Week Six Proposal A current issue of controversy is abortion, which has polarized the national community and is a current hot topic in the Presidential debates. Two groups of abortion include the people who are pro-life who believe that there is a right to life before conception. This is based on moral and ethical issues as well as religious implications. The opposing group believes that life does not begin until after the baby is born and that the family has the right to choose. A feminist would describe the roots of this problem as based in the woman’s reproductive right to choose. A woman should have the right to their body and their health and that they should the freedom to choose their own life (Schoen, 2000). This is also evident in rape and incest cases where many feel that abortion needs to be an option after an involuntary event where a woman did not have the right to her own body. Political and ethical theories that are evident in this controversy include deontological and consequentialism (Canario, 2011). Those who are pro-abortion may follow consequentialism because they are concerned about the consequences of the abortion (or not having an abortion), which may mean health issues for the mother, sustaining a family that a parent can clearly not take care or long term issues of care for the child. Those who are anti-abortion can be seen as being deontological because they believe that the mother has a moral duty to society and to their religion or other beliefs that the child’s life is valuable and ending conception would be unethical or immoral. My own proposed solution to the problem would be to appease both groups by allowing abortion only in cases of extreme suffering, health issues for the mother and child as well as rape or incest cases where the pregnancy was involuntary. I would also limit the term in which a mother can get an abortion. I believe that this would appease the feminist groups by providing solutions where a woman did not have control over their body as well as maximize the “good” for the society, under utilitarian principles, where a member of society who is not equipped to function may avoid a lifetime of suffering. While the term limits for abortion are already in place in society, I believe that my solution would be a better reconciliation of the controversy that can better appease both sides. By adding exceptions where abortion should be legal, an anti-abortion group would be recognizing abortion as true ethical ambiguity because technically, a life is eliminated. However, at the same time, by allowing a woman to have an abortion based on extreme issues, you are also recognizing abortion advocates who believe a woman should have the right to choose. References Canário, C., Figueiredo, B., & Ricou, M. (2011). [Abortion: legal, deontological and ethical framework]. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 24 Suppl 4791-798. Schoen, J. (2000). Reconceiving abortion: medical practice, women's access, and feminist politics before and after {Roe v. Wade}. Feminist Studies, 26(2), 349-376.
Purchase answer to see full attachment