Sue's Argument On Abortion

Abortion is a very controversial issue, with strong opinions on both sides. As time goes on the moral and legal debate on whether or not abortion is morally acceptable or legally justified goes on. There is no doubt that abortion is an issue primarily with women, because they are the ones that carry the baby inside of them for nine months. I’m surprised I haven’t found or heard of many stories where the father of this child speaks out. I would like to look at the father’s rights in abortion. In other words: Fathers consent on abortion? First, I will set up a moral system to evaluate and solve this dilemma. Second, I will describe a case about this issue and then offer a morally reasoned solution to the issue. Finally, I will offer my conclusions

Sue is revering this child’s right to life. In this case Sue is in violation in the child’s rights. Because Sue’s life is not in danger because of this pregnancy there is no greater good. The Principle of Goodness or Rightness is violated in this case. Sue is violating this right because she is going to harm the baby by ending the child’s life. This is violating the nonmaleficence of the Principle of Goodness or Rightness. Jim is also violating the beneficence of this right because according to Sue what she is doing is good and not out of badness. Ending this pregnancy means Sue can move on with her life and forget about her failed marriage and this is good for Sue. Also Sue is violating Jim’s beneficence right in this principle in the same way. This is because according to Jim the act of ending the pregnancy is bad to him because he wants the baby to live. He wants the baby to have a life. The Principle of Justice or Fairness is violated in Sue’s case because her acts are bad against the baby and Jim. Because everyone should have an equal right of obtaining good or bad this is not giving that equal opportunity. If sue ends the pregnancy she is the only person obtaining good. If the baby remains in the womb and the pregnancy is taken to a healthy full term. The baby obtains good by getting a chance at life. Also Jim obtains good by getting the child he always wished he had. Sue

Jim wants to have this child and raise it. He is entitled to make the moral decisions for this fetus just as much as Sue is. In this case the principles are going to violate each other’s rights, because they have conflicting views. Sue wants to end this pregnancy because her marriage failed and she just wants to move on with her life. Jim wants to continue with the pregnancy because he wants the child no matter how their relationship turned out. In this situation I have to look at what is in the best interest for this child. The best interest would be for Sue to continue with the pregnancy and then when the child is delivered she can give up her rights to the child and Jim would only be responsible for raising the child. It is going to be hard to force Sue to continue with the pregnancy because that is a huge violation to her. Since it is Sue’s body and she has the right to do what she will with her body and who uses it. The child is also Jim’s too he put up his half for that baby to be conceived. If Jim never gave his half the baby would never even be alive inside Sue. In this case you have to look at the greater good. If Sue does what she wants to do and that is to end the pregnancy that is not the greater good. The greater good would be to give life to the child and that benefits the child and give Jim the child. That is