Natural Law says that abortion is incorrect because life is a valuable gift from God and hence merely he can take it off. A truster of the natural jurisprudence would state that the unborn fetus should hold the same position as a born homo being because life starts at the minute of construct which means that no affair how long the fetus has been turning. abortion is slaying. This point ties in with the right to life and other spiritual attacks. Under Natural Law. abortion is the larceny of guiltless life – traveling against one of the Primary principles. Abortion undermines the Primary precept which encourages society to reproduce and turn. All these expostulations come down to one point. Man’s ultimate intent is to populate in a manner which glorifies God. Abortion can non foster this primary purpose. Natural jurisprudence could be used as an attack to abortion as It protects society from an attitude in which human life can be seen as disposable. It makes a adult female think of the deductions before holding sex because they know that a expiration will non be an option for them and it affirms the continuation of human life and regard for human life.
However. it simplifies abortion because it doesn’t take into history the fortunes of the female parent or the child- it merely makes the determination that abortion is incorrect. It besides doesn’t take into consideration things like colza. Aids or a kid being born into an opprobrious household and can therefore look a harsh and judgemental attack to an agonizing quandary by coercing a adult female into maintaining an unwanted babe and besides taking away her duty and power. Utilitarianism is another attack to abortion ; it is a teleological attack to moralss. A utilitarianist would state whether a adult female should hold an abortion or non depending on what is the best result for as many people as possible. Act Utilitarlianism would be a more appropriate system to use to single quandary of whether to hold an abortion. Act Utility sees the greatest good as that which brings most happiness and least hurting. There would be enough of clip to use the Hedonic Calculus to any single state of affairs to seek to work out whether abortion would be the right action. This attack is strong as it’s flexible ; each state of affairs can be measured utilizing the Hedonic Calculus.
The female parent can make a determination by herself. she becomes independent. But it besides takes into history the male parents feelings. other household members etc – it looks at the household state of affairs a babe would be born into. However. you besides don’t cognize what the result of a state of affairs will be. E. g. A adult female may take to hold an abortion because she has excessively many kids and knows it would impact them. After holding an abortion she may go down and will be in no better province to look after them. Kant was a deontological mind and harmonizing to his theory of the Categorical Imperative. 1 must happen a axiom in regard to abortion which they could universalise in order to detect what to make when faced with unwanted gestation. He doesn’t tackle this job but he could hold argued that abortion is immoral in all fortunes as he strongly believed that human life was of infinite value and that it should be protected. Furthermore. he besides believed that one of the cosmopolitan Torahs was ‘do non slaying. ’
Having an abortion would interrupt this cosmopolitan jurisprudence and stop a valuable life. However. he might besides hold argued that all people should hold the right to find what happens to their ain organic structure. In this instance. a cosmopolitan axiom might allow abortion on the evidences that the adult female has the right to self finding over her organic structure. Likewise. his trust on human ground as a tool for happening out moral truth could take to a cosmopolitan axiom in which each individual straight affected by unwanted gestation would do their ain determination as to whether to abort or non. Kant’s theory is a good attack as a cosmopolitan axiom on abortion would intend that determination devising would be simple. The statement could be taken both ways and so. we can’t cognize his existent position. However. it could be argued as weak because Kant’s doctrine does non give any definite penetration into what a cosmopolitan axiom about abortion should be. In add-on to this. Kant’s insisting upon human ground as a cardinal factor in human worth might intend that the mother’s penchant would take unreasonable precedency over the public assistance of the unborn kid.