Moral Dilemmas in Abortion: Conflicting Duties, Rights, and Consequences

Abortion is one of the longest standing moral dilemmas in modern ethics and it has certainly summarized the conflicts between the obligation of protecting life, the right to make personal choices about their own bodies and the social implications of reproduction thus attracting moral controversies. The pivotal ethical question that is explored in this article is the following: how can societies explore the ethical playing fields in which the rights of a pregnant person can openly contravene what is viewed as the rights of a fetus? The research problem is concentration on the ethical disintegration that occurs during the implementation of the deontological, rights, and consequentialistic approaches to the issue of abortion that frequently result in irreconcilable conclusions. This paper intends to critique the manner in which these moral frameworks outlay duties and rights when applied in the context of abortion, and evaluate the impact they have in policy making, legal interpretations, and personal choices in various cultural, and legal environments. In an attempt to accomplish this, a qualitative methodology is adopted by the article by applying nuts and bolts of philosophical argumentation and comparative analysis in which it relies on legal texts, literature works on ethics, and cross-cultural views. Secondary data comprise of peer-reviewed scholarly writing, jurisprudence and analysis of case studies in different countries that have different laws related to abortion. These two key research questions will help in answering the following: (1) How are moral duties and rights as presented in the ethics theories as applied in abortion? and (2) How well can these theories be reconciled in the real world legal and policy contexts? These findings suggest that the reasoning between morality of abortion is highly contextual, and each ethical theory has some perks and limitations. Although the deontological approaches emphasize on moral absolutes like the sanctity of life, rights-based reasoning centers on claims of self-determination and preservation of life, and consequentialist approaches calculate the effects of allowing or prohibiting abortion. These conflicting terms mostly lead to legal and moral differences between jurisdictions. Finally, the article proposes the morally pluralistic and empathetic stance in which the validity of competing moral claims can be recognised. Through dialogue between moral systems, instead of giving preference to one of them, societies will be able to develop less restrictive and fair abortion policies. This paper will help develop further talks on bioethics by explaining why the solution to the issue of abortion should begin with moral complexity rather than with moral clarity.