Brief Ethical Analysis Of IVF And Abortion Morality

Brief Ethical Analysis of the Morality of IVF and Abortion

For your paper you are to write a brief ethical analysis of ONE and only ONE the following two moral dilemmas (your choice): (1) Should fathers have as much say as mothers in deciding whether an abortion be performed? If yes, and if the mother and the father disagree on the decision, who should have the ultimate control over such decision? (2) Considering that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is an artificial enabling of a life that otherwise could not have naturally occurred, and that abortion is an artificial disabling of a life that otherwise could naturally have continued, is IVF as morally problematic as abortion? NOTE: IVF uses fertile sperm and fertile eggs (from intended "users" or donors) which are placed in a petri-dish ('vitro' means 'glass'), allowed to fertilize in vitro under an artificially (technologically) enabled environment, the formed cell is allowed to multiply for several days, thereafter is implanted if the intended "user" (mother, or couple) so chooses - some embryos are rejected given various genetic defects detected while still in vitro, when such tests are done upon request from "user".

In order to answer, you must do the following: 1. In order to ethically (rather than capriciously) defend choose one of the ethics theories from those listed at the end of this instruction-page. Explain clearly and thoroughly how the the chosen ethics theory supports a particular moral position. NOTE: What moral (ethical) position follows logically is determined by the respective dilemma and by the specific ethics principle applied (ethics theory). 2. Choose a second ethics theory and address (morally evaluate) the same one questions/dilemma you have selected above. Show how this ethics theory would respond to the above moral position and ethical justification provided. Two cases might arise: (2.a.) This second theory might result in the same moral stance but for different reasons given that ethics theories appeal to different moral principles - hence different reasoning algorithms - in order to derive a conclusion. If so, explain clearly how and why this second ethics theory supports its conclusion which happens to be the same as the conclusion arrived at using the previous ethics theory - under (1) - but based on a different moral justification (moral principles). OR.... (2.b) This second ethics theory might result in a different moral stance (position), given its principles. Explain clearly and thoroughly why that is the case. (3) Finally, choose between the two ethics theories you have used above in order to explain WHY the support (principles) offered by your preferred (chosen) theory are more convincing, or more generally acceptable, or more useful, or applicable in resolving the selected dilemma. To accomplish the above you must: Choose from and ONLY from the following ethics theories: Virtue ethics; Utilitarian ethics; Kantian deontological ethics. IMPORTANT: (a) no personal opinions, hopes, desires or feelings will be graded since there is no objective standard by which any of them can be assessed; (b) no religiously or ethnically mandated beliefs can be graded since I do NOT have a license - professionally or morally - to grade prophets, gurus, etc. (that would be profoundly disrespectful to a culture, and arrogant on my part). ONLY moral positions defended (justified) by a gradeable criterion will be considered; a gradeable criterion is one that has been tested for logical consistency (absence of internal self-contradictions), coherence and applicability by the academic community worldwide - which is the case with at least the four ethics theories mentioned above, thus studied in this introductory-level course - and it also conforms to the aims of college education as mandated by the Board of Higher Education. THE ASSIGNMENT NEEDS TO BE 2 PAGES AND 600+ WORDS !

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will explore the ethical dimensions of the morality of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) compared to abortion, applying two prominent ethical theories: Kantian deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics. The aim is to analyze whether IVF, as a technological aid that artificially creates life, is as morally problematic as abortion, which involves the discontinuation of potentially viable human life. I will argue that these two issues, while both centered around the beginning and ending of potential human life, are distinct in their moral implications when examined through these ethical lenses.

Kantian Deontological Ethics and the Moral Evaluation of IVF and Abortion

Kantian deontology emphasizes the importance of duty, moral principles, and the inherent dignity of persons. Central to Kant’s moral philosophy is the concept of the moral law, which includes treating individuals as ends rather than means (Kant, 1785). From this perspective, the moral permissibility of IVF and abortion can be assessed based on whether these actions respect human dignity and conform to universal moral duties.

Applying Kantian ethics to IVF, proponents argue that as long as the process respects the moral status of potential life, it is ethically permissible. For example, IVF enables the creation of life under controlled conditions, with the intention of respecting the dignity of the future human being, especially when genetic testing and embryo selection seek to prevent suffering (Bayles, 2010). The process is thus seen as respecting potential human life, provided all procedures are carried out with respect for the embryo’s intrinsic value, aligning with the Kantian principle of treating individuals as ends.

In contrast, abortion raises complex Kantian issues. If abortion is viewed as a violation of the potential life’s dignity, it may be considered morally impermissible. However, Kant’s emphasis on rational agency and moral duty might also interpret the mother’s autonomy as a duty to herself and her rational self-preservation (Kant, 1785). If the mother’s life or health is at risk, or if the pregnancy results from sexual assault, Kantian ethics might justify abortion based on respecting the moral duty to oneself, thereby permitting abortion under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, Kantian ethics generally opposes actions that treat human life merely as a means or dismiss its inherent dignity, which could argue against abortion, especially if the fetus is considered an autonomous moral agent.

Utilitarian Ethics and the Moral Evaluation of IVF and Abortion

Utilitarianism evaluates morality based on the consequences of actions, aiming to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering (Mill, 1863). When applied to IVF, utilitarians consider the benefits to individuals seeking biological children, including psychological well-being, family stability, and the societal benefits of reproductive autonomy. The creation and implantation of embryos can lead to profound happiness for prospective parents, especially couples who might otherwise remain childless, thus supporting the moral permissibility of IVF.

Conversely, abortion also involves consequential considerations. Utilitarians evaluate the moral acceptability of abortion based on factors such as the fetus’s potential for future happiness versus the pregnant woman’s well-being. If abortion alleviates suffering—such as in cases of severe fetal abnormalities or threats to the mother’s health—it is morally justified. The utilitarian perspective thus often supports abortion when it results in a net increase in happiness or decrease in suffering (Fletcher, 2000). However, if the fetus has substantial potential for happiness, and no significant burdens are placed on the mother, some utilitarians might argue against abortion in those cases.

Both IVF and abortion, from a utilitarian standpoint, are morally permissible when they maximize happiness and reduce suffering. Ethical dilemmas often depend on specific circumstances, such as quality of life, health risks, and emotional impacts, which influence the utilitarian calculus.

Choosing the Most Convincing Ethical Frameworks

Between Kantian deontology and utilitarianism, I argue that utilitarian ethics provide a more practical and flexible framework for resolving moral questions about IVF and abortion. While Kantian ethics emphasizes the inherent dignity of human life, it can sometimes lead to rigid conclusions that fail to account for nuanced circumstances—such as cases where the mother’s life is in danger or when embryo selection can prevent suffering (Kant, 1785). Utilitarianism, by focusing on consequences, allows moral judgments that adapt to varying contexts, thus offering more comprehensive ethical guidance in complex reproductive dilemmas (Singer, 2011).

For example, utilitarianism justifies abortion in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause significant suffering or harm, balancing the interests of the mother, the fetus, and society. Similarly, in IVF, utilitarian reasoning supports reproductive autonomy, provided the overall happiness benefits both the prospective parents and society. This flexibility makes utilitarian ethics more applicable for contemporary bioethical issues, including reproductive technologies and end-of-life decisions (Fletcher, 2000).

In conclusion, although Kantian ethics inscribe important moral principles regarding dignity and respect for life, utilitarianism's emphasis on outcomes and overall well-being makes it a more compelling framework for addressing the complex moral issues surrounding IVF and abortion. These issues demand flexible, context-sensitive moral reasoning that considers the nuanced implications of human actions in reproductive ethics.

References

• Bayles, M. (2010). Ethics in Reproductive Technologies. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(4), 251-257.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (H. J. Paton, Trans.). Harper & Row, 1964.
• Fletcher, J. (2000). Morality and Medical Technology. Oxford University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.