ABORTION: AN ETHICAL DILEM

Jacob R. Donnett
1

Abstract

Abortion to say the least is a hot topic in society. The two sides, pro-life and pro-choice,

juxtapose each other in their beliefs. The pro-choice side believes the woman’s choice is the utter

most of importance, while the pro-life side believes that the life of the fetus is of the utter most

importance. The pro-choice side aligns within the utilitarian ethical framework, saying that the

result of the mother wishing to not continue pregnancy justifies the removal of the fetus in utero.

The pro-life side believes is a deontological ethical framework, where one must do what is

morally correct regardless of the consequences. In the United States, Dobbs v. Jackson was a

supreme court case the declared that the constitution no longer recognizes abortion as a right that

is protected by law. This ruling allows the states to make their own laws regarding abortion.

Regardless of the secular laws of the different states, abortion is morally wrong in nearly all

cases. It strips the fetus away from its rights as a citizen and murders a human being. The only

exception to this rule is if the life of the mother is seriously in danger, such as in cases of ectopic

pregnancy.

Keywords: Abortion, pro-life, pro-choice, utilitarianism, deontology, Dobbs v. Jackson

2

Abortion does not solely belong in the sciences. “Abortion means the act of using or

prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the

intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable intrauterine pregnancy of a woman, including the

elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge that the

termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child

(Abortion Control Act).” With this definition, abortion is not solely within the sciences because

it deals with human dignity. When we talk about things such as dignity or souls, they cannot be

observed in a laboratory. Science observes different human actions and evaluates genes, but it

does not take into consideration the dignity and rights of human beings. It only observes the

viewable parts of beings such as the microorganisms or organs in the body. It does not take into

accountability the rationality or distinctness of human beings. If science was only used to

determine if abortion was morally correct, then there would be no dilemma. It would just be the

removal of cells from the uterus of a woman. The standard of viability, which has changed over

the years based on scientific advancements, was made to say that humans are not human until

they are able to survive outside the womb. The definition of a human cannot change just based

off scientific advancements. It does not make sense to say that a human was not a human at 26

weeks 30 years ago, but now it is because we can help it survive earlier in its development.

Human beings are human from conception not because of what stage of development they are in

scientifically, but because of the potential that they have to be a human being. “The human

embryo is an organism because his molecular organization gives him the active and intrinsic self-

driven disposition to use his genetic information to develop himself into a mature human being,

the telltale characteristic of a human organism (Austriaco).” Therefore, any termination of a

3

pregnancy, with the exception of if the pregnancy will put the mother at risk for death, it is the

murder of a human being.

Abortion is a complex issue over the fact that some people believe in the autonomy of the

mother over the autonomy of the fetus. The American College of Obstetricians (ACOG) and

Gynecologists says that “Abortion is an essential component to women’s healthcare (The

American College of Obstetricians).” ACOG believes that according to the U.S. constitution,

women have a right to their bodies, meaning that they can obtain and abortion. The other side

believes that abortion ends the rights of a human person, resulting in the murder of an unborn

human being. These sides are juxtaposing. They cannot be compatible with each other, and that it

why is it such a polarizing dilemma. The side that believes in the choice of the mother is labeled

as “pro-choice”, while the other side that believes in the rights of the fetus is labeled as “pro-

life”. Each side believes just as strongly they are correct, resulting in the ethical dilemma and

there are no easy ways that this dilemma can be solved.

This dilemma reaches out to every single member of society. Each person has a duty to

protect life at all stages. When the United States founding fathers declared independence in 1776,

they stated that “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

(Declaration of Independence).” As citizens of America, it is important to remember many of the

principles that our country was built on. This statement from the declaration can be used to say

that mothers wishing to abort their children, have the right to do so. They can use it, but it would

be used to say that mothers have the right to kill their babies. It should be used in the way that all

human beings have these unalienable rights, especially the unprotected unborn ones. If humans

are not willing to protect life at its earliest stages, then the human species is prone to not protect
4

it in others. We can already see this unfold in the recent development of physician assisted

suicide, which will not be addressed in this paper.

The conflicting rights in this dilemma are the rights of human babies and rights of human

mothers. The duties of mothers who choose to abort their children, conflict with the fact that

their children are entitled to the same rights that they are entitled to. Every single person has a

right to life and that is taken away from babies when they are killed. One of the main underlying

problems of abortion, it that abortion itself is a euphemism. Abortion is a nice word for the

reality of the murder of an unborn child. This train of thought can deceive people into thinking

that abortion is an acceptable practice when it is quite the opposite.

The people that are involved in the decision making for abortion would be the mother and

the physician that procures the abortion. According to ACOG regarding in the education of

physicians “Abortion care is included in medical training, clinical practice, and continuing

medical education (ACOG).” This being the case, physicians are trained to do these procedures.

The foundation for the duty comes from ACOG listing abortion as one of the services that make

up Gynecologic care. The American Journal of Bioethics says “Once the physician–patient

relationship is created, the physician’s duty to the patient requires her or him to conform to

professionally acceptable standards of reasonable medical care. The relationship is usually

created when a person contracts for the professional services of a physician (Nelson).” Factors

that limit the ability of physicians to perform abortions often come from laws, which will be

discussed later in this paper. Other factors can include physician conscious objections. Some

physicians have religious or personal beliefs that can allow them to object to perform an

abortion. The American Journal of bioethics argues that “conscientious refusals to end a

pregnancy in these circumstances can constitute murder or reckless homicide.” What they are
5

saying is that they think physicians that refuse to perform abortions can result in the women

trying to get an abortion in a less safe way, should be held liable.

The most updated law that deals with the issue in the United States is the case of Dobbs

v. Jackson. This case rules that “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and

Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their

elected representatives (Dobbs).”. They showed why it is not guaranteed in the constitution.

They said that “The Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to

an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a

constitutional right to obtain an abortion (Dobbs).” The court says that historically in America,

abortion was not legal, and the grounds that made it legal in Roe v. Wade were not sufficient.

This case declared the abortion is not in the federal constitution, and that abortion is now to be

decided by the state governments. An abortion law that was put into place as a result of Dobbs, is

the Abortion Control Act in North Dakota. The aim of the law is “To protect unborn human life

and maternal health within present constitutional limits. It reaffirms the tradition of the state of

North Dakota to protect every human life whether unborn or aged, healthy, or sick (Abortion

Control Act).” A sharp contrast with that abortion control act is Proposition 1, which was

recently passed in the midterm elections of 2022. This law states that “The California

Constitution says that the state cannot deny or interfere with a person’s reproductive freedom and

that people have the fundamental right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and whether

or not to use contraceptives.” This shows the variety in the types of laws in different states that

now can be passed from the result of Dobbs.

There are many different courses of action that can be taken regarding abortion. One

could be continuing to expand abortion throughout the Unites States. The other would be
6

continuing to reduce abortions throughout the United States. The consequence of expanding

abortion would be a continued decrease in the population growth rate, as well as a decreased

value for human life as time goes on. The consequence of reducing abortion would be an

increase in the sanctity of life in the United States, as well as an increase in the population

growth rate. A deontologist would say that we need to put the best interests of the patient and the

baby first. When you have a pregnant mom, there are two patients that need to be taken care of,

not just the mother. A deontologist would end abortion for the best interests of both the mother

and the baby. Utilitarianism is the view that “The happiness or the pleasure as the good (Allan)”

and using any means necessary to achieve that end. A utilitarian would say that abortion is okay

if it results in the woman’s happiness. However, the ethical principles of beneficence,

nonmaleficence, and autonomy contradict this claim. Beneficence is contradicted because the

physician is not acting in the best interests of the patient. Nonmaleficence is contradicted

because the physician is harming the fetus. The autonomy of the fetus is taken away when it is

murdered in the uterus. The pro-life standpoint promotes all three of these principles. One could

argue that it does take away from the autonomy of the mother, but it does not because no one has

the right to kill anyone. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare says that

“Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly

intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted.”

The nursing code of ethics provisions one and eight are applicable to the pro-life side of

the dilemma. Provision one states that “The nurse practices with compassion and respect for the

inherent dignity, worth, and unique attributes of every person.” Provision eight states that “The

nurse collaborates with other health care professionals and the public protect human rights,

promote health diplomacy, and reduce health disparities (Hegge).”

7

Nurses should respond to the abortion dilemma with compassion and understanding.

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare says that “Catholic health care

providers should be ready to offer compassionate physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual

care to those persons who have suffered from the trauma of abortion (Bransfield).” A study done

about the psychological side effects of abortion, found that “at least one-third of the respondents

have experienced psychological side effects (Pourreza & Batebi).” Therefore, it is important to

be welcoming to any mothers who may be going through the trauma of abortion.

What I would recommend is that the dignity of life is promoted in healthcare and in

society. It is important to show that life has value from conception to natural death. There is a

reason that murdering someone will get you in jail for life. We need to have a culture of life to

improve the morality of society. It is also important to have understanding and compassion with

the pregnant mothers. If people judge and ridicule mothers for considering abortion, it will only

make it worse. There is a reason that there are many pregnancy resource centers for mothers

around the country.

Abortion is a hot topic in the society today with two juxtaposing sides. One being

utilitarian and one being deontological. The utilitarian side does not support the dignity of human

life, while the deontological side supports it. Mothers and physicians both have duties to protect

life, going with principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence. The United States Supreme Court

took a big step by making abortion unconstitutional and giving the power back to the states in the

Dobbs v. Jackson decision. If a culture of life can be promoted in America rather than a culture

of death, the moral dilemma of abortion would be much less of a dilemma and more of a

normality in society.
8

References

Abortion Control Act (North Dakota Legislature July 28, 2022)

Allan, Leslie (2015). Contraception and Abortion: A Utilitarian View

https://www.rationalrealm.com/philosophy/ethics/contraception-abortion-utilitarian-

view.html

Austriaco, Nicanor. (2021). Biomedicine and Beatitude: An Introduction to Catholic Bioethics,

Second Edition. The Catholic University of America Press, 64

Bransfield, B. (2018). Ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
https://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/upload/ethical-
religious-directives-catholic-health-service-sixth-edition-2016-06.pdf

DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL (Supreme Court
of the United States June 24, 2024).

Hegge, Marge. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. American Nurses
Association. https://www.nursingworld.org/coe-view-only

Nelson, Lawrence. (2018). Provider conscientious refusal of abortion, obstetrical emergencies,

and criminal homicide law. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(7), 43–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1478017

Pourreza, A., & Batebi, A. (2011). Psychological consequences of abortion among the post
abortion care seeking women in Tehran. Iranian journal of psychiatry. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395931/

Provision 1, (California Legislature November 8, 2022)

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2022). Abortion is healthcare.

https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/abortion-is-healthcare

U.S Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2 (1776).