Abstract
Chapter 1 Introduction
3.6: Kantian De-ontology and the Problem of Abortion
3.6.2: Implication of Kantian Theory on Abortion
It can be said that so far as the problem of abortion is concerned, it is to be seen whether the act of abortion has been done under a goodwill or not? Kant does not say anything directly on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. But the way he says about the rightness or wrongness of an action, can also be applied to the problem abortion.
From Kantian point of view, if we see the problem of abortion, it can be said that a woman is a person, because she is a rational animal. So far as the issue of abortion is concerned, as a rational animal, the pregnant woman has the capacity to decide whether the act of abortion is morally right or not. Because a mother is a rational human, that is why all rational decision will be taken by her in a moral or ethical manner. In fact it is the prime duty of everyone to protect the mother’s will. The mother’s decision may go for or against of the good of the foetus. But the final decision regarding abortion is to take by the pregnant woman only.
Kantian theory can analyses the drives for sex, reproduction, and care of off-spring as compatible with and conducive to morality, as bearing and raising children are meaningful, worthwhile activities for every individual and these make important contributions to society.
Nevertheless, the impulses connected with our animality raise moral problems.
One important question may arise here whether a woman has the right to do abortion or not?
Kant would say to the woman who wants to have an abortion that if every other woman would say that she wants to terminate her pregnancy then abortion is moral. If a woman says
“no,” then abortion cannot be moral. Since an individual woman’s will to terminate her pregnancy not be representative of the general ‘will’ of every other woman, so it is not possible to relate an individual human beings (pregnant woman’s) ‘will’ with those of others. To will that all women have abortions would mean that no women could have an abortion after the current generation died off. By Kant’s reasoning, this makes abortion irrational and, therefore, immoral. The maxim "You should have an abortion"
becomes a self-contradictory universal maxim "Everyone should have abortions". It couldn't possibly work, as there would be no people to have abortions.49
When a Kantian thinker tries to apply a categorical imperative to the issue of abortion they may say, ‘always preserve life at all costs, that demands a pregnant woman would always carry their babies to term for the sake of duty and only duty, and not for the sake of any other reason or motive. According to the Kantian view, the pleasure (or happiness) or pain (physical and emotional) that follows up because of mothering is nothing but coincidental to the action and not morally significant, since this would be to bring hypothetical imperatives back into the decision. Kant is concerned with willing and with wishing, wanting, or preferring. According to Kant, the question is not what an agent (or pregnant woman) can
49 Pratt, B. (2011, 11 15). What Would Kant Say About Abortion? Retrieved 03 22, 2012, from Tough Questions Answered:A Christian Apologetics Blog: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/11/15/what- would-kant-say-about-abortion/
‘will’ base on some inclinations or feelings she has, but what reason commits her to, or precludes her from willing.50
Harry Gensler in this connection argues that abortion is wrong and that certain Kantian consistency requirements more or less force us into thinking this.51 And in ‘A Kantian Approach to Abortion,’ R.M. Hare uses the ‘Kantian’ notion of universal prescriptively to argue that ‘abortion (is) prima facie and in general wrong’ and ‘that a principle forbidding it in general is the one we should adopt’ for use at the intuitive level of moral thinking of abortion. 52 Hare tried to distinguish between the ‘critical level’ of moral thinking, which one should rarely try to translate immediately into practical guidance, and the ‘intuitive level’ of moral thinking, which contains the kind of simple, general principles useful in our day to day moral life.53
It may be the case that the duties or principles might clash and there may be a conflict of duty. If the choice is to save the baby or the mother, then who will be chosen or who should be given preference? By trying to answer this question a deontologist mainly would say that whatever moral truths they use that they cannot answer the complex dilemmas surrounding abortion. That is not to say that the approach as a whole is wrong just because it does not work in one instance (e.g. preservation of life when have to choose mother or baby). But
50 Abortion: Kantian Perspective. (2011, 9 3). Retrieved from KANT AND ABORTION.doc:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BZTPTaQmUuIJ:www.dioceseofleeds.org.uk/education/files/wo rd/KANT%2520AND%2520ABORTION.doc+When+a+Kantian+applies+a+categorical+imperative+to+the+is sue+of+abortion+they+may+use,+%E2%80%98always+preserve+life+at+al
51L. Denis, (2007). Abortion and Kant’s Formula. Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 37 (4), 547-580.
52 R.M. Hare,. (1989). A Kantian Approach to Abortion. Social Theory and Practice, 15(1), 1–14.
rather that any absolute moral principle will eventually face a circumstance where a subjective judgement has to be made, and thus perhaps a balance must be struck between absolutes and pragmatic approaches.54