Abortion's Immorality: Deontology and Divine Command Views
This paper argues that abortion is morally unjustifiable from both deontological and divine command perspectives. The author contends that men and women bear a natural and divine duty to sustain human life, grounded in natural law, Kantian duty ethics, and the Christian imperative to bear and nurture children. Two major objections are examined: Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy defending abortion in cases of rape, and the broader claim that human rights supersede natural duties. The paper responds by challenging Thomson's premises and asserting that natural law — independent of human consent — remains binding once conception occurs. The conclusion holds that abortion, whether pre- or post-conception, constitutes a violation of the natural order.
- Introduction: Frames abortion debate as rights versus duty
- Explaining My View: Natural law and divine command oppose abortion
- Objections to the Anti-Abortion Position: Thomson's violinist analogy and consent-based rights claims
- Response to Objections: Natural duty persists regardless of consent or rights
- Conclusion: Duty to life overrides human rights arguments
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper takes a clear, defensible thesis and supports it consistently through multiple ethical frameworks — deontology, divine command theory, and natural law — without conflating them.
- It engages seriously with the strongest counterargument (Thomson's violinist analogy) by isolating and critiquing specific premises rather than dismissing the objection wholesale.
- The author acknowledges the moral difficulty of the rape exception, conceding the injustice of rape while maintaining that natural duty persists regardless of consent, which demonstrates intellectual honesty.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of premise analysis in responding to objections. Rather than simply asserting that Thomson is wrong, the author breaks the violinist analogy into two distinct premises and targets the weakness of the first — that the violinist has a right to the transfusion — showing why the analogy fails when applied to pregnancy. This method of structured rebuttal is a hallmark of analytic philosophy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic five-part philosophical essay structure: (1) introduction and argument summary, (2) thesis defense using natural law and scripture, (3) presentation of the two strongest objections, (4) systematic rebuttal of each objection, and (5) a synthesizing conclusion. This format is well-suited to undergraduate philosophy assignments and mirrors the argumentative structure found in applied ethics journals.
Introduction
The moral question of abortion is whether one is morally justified in killing a child growing in the womb. 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 concerns one's duty to protect and nurture life or whether it concerns individual rights. Rights versus duty is the crux of the issue.
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 this 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.
Objections to the Anti-Abortion Position
The two strongest objections to this 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 is therefore 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 nine-month-long blood transfusion to survive. A woman is abducted off the street, 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 no 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 admirable if she did, but since she did not give her initial consent, she is not morally obliged to remain.
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, any more 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 when consent to conception was not given: human rights trump natural rights.
Conclusion
The question of whether abortion is moral or immoral is situated in the question of whether the issue at stake is one of duty toward 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 deontology and natural law, sex is naturally a procreative act, and to deny or prevent the functionality of the sex organs is to commit an act contrary to nature, 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 nine months, and the man bears the bulk of responsibility once the child is born and 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 it was not consented to. A person who refuses to submit to this natural functionality, with all its consequences, commits an immoral act.
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 Dialogues, 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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.