The Ethics of Abortion

The Ethics of Abortion: Examining the Ethicality of Abortion Through Various Ethical Frameworks

By Annabelle Walter

After Roe v. Wade was overturned with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the question of access to abortion was put in the hands of state governments. Debates and protests surrounding abortion access quickly swept the nation, as pro-lifers fought for reproductive autonomy and pro-choicers worried for the rights of the fetus and how we value life. In my paper, I examine all perspectives of the abortion decision with equal weight through three ethical frameworks, deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics. My analysis of the abortion issue through these various ethical frameworks aims to answer the question of the ethicality of pursuing abortion and to broaden understanding of the complexities surrounding abortion. 

Table of Contents

• Abstract
• Background and Why Ethics
• Deontology
• Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
• Virtue Ethics
• Conclusion

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision on Roe v. Wade, stating that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the nearly 50-year precedent established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Consequently, the legality of abortion has become an issue for state legislatures to address. While some states, like New Jersey, maintain the right to abortion and have passed legislation protecting this right, others, like Alabama, have outlawed abortion almost completely, with limited exceptions for cases where the mother is at risk.

In this paper, I will explore the question of whether abortion as a procedure is ethical. My purpose is to even-handedly analyze all sides of the abortion dilemma by looking at it through the lens of various ethical frameworks and bioethical principles. The ethical frameworks of deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, will help to guide understanding of arguments for and against access to abortion services. Ultimately, by approaching this issue through the ethical lenses of deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, I hope to encourage critical examination of one’s personal beliefs and values and a willingness to seek to understand other perspectives. 

Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization

In order to understand the ethical implications associated with the debate on access to abortion services, it’s vital to understand the legal history of abortion rights and the ensuing political turmoil. The Supreme Court’s Roe V. Wade decision of 1973 established that access to abortion was a constitutional right. Seven out of nine justices agreed that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” – implies privacy. Furthermore, the justices turned to the precedent created by other decisions, indicating that the term “liberty” had to be interpreted broadly in a free society. It was decided that abortion was a right protected by the Constitution but that States would have increasing regulatory power over abortion as pregnancies progressed. Once a fetus reaches viability, state governments would have the autonomy to ban access to abortion, except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother.​​ In the years following Roe v. Wade, a few cases surrounding abortion made it to the Supreme Court, decisions vital to securing the right to access abortion services and affirming the decision made in Roe. Casey v. Planned Parenthood was one of such cases that affirmed the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade: that access to abortion services was a right protected in the United States Constitution. Consequently, states were prohibited from banning most abortions. 

However, in 2022, The Supreme Court decisions in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned this precedent set by Roe V. Wade and all following Supreme Court abortion decisions that affirmed this initial verdict, such as Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The Dobbs decision meant that abortion was no longer considered a right protected by the United States Constitution. Therefore, abortion has become a state issue, and local governments are in the process of drafting and passing legislation regarding when and if abortions are legal. These abortion laws now vary by state, and many are still preparing and implementing new ones. These laws typically reflect the region and the beliefs of the majority political party. These laws are wide-ranging, and while some states, like New Jersey, allow access to abortion, many do not. Seven states, one being Georgia, allow abortions only in cases of incest or rape. Additionally, states like Alabama and Texas have outlawed abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest, unless it can be proven that the mother faces serious medical risk. Eleven more states have implemented this total abortion ban. 

The Ethical Lens

Though abortion is an extremely prevalent issue in our society right now, I chose to examine it through an ethical lens. Ultimately, legality does not necessarily align with ethicality, and the politicization of this issue has led to aggressive and uncompromising responses. Even peaceful protests cannot overshadow the vandalism, harassment, intimidation, and violence perpetrated towards and by individuals from all sides of the abortion issue. It is a lack of understanding of these different sides that has led to mutual hostile discussion of this issue. By looking at this issue through an ethical lens, we evaluate it from the perspective that it presents a conflict between two values – (“right vs. right”), and it’s important to consider the various stakeholders and viewpoints involved equally. 

By looking at this issue through an ethical lens, we evaluate it from the perspective that it presents a conflict between two values – (“right vs. right”), and it’s important to consider the various stakeholders and viewpoints involved equally. 

When discussing the ethicality of abortion, it is vital to outline the various stakeholders involved and impacted by abortion access. The framework through which we choose to examine these stakeholders and the stakeholder we decide to prioritize will determine the “most ethical” choice. Some of these stakeholders include pregnant women, the fetus, society, lawmakers, politicians, and doctors. All of these stakeholders have different interests and intentions, some have duties to institutions and society, and all will experience different consequences due to the abortion decision. The abortion dilemma is a highly complex issue, one riddled with many ethical questions. In order to gain a fuller picture of this dilemma, it’s essential to identify these questions: How do we define the value of a life? When does life begin? What is our duty to the fetus and the mother? Do the positive consequences of abortion outweigh the negative? Does the intention of a mother impact the ethicality of the procedure? The frameworks examined will attempt to answer these questions in pursuit of the answer to the ultimate question: is abortion itself ethical? 

This framework prioritizes one’s duties, ranging from moral rules laid upon us by reason, required by rationality and commanding universal rational acceptance, to those laid upon us by contracts and oaths.

The first framework we will examine the issue of abortion through is that of deontology. Deontology asserts that an action is right if it acts in accordance with a moral rule or principle. This framework prioritizes one’s duties, ranging from moral rules laid upon us by reason, required by rationality and commanding universal rational acceptance, to those laid upon us by contracts and oaths. Those who support restricting abortion access appeal to our moral duty highlighted in the social contract to protect life, the duty to abide by one’s religion, and the duty of doctors to abide by the hippocratic oath, and the duty of non-maleficence. In discussing these duties, one must also consider the answer to the question of the status of the fetus, as the way in which one regards the life of the fetus will inherently impact the duties one sees as relevant to this discussion and those necessary to uphold. First, we can consider our duty to abide by the social contract and the legal and moral rules outlined within it. For example, the duty not to kill is derived from human nature and reason itself, and is reflected in our social contract as a legal obligation that most members of the nation, beyond police and armed forces, are expected to uphold. This legal obligation in our social contract is derived from a moral norm and obligation to preserve life.

 Most deontologists will admit that the fetus is a human being, as it is growing and represents a potential or actual life. However, differences in opinion arise concerning whether or not this is morally conclusive in terms of the ethicality of abortion, as deontologists identify a fundamental difference between a human and a person, and the rights granted to them. According to philosopher Mary Anna Warren (1973), personhood entails “1. consciousness . . . and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types…; 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness…”. A human being, on the other hand, is defined simply as the development of an organism into a human life that begins after fertilization. Some deontologists might argue that simply being alive does not warrant moral consideration, but that personhood is required in order to justify the application of rules of reason, such as the duty not to kill, to an organism. Peter Singer, a philosopher, argues this perspective, that “to be ethical, we must treat all “persons” according to moral guidelines. But not all humans are “persons”. According to this line of reasoning, a deontologist who considers a fetus to be a human may not necessarily consider them to be a person, and may therefore not view abortion as killing. Other deontologists might grant moral consideration to the fetus simply by virtue of the fact that the fetus is a human being and has the potential to develop personhood. This deontologist would consider abortion to be murder, and therefore, unethical regardless of how the fetus was conceived or the status of the mother. 

Deontologists identify a fundamental difference between a human and a person, and the rights granted to them. According to philosopher Mary Anna Warren (1973), personhood entails “1. consciousness . . . and in particular the capacity to feel pain; 2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems); 3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control); 4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types…; 5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness…”. A human being, on the other hand, is defined simply as the development of an organism into a human life that begins after fertilization.

The status of the fetus and the moral consideration granted to it can be disputed in many different contexts beyond the philosophical lens of person v. human and the rights that should be granted to a fetus based on how it is classified. One can also explore medicinal ideas of the stages of development of a fetus as well as differing religious ideas of when a fetus is considered a person in considering the status of the fetus with regard to abortion. 

Even within medicine, there are a variety of perspectives surrounding what metrics from the fetus should make the option of abortion unavailable for the mother, and when a fetus should be considered a human life. For example, some believe that once a fetus experiences pain, or once a heartbeat has been discovered, that abortion would be unethical and this would be considered killing a child. Miklavcic and Flaman describe two schools of thought within medical ethics surrounding the status of the fetus wherein some believe that personhood starts at fertilization, when the nucleus of a female gamete and the nucleus of a male gamete fuse together, while others believe that a fetus becomes a human being at some point afterwards. Those who believe personhood begins at fertilization argue that a human being has existed since fertilization, and the different stages of pregnancy, such as “zygote”, “embryo”, and “fetus”, “describe stages of biological human development and as such, do not describe the development into a human life” . By this line of thinking, one would regard abortion to be murder at any point during the pregnancy. However, others argue that these different stages of a pregnancy mark the potential for becoming a human being, not necessarily markers of personhood in and of themselves. These individuals assert that personhood is established sometime after fertilization, based on either a certain stage or the development of certain characteristics. For example, some designate personhood at the third trimester, when a fetus has reached the stage of complete organ and tissue formation and can survive in an extra-uterine environment. In this case, abortion before the third trimester would not be considered murder, because the fetus would not be regarded as a human life yet. 

On the other hand, one may rely on their religious beliefs to come to conclusions surrounding the status of the fetus and the ethicality of abortion. Different religions believe a fetus to become a human being at different stages during pregnancy. For example, Jewish law, unlike many other religions, does not believe that personhood begins at conception. Instead, it asserts that a fetus cannot be considered a living being until it is born. Catholics, on the other hand, typically argue that a fetus becomes a human being after conception, and should therefore have all the same rights as a person. Religion plays a huge role in the abortion debate, and though I will not be examining it in this paper, it is certainly an important factor to consider when it comes to the status of the fetus and many will come to a conclusion on the ethicality of abortion based on the duty to follow their religion.  

The personhood of the fetus will also influence how physicians approach their professional duties. This brings us to the intersection of deontology with the healthcare industry and the role of physicians. In a medical setting, examining the stakeholder of the doctor, health professionals have a duty to uphold nonmaleficence, otherwise known as the duty to “do no harm”, as stated by the Hippocratic Oath. Though the concept seems intuitive enough, the application of this promise is not easy to navigate, as doing no harm is nuanced and subjective in medical emergencies. For example, we can examine a situation where a doctor is approached by a pregnant woman requesting an abortion whose life is at risk as a result of her pregnancy. A deontologist who viewed the mother as the main stakeholder might argue that according to their duty to “do no harm”, they have an ethical obligation to perform an abortion if asked. This is because choosing not to perform an abortion would still be choosing to put her life at risk, doing harm and consequently breaking a doctor’s duty to the Hippocratic Oath. The caveat of this stance lies in whether you believe that choosing to do nothing is an action in and of itself. Some argue that choosing not to perform a procedure with the knowledge that it may be harming the mental or physical health of the patient would be violating the obligation to do no harm. This position may become problematic when it comes to the autonomy of the physician, as it’s an established norm of medical ethics that physicians can refuse to provide care if their conscience dictates. Therefore, “harm” would imply an active role, and one must be actively performing a procedure or doing something in order to evoke harm. From this perspective, choosing not to perform an abortion on moral grounds would not be a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Physicians would simply be employing their autonomy to act according to their own moral compass by not treating the patient at hand. Based on this line of thinking, another doctor presented with this same scenario might consider “doing no harm” and the most ethical course of action to be prioritizing the stakeholder of the fetus by not performing the abortion. 

Next, we can examine the ethicality of abortion through the ethical frameworks of consequentialism and utilitarianism, both of which see people as vehicles for value rather than as valuable in and of themselves. Utilitarianism judges the ethicality of an action based on whether it maximizes happiness, or pleasure, and minimizes pain for all sentient beings involved. Similarly, a consequentialist believes an action is right if it promotes the best consequences, those being outcomes that produce more benefit than harm. So, how can these frameworks be applied to the issue of abortion? As mentioned, a deontologist might assert that abortion is unethical, as we have a duty not to kill and take life. A consequentialist might argue that abortion presents a dangerous slippery slope, wherein we may lose the value of life by normalizing the taking of potential lives. This is also more of a utilitarian standpoint, as protecting society from the harm of devaluing all life, causing a cultural shift in our attitude towards the value of life, may be prioritized over the harm to an individual forced to follow through with pregnancy. Though devaluing life is considered a very long term and unintended consequence, we can analyze the ways in which, in some sense, this has already occurred. When abortion law was first passed, people were shocked and abortion was still very much looked down upon. Now, nearly 50 years later, abortion is much more normalized, and is even considered by some as a form of birth control. Additionally, statistics from the CDC shows that the abortion rate jumped from 193,000 legally reported to the CDC in 1970 to 1.6 million in 1980. This goes to show that access to abortion does desensitize individuals to the fact that it ends a potential life, as seen in the difference in societal attitude towards this procedure pre Roe and post Roe. Because of this, someone who opposes legalized abortion might say that increasing the risk of unsafe (illegal) abortion is acceptable if it reduces the large number of legal abortion. Most, if not all people, agree it is tragic when pregnant women die as a result of unsafe (illegal) abortions. However, people who oppose legalized abortion may feel that it is more important to foster a “culture of life” that emphasizes the importance of fetal life and, over time, cultivates a social and political environment in which women are less likely to seek abortions and more likely to pursue alternatives like adoption. 

Some consequentialist analyses of abortion access focus on the effects (e.g., mental health effects, financial impacts, etc.) of reducing access to abortion for a pregnant woman, the fetus, and the woman’s other family members.  

First, we can consider medical risks to the mother. By not allowing access to abortion, we may simply be banning access to safe abortions. According to an article by Women’s Midlife Health, “…decades of research consistently show that abortion bans and restrictions don’t reduce unintended pregnancy or the demand for abortion, and do not improve women’s health. Instead, they impose significant hurdles to obtaining care, causing stress for people in need of abortion and leading some to experience forced pregnancy with all its consequences.” This shows that those who feel strongly that they are unable to support a child at this time in their life will likely still find ways of terminating pregnancy. Research by the ANSIRH estimates that around 7% of women in the United States will self-manage abortions in their lifetime. This poses a serious safety risk, as women may pursue methods such as using sharp objects to break the amniotic sac or pumping toxic mixtures in one’s body, which can lead to injury and maternal death. We saw practices like this in the past before abortion became a part of federal legislation. Statistically, abortion bans are likely to increase maternal deaths, as seen in a study by Nature. This is due to the fact that not only would women be forced to pursue unsafe, self-managed abortion options, but women might also be forced to bring life-threatening pregnancies to term.

“Decades of research consistently show that abortion bans and restrictions don’t reduce unintended pregnancy or the demand for abortion, and do not improve women’s health. Instead, they impose significant hurdles to obtaining care, causing stress for people in need of abortion and leading some to experience forced pregnancy with all its consequences.”

– Judith A. Berg and Nancy Fugate Woods, Women’s Midlife Health

Next, we can consider how this situation may generate the negative consequences of mental health issues for the mother as she may become overwhelmed and resentful if forced to have a child she knows she cannot support, especially if already struggling to support an existing family. At the same time, we cannot know the future and there are scenarios in which women who were denied an abortion and delivered a child subsequently changed their mind and were glad that they hadn’t had the procedure. To this end, one could consider the negative long term consequence to a mother’s mental health if they were to experience guilt and/or regret after having aborted a child.

Additionally, one can examine more long term financial implications for women around the country of banning abortion. Raising and caring for children not only during pregnancy, but once born, is extremely expensive. According to a study from Nature, women who are denied access to abortion generally face much more short term and long term financial stress than those who follow through with the procedure. This financial burden on women leads us to our next consequence, exacerbating inequalities across genders and classes. An unexpected pregnancy can negatively impact a woman’s professional development and career goals, causing setbacks that her male counterparts will never face, and thereby putting women at an inherent disadvantage. Additionally, banning access to abortion in certain states can further economic inequalities, as only women with the means to do so will be able to cross borders in pursuit of reproductive care. Therefore, banning abortion will disproportionately impact those of a lower socioeconomic status. This is a group that has historically been most in need of access to abortion services due to a sense of inability to support a child, and that is predominantly made up of people of color. Therefore, a system of discrimination against people of color and those of a lower socioeconomic status is continued by preventing these groups more than others from gaining access to abortion services.Ultimately, children are extremely expensive before and after birth, and many companies do not offer sufficient paid maternity leave or resources for mothers. This sets some women, typically those of a lower socioeconomic status who cannot afford to take off work or lose their jobs, behind male adversaries and other women who do have access to abortion services. 

Banning access to abortion in certain states can further economic inequalities, as only women with the means to do so will be able to cross borders in pursuit of reproductive care. Therefore, banning abortion will disproportionately impact those of a lower socioeconomic status. This is a group that has historically been most in need of access to abortion services due to a sense of inability to support a child, and that is predominantly made up of people of color.

If a mother does not have the means to support or raise a child, then lack of access to abortion means that the mother and fetus’s ability to survive and thrive will be limited.  Is a limited ability to survive and thrive better than non-existence?  How should we measure quality of life?  Someone who opposes access to legalized abortion would object to the suggestion that non-existence is better than an existence with limited resources. Economic stability alone does not guarantee happiness or health.  Additionally, someone who opposes legalized abortion might caution that if we suggest that people should have children only if they have achieved a certain financial status, we risk limiting who can or should have children.  By correlating a “life worth living” with financial wealth, we may be saying, in essence, that it is only moral to have children if one is financially secure – however that may be defined.  If this perspective is codified in policy and law, the reproductive autonomy of individuals with lower socioeconomic standing could be limited.

The last framework through which we will examine the issue of abortion is that of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics focuses on whether the character of the person acting is good, rather than the action itself being right. According to virtue ethics, “an action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances…and a virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues”. Virtues are described as traits that human beings require in order to flourish and live well, which encompasses not only one’s happiness but other aspects of overall well-being, such as life satisfaction and one’s sense of purpose. 

Typically, individuals use virtue ethics to address women’s rights in relation to the question of whether or not it is ethical for the government to create legislation surrounding abortion access. Hursthouse asserts that if we assume that women have a moral right to bodily autonomy, then it would be considered unethical for the government to impose legislation regulating women’s abortion (unjust, unfair, etc). However, this does not address the question of the morality of abortion itself from a virtue ethics lens. So, although Hursthouse addresses the importance of these considerations and moral perspectives surrounding the legal and legislative implications of the abortion issue, she mostly brackets them for the purposes of discussing the intersection of specifically virtue ethics and abortion. 

It is widely accepted within society that virtuous parents are compassionate, nurturing, and loving towards their offspring and family relationships. Though the status of the fetus is widely debated, it cannot be denied that abortion ends a human life, as a fetus is a human organism, and therefore, in a biological sense, a human life. This means there is a connection between abortion and human life and death. A virtue ethicist would argue that because of this connection, an individual pursuing an abortion callously, and without recognizing the significance of a fetus, would be unethical. This is because their lack of consideration for life, even potential life, would be rejecting the values of parenthood and family relationships, both of which are examples of objective conditions for the flourishing of human life determined by human nature itself. This is not to say that the development of the fetus will not impact the degree of emotional connection one feels towards it throughout pregnancy. Hursthouse asserts that the issue of the status of the fetus detracts from the discussion surrounding the ethicality of abortion itself, however, she points out that it would be expected for a parent to experience more or less emotion depending on the period of time they were living with the fetus. 

Though the status of the fetus is widely debated, it cannot be denied that abortion ends a human life, as a fetus is a human organism, and therefore, in a biological sense, a human life. This means there is a connection between abortion and human life and death. A virtue ethicist would argue that because of this connection, an individual pursuing an abortion callously, and without recognizing the significance of a fetus, would be unethical.

Based on this, a virtue ethicist, such as Hurthouse, would argue that it is vital for parents to understand and acknowledge the fact that abortion is taking a potential human life, regardless of what stage one is in pregnancy. In application, this means one will not pursue an abortion callously or light-mindedly. When women pursue abortions with virtuous intentions, and with consideration for the life of the fetus, a virtue ethicist would not consider abortion unethical. These could include financial, medical, or social concerns that indicate that a mother is not being callous or light-minded in pursuing an abortion. This is because it is not neglect of the value of life that leads them to seek an abortion, rather it is a prioritization of their own quality of life, and perhaps that of an existing family, that guides their decision-making. 

The application of virtue ethics to abortion is more nuanced than the frameworks previously mentioned and can be more easily understood through various scenarios. For example, a virtue ethicist is presented with a single mother of three children struggling to make ends meet who has recently become pregnant. She worries that by having another child there will be a significant impact on her capacity to be a good mother. The virtue ethicist may view this mother’s decision to access abortion as ethical, as she is doing so for the wellbeing of her living children, and to prevent a lower quality of life for herself and her family, actions which align with the virtues of compassion and nurturing. Hursthouse provides another example of virtuous intent, saying, “When women are in very poor physical health, or worn out from childbearing, or forced to do very physically demanding jobs, then they cannot be described as self-indulgent, callous, irresponsible, or light-minded if they seek abortions” and this “does not manifest any lack of serious respect for human life or a shallow attitude towards motherhood”. In both of these cases, the pursuit of abortion would be considered ethical as the mother’s decision is not a result of a lack of appreciation of the intrinsic value of being a parent. 

“When women are in very poor physical health, or worn out from childbearing, or forced to do very physically demanding jobs, then they cannot be described as self-indulgent, callous, irresponsible, or light-minded if they seek abortions…this does not manifest any lack of serious respect for human life or a shallow attitude towards motherhood”.

Rosalind Hursthouse, Virtue Theory and Abortion

However, there are also situations in which prioritizing one’s own quality of life or one’s finances and health might be considered unvirtuous. It is important to acknowledge that parenthood is extremely time consuming, and a virtue ethicist would consider it ethical for an individual to abort a child in order to pursue other worthwhile activities that may compete with motherhood. But a virtue ethicist would find a woman who aborts a child to avoid parenthood and instead pursue worthless activities such as “having a good time” or false visions of freedom or self realization to be unethical. Hursthouse highlights that there is a difference between acting with an appropriate amount of humility or fearfulness of becoming a parent, and acting out of greed, foolishness, and irresponsibility. For a virtue ethicist, this line distinguishes what one would consider to be a virtuous and, therefore, ethical pursuit and what one would consider to be an unvirtuous, or unethical pursuit. Ultimately, a virtue ethicist would examine the intention behind a woman’s actions, and whether or not those align with virtues considered worthwhile, or those that contribute to human flourishing, such as love and compassion, or whether they more closely resemble those we frown upon, such as selfishness and ignorance. 

Some argue that the use of virtue ethics is counterproductive because it does not provide a universal rule for the ethicality of an action. As we’ve seen, in the case of abortion, virtue ethics does not decidedly say that in all circumstances abortion would be ethical or unethical. However, virtue ethics is consistent in that there are virtues that are considered objectively “good”. The answer to the question of “what is ethical” lies in the virtues involved: motherhood, respect for human life, responsibility, etc. This means that virtue ethics cannot lay out a rule in advance surrounding the ethicality of pursuing abortion, instead we must address the complexities of our moral lives and seek to understand what is worthwhile and important to determine what the most virtuous action is. 

In this paper, we have examined abortion through the ethical frameworks of deontology, consequentialism and utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. We have discussed various stakeholders, differing pro-life and pro-choice perspectives, as well as long term and short term implications of allowing or banning abortion access. Along the way, we have analyzed the ways in which we, as a society, value life, how we evaluate where life begins, and how we weigh the consequences of abortion with one’s intentions. All of these questions are key aspects of the abortion dilemma, but only brush the service of issues intertwined with the ethicality of abortion. The purpose of my paper was to lead you, the reader, to an informed decision on the ethicality of abortion. I myself have come to a conclusion through my own research and growing understanding of the topic. Ultimately, I take a more consequentialist approach to the question of abortion, and believe that the negative consequences to women and other historically marginalized groups will perpetuate inequalities across the social, economic, and political landscape. However, I also think it’s important that a fetus is recognized as a human life. Therefore, based on the frameworks of deontology and virtue ethics, parents have a duty to make the decision to pursue abortion grounded in virtuous intentions, in order to avoid the devaluing of life, which also presents a slippery slope to our society. 

The stance I take is complex, but the issue at hand is as well. Despite this, it is vital that the conversation surrounding abortion is continued. Though disagreement is inevitable, it’s important to analyze the ways in which our values agree and conflict and to respect all perspectives of this dilemma. By separating the issue from politics and even law and turning instead to the moral principles and ethics that guide our personal beliefs, one can lay a foundation for conversations rooted in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.