Religiously to tackle such an issue like this can be quite controversial. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. However what about in cases of rape is abortion then justifiable?
In Poland on October 30, 2012 The European court of human rights disapproves abortion in the case of a fourteen year old victim that had been raped. Eventually after much debate with the court it was finally allowed.. It should be the right of the female to an abortion. It would be unfair to force a woman to carry the potential child of the ‘rapist”. With the many negative affects that could come along with it. An example of this would be women who were raped by someone carrying STDs or any other disease because that is something that could not only impact the mother but the child as well, women who were raped by family members The right to have an abortion should also be okayed when there are medical situations in which it is kinder to terminate the pregnancy than to allow a severely and profoundly disabled fetus.
According to Kantian ethics is it right or wrong to have an abortion?
Kant’s categorical imperative is that one must act in a manner in which the action becomes universal law. That is to say, what you do, you believe that everyone should do.
According to Kant abortion is immortal. It could be said that Kantian ethics would say that if a woman had an abortion, she is suggesting that every woman should have an abortion. Kant claimed that if it is possible to picture a world where everyone acted on X principle (abortion), then it becomes moral. The issue is that, some people have objected to Kant’s theory for the reason that something could actually become something done very frequently universally and yet still remain immoral. The second part of Kant’s imperative ethics is that people should not merely be treated as a means to an end, but an end in themselves as well. Therefore, if principle X were universalizable and reversible, and if it also treats people as an end in themselves, then principle X must be moral.