emotionally, but often spiritually, as well. They often
turn to their faith for advice and comfort, for explanation of their feelings, and to seek
atonement and a way to deal with their feelings of guilt. Because abortion affects heart as
well as mind, and because it involves life and death, many people find that purely intellectual
argument about it is ultimately unsatisfying. For them it's not just a matter that concerns a
human being and their conscience, but something that concerns a human being and their
God.
WORLD RELIGIONS ON ABORTION
HINDUISM
Hinduism teaches that abortion, like any other act of violence, thwarts a
soul in its progress toward God. Hindu scriptures and tradition have from
the earliest of times condemned the practice of abortion, except when
the life of the mother is in danger. Hinduism teaches that the fetus is a
living, conscious person needing and deserving protection. Hindu
scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and bhroona
hathya (killing the undeveloped soul)."
ISLAM
Islam prohibits abortion except when the mother's life is in danger.
Muslims consider a fertilized ovum that is attached to the womb a living
being that has the potential of reaching its full formation. A developed
fetus is considered a human life and is subject to the laws of inheritance
to the extent that if the mother is sentenced to capital punishment, her
life should be preserved because she is carrying another human life.
BUDDHISM
Under the first of the five Buddhist precepts--to refrain from taking life,
from insects on up the evolutionary ladder--abortion is proscribed. Life is
deemed to begin as soon as consciousness arises, and fetuses are seen
as having consciousness. The Buddha's rules for his community of
monks also forbade anyone from recommending abortion. Some
practitioners of Japanese Zen who have had a miscarriage or abortion
honor or make an offering to the deity Jizo, the god of lost travelers and
children. It is believed that Jizo will steward the child until it is reborn in
another incarnation.
JUDAISM
According to Rabbi Raymond A. Zwerin and Rabbi Richard J. Shapiro,
writing for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, traditional
Jewish law teaches that "the fetus is not considered a full human being,
and has no individual rights, but rather, according to many sources, is a
part of a woman's body. And just as any person may not voluntarily do
harm to his or her body, a woman may not voluntarily abort a fetus.
However, just as a portion of the body may be sacrificed to save a
person's life, an abortion may be performed for the woman's overall wellbeing, and an existing life takes precedence over a potential life, if there
must be a choice between them."
CHRISTIANITY Catholic
The Catholic Church teaches that every human being has a right to life
from the moment of conception. The church holds that every abortion-the willful killing of a human embryo or fetus--is a grave moral evil. The
penalty for procuring an abortion is automatic excommunication.
Formally cooperating in an abortion is a grave offense. More-->
Eastern Orthodoxy
The Orthodox Church teaches that abortion is the killing of a child. Grave
questions like these are settled by the Holy Spirit's guidance, which is
found pre-eminently in Scripture, and other writings and community
decisions must be consistent with Scripture. From the earliest years,
Christian writings have instructed "Do not murder a child by abortion or
kill one who has been born" (The Didache, c. 70-80 C.E.).
Presbyterian Church (USA)
The Presbyterian Church (USA) says in official teaching that it
"acknowledges legitimate diversity of opinion. Abortion can be
acceptable under circumstances of rape or incest, physical or mental
deformity of the fetus, or threats to the physical or mental well-being of
the mother. Oppose its use as a method of birth control. Acknowledge
that the state has at least a limited interest in regulating abortion, but
believe in safe and affordable access to abortions for those deemed
acceptable."
American Baptist
According to a position paper of the American Baptist Churches USA,
the denomination "opposes abortion as a means of birth control or a
means of eliminating unwanted pregnancies, but differs on when life
begins and whether the church should advocate for governmental
restrictions on abortion."
Southern Baptist Convention
According to the Southern Baptist Convention's official statement, "At the
moment of conception, a new being enters the universe, a human being,
a being created in God's image. This human being deserves our
protection, whatever the circumstances of conception."
United Methodist Church
The United Methodist Church writes in its official statement that the
denomination "believes in the sanctity of unborn human life and are
reluctant to approve abortion. But they are equally bound to respect the
sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom
devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy."
METHODS
Non-surgical abortion methods
The abortion pill
This is a method of terminating early pregnancy using medications taken by mouth or by
injection which produce a miscarriage. Medical abortion works in two stages: First the
women is given the drug mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed to make fertilised
eggs stick to the womb lining. After 48 hours, the woman is given a different drug, which
triggers contractions and bleeding and causes the foetus to be expelled from her body.
Medical abortion can be used in the first 7 weeks of a pregnancy, while surgical abortion is
usually delayed until 6 weeks or later. The earlier an abortion is performed, the safer it is for
the woman. Some women say they would prefer this method because it somehow "seems
more natural", and because it avoids surgery. Supporters of abortion rights point out that
medical abortion, because it needs much less training than surgical abortion, has the
potential to make abortion more easily available to women who want to terminate a
pregnancy. Pro-life supporters say that Mifepristone may pose health risks to women,
although studies have not supported this.
The morning-after pill
The morning-after pill consists of a high dose of female hormones - the same hormones
found in the normal contraceptive pill. It needs to be taken within 72 hours of sex, and the
earlier it is taken the more effective it is.
The possibility that it may produce an abortion arises from the morning-after pill's second
method of operation. In this method it acts on the lining of the womb so as to prevent a
fertilised egg from implanting (sticking to the lining of the womb). Since the fertilised egg can't
stick, it is expelled from the womb.
Many pro-life groups object to the morning-after pill as a form of abortion because it can
operate after the egg has been fertilised. Those who disagree with this argue that the
pregnancy does not begin with fertilisation, but with implantation, and say that if implantation
is prevented there was never any pregnancy to abort.
Surgical abortion methods
Vacuum aspiration abortion
In a vacuum aspiration abortion a tube is gently inserted into the womb through the cervix.
The contents of the womb are sucked out through this tube.
Dilatation and evacuation, dilatation and curettage
In this method the woman's cervical canal is enlarged with tools called dilators. When the
canal is sufficiently enlarged the womb is emptied by suction, or by having its contents
scraped out with a tool called a curette.
Partial birth abortion
This is also called 'intact dilation and extraction'. The procedure involves the extraction of the
body of the foetus into the vagina before the contents of the skull are sucked out, killing the
unborn, after which the intact foetus is removed from the woman's body. Many women who
opt for "partial-birth" abortions do so because their foetuses have severe or fatal anomalies
or because the pregnancy endangers their lives or health. Opponents of this method of
abortion argue that the procedure is really a form of infanticide.
Women's rights arguments in favour of abortion
Here are some of the women's rights arguments in favour of abortion:
women have a moral right to decide what to do with their bodies
the right to abortion is vital for gender equality
the right to abortion is vital for individual women to achieve their full potential
banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists
the right to abortion should be part of a portfolio of pregnancy rights that enables women to
make a truly free choice whether to end a pregnancy
This argument reminds us that even in the abortion debate, we should regard the woman as
a person and not just as a container for the foetus. We should therefore give great
consideration to her rights and needs as well as those of the unborn.
Many people regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right. If women are
not allowed to abort an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right.
Childbearing, freedom and equality
The women's liberation movement sees abortion rights as vital for gender equality.
They say that if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion she is not only forced to continue
the pregnancy to birth but also expected by society to support and look after the resulting
child for many years to come (unless she can get someone else to do so). They argue that
only if women have the right to choose whether or not to have children can they achieve
equality with men: men don't get pregnant, and so aren't restricted in the same way.
Furthermore, they say, women's freedom and life choices are limited by bearing children, and
the stereotypes, social customs, and oppressive duties that went with it.
In summary:
women need free access to abortion in order to achieve full political, social, and economic
equality with men
women need the right to abortion in order to have the same freedoms as men
women need the right to abortion to have full rights over their own bodies (including the right
to decide whether or not to carry a foetus to birth) - without this right they do not have the
same moral status as men
The US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, which gave women a right to abortion
(under certain conditions) is seen by many as having transformed the status of women in the
USA.
This landmark decision... not only protects rights of bodily integrity and autonomy, but has
enabled millions of women to participate fully and equally in society.
Wie een abortus overweegt in Nederland, moet eerst een afspraak maken met een arts. Dat
kan de huisarts zijn, maar dat hoeft niet. Het is ook mogelijk een afspraak te maken met een
arts in een abortuskliniek of ziekenhuis.
Als een vrouw contact opneemt met een arts voor een abortus, moet de arts haar goed
voorlichten over andere oplossingen. De arts moet er zeker van zijn dat de vrouw een
vrijwillig en weloverwogen besluit neemt om de zwangerschap te beëindigen.
De beraadtermijn is bedoeld om de vrouw (en haar eventuele partner) de tijd te geven om tot
een weloverwogen beslissing te komen.
Als een vrouw minder van 16 dagen over tijd is, geldt een flexibele bedenktijd. Zijn de vrouw
en de arts ervan overtuigd dat de beslissing weloverwogen is, dan kan de
overtijdbehandeling snel worden uitgevoerd.
Is zij meer dan 16 dagen over tijd, dan geldt een bedenktijd van 5 dagen.
Deze 5 dagen liggen tussen het eerste gesprek met de (huis)arts en het afbreken van de
zwangerschap.
Hoe een zwangerschap wordt beëindigd, hangt af van het aantal weken dat een vrouw
zwanger is.
Tot wanneer abortus
Een abortus kan uiterlijk plaatsvinden tot het moment dat de vrucht levensvatbaar is buiten
het lichaam van de moeder. Volgens de wet is dat tot 24 weken, in de praktijk houden artsen
22 weken aan. Deze late abortussen – na 24 weken - vallen niet meer onder de Wet
afbreking zwangerschap. Artsen moeten ze officieel melden bij de toetsingscommissie.
Kosten abortus
Vrouwen in Nederland hoeven niet te betalen voor de behandelkosten van een
zwangerschapsafbreking; die worden betaald uit de AWBZ (Algemene Wet Bijzondere
Ziektekosten). Vrouwen die in het buitenland wonen moeten de kosten van de behandeling
zelf betalen.
Two principal moral considerations:
The moral state of the fetus (is it a person?)
The rights of the pregnant woman
The main argument against abortion is that the fetus is an innocent person, and it is morally
wrong to kill an innocent person. Therefore it is morally wrong to kill the fetus.
If the fetus is a person, it has the rights of a person, including the right to live. But what is a
person?
Women have rights that may allow an abortion: right to privaty, to ownership of one’s own
body, to equal treatment and to self-determination. But the fathers also have rights. Do what
extent can they make choices about the fetus? (mother gives birth, father doesn’t, society
places primary responsibility on mother, father may not know he is a father)
Four conditions must be met:
the action itself must be either morally good or at least morally neutral;
the bad consequences must not be intended;
the good consequences cannot be the direct causal result of the bad consequences; and
the good consequences must be proportionate to the bad consequences.
In China and India female foetuses are killed more often than male foetuses, because they
are more expensive and work less hard.
Reasons to accept abortion:
reducing unwanted pregnancies
guaranteeing genuinely free and informed choice
providing a loving home for all children
Things to help with
making your decision:
the golden rule
role models
Consult established rules, traditions or guidelines.
Consistency among your actions in various situations
Consistency with your stated values (act according to what you say)
Could you reasonably ask that everyone operate on the principle you used? (Kant)
Recognize a moral decision:
Is there something wrong personally, interpersonally, or socially? Is there conflict that could
be damaging to people? to animals or the environment? to institutions? to society?
Does the issue go deeper than legal or institutional concerns? What does it do to people as
persons who have dignity, rights, and hopes for a better life together?
If you make a decision, you must reflect on this decision afterwards. This way you can learn
from your mistakes.