Fetal Abnormality: Moral Status and Ethical Frameworks
This paper examines a fetal abnormality case study involving Jessica, Marco, Aunt Maria, and Dr. Wilson, each representing a distinct theory of moral status. Drawing on the Sanctity of Life, Social Role, and Quality of Life theories, the paper identifies how each perspective shapes the characters' recommendations regarding whether to continue the pregnancy. The analysis then evaluates the case through utilitarian and deontological ethical lenses, exploring where these frameworks converge and diverge. The paper concludes that, from a duty-based perspective, supporting the continuation of life aligns most consistently with the foundational moral commitments shared across the perspectives.
- Christian View of Human Dignity and Moral Status: Sanctity of Life grounds intrinsic human worth
- Theories of Moral Status in the Case Study: Characters mapped to distinct moral status theories
- How Each Theory Shapes Individual Recommendations: Theories drive each character's pregnancy recommendation
- Utilitarian and Deontological Analysis of the Case: Duty ethics and utilitarianism applied to decision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It systematically maps each character's position to a named ethical theory, making abstract frameworks concrete and easy to follow.
- The paper moves logically from descriptive analysis (who believes what and why) to normative evaluation (which framework is most defensible), giving the argument clear direction.
- It uses multiple ethical lenses — utilitarian and deontological — to evaluate the same scenario, demonstrating awareness of competing moral traditions without losing argumentative focus.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis: taking a real-world dilemma and systematically evaluating it through established moral frameworks rather than relying on intuition alone. By identifying where the frameworks overlap (a shared sense of duty) and using that common ground to build toward a conclusion, the author shows how to construct a reasoned ethical argument from contested premises.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by grounding moral status in Christian theology and the Sanctity of Life theory. It then maps each character's implicit ethical framework, follows with an analysis of how those frameworks drive each character's recommendation, and closes with a dual utilitarian-deontological evaluation that synthesizes the competing views into a defensible position. This four-part structure moves from description to interpretation to normative judgment.
Christian View of Human Dignity and Moral Status
In the Christian view, human persons are understood as having intrinsic value and dignity because they are made in the image and likeness of God. This view holds that human life is sacred from conception until natural death, a concept often associated with the Sanctity of Life theory (Lockhart et al., 2023). This theory ascribes moral status to all humans regardless of their abilities, condition, or stage of development. It corresponds to the belief in intrinsic human value and dignity — every human being, regardless of circumstances, has an inherent worth that must be respected and protected.
Theories of Moral Status in the Case Study
The case study reveals varying theories of moral status at play among the characters. Jessica seems to align with the Sanctity of Life theory. Her belief that "all life is sacred" reflects this theory, suggesting that she may feel morally compelled to continue the pregnancy despite the baby's condition.
Marco's perspective is not explicitly articulated, but it could align with the Social Role theory, given his concerns about the potential socioeconomic impact of raising a disabled child. This theory attributes moral status based on an individual's role in society or potential contribution to it.
Aunt Maria also adheres to the Sanctity of Life theory, urging Jessica to follow through with the pregnancy and let "God's will" happen, reinforcing the belief in the inherent value of all life.
Dr. Wilson appears to advocate the Quality of Life theory, considering the potential quality of life for both the child and the family. His recommendation of abortion as a medically wise choice indicates his belief in prioritizing the potential well-being and future happiness of the individual and the family.
How Each Theory Shapes Individual Recommendations
Each theory influences the recommendations its adherents make. Jessica, influenced by the Sanctity of Life theory, leans toward continuing the pregnancy, respecting the inherent value of the unborn child's life. Although frightened by the news, her inclination is to support the life growing in the womb — an inclination backed by her religious belief and what could be called a natural maternal instinct to protect a child.
Marco, perhaps influenced by the Social Role theory, leans toward an action he believes will preserve their socioeconomic stability and future prospects. His primary concern is maintaining a standard of living, which he fears they will not be able to sustain if they have a medically needy child. Marco is clearly prioritizing his own interests — seeking socioeconomic security, comfort, and sustainability over the life of the child.
Aunt Maria, guided by the Sanctity of Life theory, advocates for continuation of the pregnancy, allowing "God's will" to take place. Like Jessica, Maria adopts a spiritual perspective informed by a deep religious belief about the value of life and the importance of accepting whatever God provides.
Dr. Wilson, adhering to the Quality of Life theory, recommends abortion, considering it the medically wise choice given the potential quality of life for the child and the family.
References
Lockhart, C., Lee, C. H., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2023). The sanctity of life: The role of purity in attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia. International Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 16–29.
Misselbrook, D. (2013). Duty, Kant, and deontology. British Journal of General Practice, 63(609), 211–211.
Mulgan, T. (2019). Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.