The immorality of Abortion from Deontology and Divine Command Perspectives

The immorality of Abortion from Deontology and Divine Command Perspectives
I. Introduction
The moral question of abortion is whether one is morally justified in killing a child growing in the womb. In section 1, I will summarize the argument. In section 2, I will explain my view on the moral question. In section 3, I will discuss two objections to my view. In section 4, I will provide a response to these objections. In section 5, I will conclude the paper with a summary of each section.
The argument involved in the issue of abortion comes down to two points of view. The point of view of those who oppose abortion is that people have a duty to protect, nourish and support life: they have no right to end or prevent life from happening. The point of view of those who support abortion is that people have a right to do with their own bodies what they see fit. Thus, the argument is over whether the issue is about one’s duty to protect and nurture life or whether the issue is about rights. Rights vs. Duty is the crux of the issue.
II. Explaining My View
My view is that men and women have a duty to sustain, provide for and nurture life in all its manifestations but especially when it comes to human life because man is made in the image and likeness of God according to the Christian view of life. However, even from a non-religious standpoint one can argue in defense of preserving all human life out of respect for natural morality or natural law (Plato; Pope). The deontological perspective also suggests that one has a duty to preserve life. Additionally, the argument to support my view is that the function of sex is procreative. Thus, to prevent this function is to corrupt or pervert the natural order. Refusal of the natural order is morally unjustified; it is especially unjustified since God condemns Onan in the Old Testament for refusing to comply with His imperative that men and women multiply. In the New Testament, the Epistle of Timothy states that “women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim 2:15). Women thus have a divine command to bear children in the Christian tradition. In short, both natural order and divine command support the argument against abortion. The natural duty of parents to children also suggests that abortion goes against the moral law from a deontological perspective.
III. Objections
The strongest two objections that can be made to my view come from those who argue that abortion may be acceptable in certain circumstances, such as instances of rape, in which the mother does not give consent to the sex act and thus is not responsible for playing a role in the procreative act. In short she has a right to terminate the pregnancy since it was not her intention to conceive. This argument is best summarized in Thomson’s violinist analogy.
Thomson compares pregnancy via rape to the following scenario: a world-renowned violinist is sick and needs a 9-months-long blood transfusion to survive. A woman is abducted off the street and brought to the violinist and told she must give blood to the musician for the next nine months whether she likes it or not: she has not choice or say in the matter. Thomson argues that the woman is under no moral obligation to partake in the blood transfusion. It would be nice if she did, but since she did not give her initial consent she is not morally obliged to stay in the room.
The second objection is an extension of the first. One may admit of natural duties and natural morality, but the rights of man override natural morality. If one does not give one’s consent, even to the creation and sustainment of life, then one is not morally obliged to care for it anymore than one is obliged to remove obstacles that prevent full functionality of the sex organs (i.e., birth control). If birth control is not morally wrong, neither is abortion if consent to conception is not given: human rights trump natural rights.
IV. Response to Objections
The response to the first objection requires a breakdown of the two premises used by Thomson. The first premise is that the violinist has a right to a blood transfusion; the second is that the abducted woman is under no moral obligation to provide that transfusion since she did not consent. The problem here is with the first premise (Korman). The analogy is weak because of this: a child in the womb has a natural right to the mother’s blood; the violinist does not. Additionally, the woman would be chained to the violinist for 9 months. A mother carrying a child is not chained to one spot but is free to still go about her life as usual. The analogy does not withstand close inspection.
Carrying a child is an act that is mandated by nature once conception has taken place (just as conception is mandated by nature given the function of the sex organs). A woman who is abducted to give blood to a violinist is not naturally obliged to do so; a woman who is raped is, however, still obliged to sustain the life that grows because to terminate the life is still an unnatural act. It does not stop being an unnatural act to abort a pregnancy just because the woman did not consent to the pregnancy. Whether she consented or no, the life has been conceived and now the woman is duty-bound to sustain it. The reason people object to this argument is that they place the rights of man above the natural law. The rights of man, however, are an Enlightenment concept, defined by Thomas Paine. They are born of the human imagination. Natural law exists outside oneself and is not invented by man but rather by God, Who has dictated the policy of the natural order. Even one who does not believe in God must still admit that the natural order exists. Marquis points out that what makes killing immoral is “its effect on the victim” (189). The mother who kills the life in the womb is committing an act of murder, an unnatural act. It is, however, no different from using contraception, which prevents life from proceeding to its natural conclusion in the procreative act; the seed of the man and the woman are murdered in their natural course of conception. To argue that birth control is moral but that abortion is immoral is to say that being pro-choice is wrong post-conception but pre-conception is perfectly all right. Human choice is not above natural order and should rather consent to the natural law of functionality with regards to sex and procreation. Consent is the proper approach to the performance, but is not required by nature. Rape is immoral, but nature does not stop itself in its tracks just because one violates the moral law by way of rape. Respect for the natural law should trump respect for the so-called rights of man.
Thomson’s second argument is that natural laws and duties are made null and void if consent is not given. It is essentially a reiteration of the first argument that human rights are higher than natural laws or deontological morality. However, the emphasis here is on the point that what is at stake is not life—which by natural law and duty ethics as well as divine command must be preserved—but rather on rights. Thomson essentially argues that rights matter in this issue, not life. The answer to this is that while rape violates the woman’s will, the woman who aborts the baby conceived of rape violates the natural law, which stipulates that justice demands her nurturing the life in her womb. Justice requires the service of life; justice demands punishment of the rapist; justice does not demand that consent to sustain life be given once life is already conceived. If natural law rested upon human consent, nature would reject conception in such cases. It does not. The duty of the parent remains. The condition is to be pitied but nonetheless supported.
V. Conclusion
The question of whether abortion is moral or immoral is situated in the question of whether the issue at stake is one of a duty towards life or a matter of human rights. The issue at hand is one of life, but it has been politicized by people who believe it is an issue of rights. One has a natural, moral and divine duty to preserve, sustain, nurture and shelter human life. From the standpoint of virtue ethics, deontology and natural law, sex is naturally a procreative act and to deny or prevent the functionality of the sex organs is to commit abortion, whether pre- or post-conception. Abortion goes against the divine command of God, and is unjustified from a deontological perspective, because men and women have a duty to protect and nurture human life: the woman bears the bulk of this responsibility for the first 9 months and the man bears the bulk of the responsibility once the child is born are requires shelter, food, support, and stability as it grows. The objection to this argument is that people have a right to choose whether they want to support life; but they have this right only in their imaginations: they have a duty to protect life even when not consented to. A person who refuses to submit to this natural functionality with all its consequences commits an immoral act.
Works Cited
Korman, Daniel. Learning from Arguments An Introduction to Philosophy. Draft, 2018.
Marquis, Don. "Why abortion is immoral." The Journal of Philosophy 86.4 (1989): 183-202.
Plato. The Dialouges, vol. 1. Online Library of Liberty. http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws.com/titles/111/Plato_0131-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf
Pope, Stephen J. “Natural Law in Catholic Social Teachings.” https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/boisi/pdf/f09/Pope_Natural_Law_In.pdf
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy & Public Affairs (1971): 47-66.