Consequalist ethics’ base the arguments on basically two principles: the results of an act determine whether it is right or wrong and the better the results of an act are, the more right it is.In this regard, the act of abortion can be regarded as morally right if better results come out of the act of abortion (Medical Ethics, 2017). On the downside, the act is morally wrong if better results come from the baby not being aborted. Consequentialist theories particularly focus on various questions such as: What sort of consequences count as good consequences?”, “Who is the primary beneficiary of moral action?”, “How are the consequences judged and who judges them? “There are various consequentialist theories that have been devised such as the utilitarian and hedonistic utilitarianism. In this essay we which will focus on utiliatirism. 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
In the first regard, the theory of utiliatirism basically states that the morality of an act depends solely on some relation that it has to the maximization of total or average utility (Chappell, 1992).In this, people should maximize the well-being of themselves and that killing of an unborn baby devaluates the human life. The basis of the opposition is that killing a fetus is just as serious as killing a fully grown human being and this will, in turn, lead to various trends of killing. Various scholars in this sub-branch have tried to develop theories which try to argue such as in the case of abortion. Some of the scholars include Elizabeth Anscombe and Bernard Williams.
In the case that women should be granted the rights to do abortion as they wish, there is the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. The financial capabilities and the possibility of the child being born with a disability tend to be more towards this notion. In this, the mother may not have the financial power to support a child and there is bound to be more pain, both to the mother and child if he/she is born with any disability.
On an underside, critics have argued that this theory does not provide the pathway to solve a problem since it depends on the end results (Chappell, 1992). If abortion leads to more pain, it is wrong but if it leads to pleasure it is right. Furthermore, it does not distinguish between the consequences that are intended and those foreseen.
Conclusively, the theory may be regarded as much dependent on the end results as the act itself. Therefore it does not provide a methodology to solve any problem such as the case of abortion and therefore has faced various criticism. Nonetheless, the theory holds a foothold on granting women the rights to abortion because it is their choice, of which the outcome will determine the rightness or wrong of the act,
Chappell, T. (1992). Consequentialism and Abortion.
Medical Ethics. (2017). Consequentialism and Abortion.