A topic that is wrought with controversy in the present age is the topic of abortion. In the context of bioethics it is necessary to define what it is about the topic that seems so right or wrong.
Consider Kate’s case. Kate is a 17-year-old young lady who is 8 weeks pregnant. She is legally emancipated, works 30 hours a week and is still in high school. She has no family support and is no longer dating the ex-boyfriend who got her pregnant. Still, she is maintaining a 4.0 GPA and she has received a full-ride scholarship to attend a prestigious university (Rosell). Kate has stated that she doesn’t want to be a mom right now, but she also has undergone negative experiences with adoption and does not want to have her baby go through that. Therefore, Kate wants to get an abortion (Rosell).
The case is one that must be taken from different perspectives. All moral and religious beliefs aside, it seems like it makes the most sense to go through with the abortion because we have Kate’s wishes and even of her background. It may be useful, however, to analyze the situation through the perspective of moral status. For Kate, she obviously displays human properties in that she displays intelligence, memory, and moral capacity (Beauchamp, Childress 68). Also, even though she is only 17, she has displayed exceptional cognitive ability (Beauchamp 71) that seems unhindered by the hardships she has faced in her lifetime. In addition, she has also shown herself to be a moral agent (Beauchamp 74) in that she states she doesn’t want her baby to go through adoption because of what she is certain the baby will face. She has also revealed herself to be one who can experience pleasure and pain (Beauchamp 75-76) as she has recounted before the suffering she went through in the adoption system. Finally, the physician established a relationship with her a long time ago, because the case mentions that she has always gone to the medical establishment in question and now there is a moral obligation to help her that is on the physicians in this case (Beauchamp 79-81). Through every theory, we know that Kate has moral status. Judging by this alone we see that we need to act in Kate’s best interest.
But what about her unborn child?
The fetus is in its 8th week of existence. At this point, the heart is developing and even beginning to beat at a regular rhythm. In addition, the nerve cells and brain are developing as well (Fetal Development). By many definitions, the fetus is already living. Yes, by many of the theories the fetus seems to have lower standing as far as moral status compared to Kate (seems less human, lower levels of cognition, not a moral agent, less sentient, and no established relationships), but to say that the fetus is afforded a lower moral status than Kate based solely on the 5 theories of moral status would be ridiculous and perhaps even arbitrary.
So the problem becomes one where Kate and her unborn child both have moral status and therefore have rights to moral protections, but carrying out the best interest or desire of each seems impossible (assuming that only the options presented are viable).
Works Cited
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
“Fetal Development.” Medline Plus. National Institute of Health, 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Jan. 2015.
Rosell, Tarris. “Abortion Rights And/or Wrongs.” Case Studies. Center for Practical Bioethics, n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
I think your interpretation of moral status is interesting in this post. When I read the chapter in principles of bioethics I understood it to mean that your particular moral status puts you in a somewhat hierarchical ranking. So, essentially everything that is able has a moral status but then as a step further some statuses hold more importance than others. So while the potential teen mom and her unborn fetus do have moral status, one’s must outweigh the other in order to make the decision of who’s best interest/wishes should be adhered to. However, with that it becomes very complex to distinguish who interests should be cared for. Should it be the teen- mother who is very competent and possesses all these moral tenants such as sentience, cognition and so fourth. Or should it be the unborn fetus that has began to develop some sentience and is not given a say in whether its potential life be terminated or not. Can’t it be argued that the do no harm principle is being violated with this unborn baby being terminated? On the other hand we could be doing the child more harm by have the mother go through with the pregnancy and being left to the social care system.
I agree that cases like this are complicated to say the very least. I think that initially, just analyzing the case through the 5 theories of moral status, I was under the impression that there is almost a point system. If this were the case, then Kate would inevitably have her way because she has a higher ranking of moral status than her unborn child. However, Beauchamp and Childress mention that the fetus, because it does not itself have some of the characteristics of moral status, it is offered moral status. It is still hard to say. Personally, I think that this scenario is misleading in that it suggests that the only 2 options are for the baby to be aborted or for it to go into a hostile social care system. There are options that Kate can take if she were to have the baby. For example, she can perform adoption interviews in order for the baby to find a good home.