Introduction
Abortion has always played a central role in politics, especially in the rich countries, particularly the United States and its close friends, Canada and Britain. It is not hard to understand why this issue would be central to the politics of this developed countries because as it is well known, abortion is a very sensitive issue that is centered around freedom, gender equality and about the role of women in the society. On the opposite end, opponents of this might argue that it may infringe the laws of humanity while other religious bodies say that it is against humanity and the rule of God. With all these controversies surrounding the right to abortion, various considerations, particularly on ethics, need to be considered. As per my opinion, the ethical theory that is closely aligned with this notion that women should be granted the right to expel a fetus is the deontological theory which is basically centered on the need to do something.  So, why shouldn’t women be granted the right to allow abortion yet it is their decision to make considering it is their body, it is part of childbearing, freedom, and equality, and simply because it affects the women disproportionately?
There are three types of ethical theories centered on all life situations. The three theories are the ethical theory, consequential theory, and deontological theory. The first one is basically centered on morals and ethics that guide a community while the second and third theories are rather opposing (Brody, 1996). The deontological theory basically assesses what we ought to do in contrast to the theories that assess an individual on what he/she ought to be. Finally, consequentialism theories assess the right or wrong of an action depending on the outcome and end results. All these theories are basically founded on various principles and hence have very little room for an intersection.
 
The Deontological theory
The deontological theory basically focuses on the actions and the outcomes. In this regards, it argues that the rightness or wrongness of actions determines the outcome of an act, and the positivity or negativity of a situation is determined by the actions that brought it. Furthermore, the right decision is basically above priorities or the goodness associated with it. As a matter of fact, the theory asserts that by having a proper reason for an act, the outcomes are always right regardless of the perception of the other theories of ethics. In the case of abortion, a woman might supposedly have financial troubles in the sense that bringing up a child would result in pain and treachery on both parties. Another example is the fact that giving birth to a child with some sort of inability is bound to have a lifetime impact on his/her and the mother. These are just examples that might be used to justify abortion according to the deontological theory of ethics.
The third branch is the contractarian deontological theory. It basically describes a wrong act as that which is forbidden by principles of which people in a suitably described social contract would accept, or that would be forbidden only by principles that such people could not “reasonably reject” (Ellis, 1992). As a matter of fact, all the norms of the society bind those people who understand them in the form of a contract The contractarian theory basically tries to bridge the gap between the two theories and is basically described to be more patient-centered. On this regard, we have to consider a woman undertaking an abortion, of which she is not going against the principles forbidden by the society.
Criticism and Weakness of the Deontological Theory
Though the theory may be described to adequately cover some ethical issues on the modern society, it has been observed to have some flaws and mistakes that are indicated below. Deontology may be regarded as a paradoxical theory because it may make the world morally worse primarily because it advocates for individual judgment. The major effect is felt on patient-centered deontological approaches and it has been proposed for deontologists to have their own rational purposes and response that do not give people the freedom to do whatever they like. In this regard, abortion has always been regarded as an unethical and morally wrong behavior of which there should be legal implications against it. This is not the same case for deontologists through the agent-centered and patient-centered approaches which give the woman freedom to abort the baby.
Finally, there is the possibility of situations, which follow deontological norms resulting into disastrous consequences. As stated above cases of abortion have not always had fruitful results. Many women have ended up being promiscuous after the first abortion while some have not made it successfully. This is a disastrous consequence that might be associated with deontological theory
Conclusion
It is important to consider that women should be granted the rights to conduct an abortion, but there should be measures taken to prevent a possibility of a disaster, something not catered for by the deontological theory. Regardless, the theory is useful in championing for the rights to abortion particularly on the basis of equality, freedom, childbearing, decision making, and misappropriation among others. Furthermore, the theory provides some sort of ethical comfort to parties that are still unsure of their act
References
B, B. (1996). Withdrawing of Treatment Versus Killing of Patients,” in Intending Death. Upper Saddle River: .: Prentice-Hall.
Davis, N. (1984). ‘the Doctrine of Double Effect: Problems of Interpretation,”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
Dougherty, T. (2013). “Rational Numbers: A Non-Consequentialist Explanation of Why You Should Save the Many and Not the Few,”. Philosophical Quarterly,
Ellis, A. (1992). “Deontology, Incommensurability and the Arbitrary,”. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research.
J, b. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and of Legislation, (1948 ed.). Oxford:.
R, B. (2007). “Deontology, Paradox, and Moral Evil,”. Social Theory and Practice,