Philosophy paper

Reason 2: The moral principle of utilitarianism also defends Li FenFen’s case because it establishes the importance of ensuring overall benefits outweigh risks (4). Prospective mothers must always consider if having a child will be in their overall best interest: Is motherhood going to be a positive experience that outweighs the medical risks of pregnancy and birth? Is she prepared to sacrifice future career, education, or life plans for a child? The risks and benefits regarding the future child’s well-being must also be considered. Education costs, living expenses, and any other necessities are expected to be paid by parents, but what of the suffering that comes with economic instability and even hunger? A mother may suffer from severe postpartum depression after an unwanted pregnancy that can extend into further depression, anxiety and bitterness towards the child (Little, 300). The negative effect of these feelings on a child are immeasurable, as they tend to impair self-esteem and further feelings of inadequacy and rejection that affect social relationships later in life. Li FenFen and other mothers that are not prepared to enter a relationship with a child may face many of these risks which other expecting mothers do not, and thus should consider abortion as their best option (Little, 312). Impairing a child’s future before it is even born by knowingly accepting a birth in which risks outweigh total benefits is immoral. Even if a father is present during the child’s life and pregnancy, this relationship is not as intimate or full of sacrifice and thus can only minimally apply to the total evaluation of risks and benefits, which places this decision at hands of the mother.

Objection: Another argument against abortions without the father’s consent is that doing so is sexist, misandrist, and unjust. Liu Gang also has reproductive rights, and these were violated when he was not given the opportunity to participate in his child’s fate. In the article “Ambiguous Sex or Ambivalent Medicine”, Dreger points out that the sexes are treated asymmetrically in the handling of intersexual children because maintaining the integrity of female reproduction is given a much higher priority (29). Dreger argues that the unequal prioritization of reproductive rights between males and females is sexist and a violation of the principle of justice because this ethical principle states that each person should receive an equal share - therefore, both male and female reproductive capacities must receive equal consideration and respect (Belmont Report, 4). This same argument can be used to defend Liu Gang’s situation and argue that his wife’s decision to exclude him from her abortion plans was sexist and unjust. Her reproductive rights were prioritized as she was allowed to make all decisions regarding the fetus’s future, while his were ignored and not considered on equal terms. As an individual with reproductive rights, a parent that contributed to the conception of the child, and a father who desired the child - Liu Gang also has a right to decide his child’s future because excluding him from this process is sexist, unjust, and therefore immoral.

Reply to Objection: The prioritization of Li FenFen’s reproductive rights is not sexist because the role men and women play in bearing a child is not comparable. Consider the numerous health risks women face with pregnancy, including everything from severe nausea to eclampsia and psychiatric disorders (Little, 300). These conditions do not even begin to describe the sacrifices and risks a woman must take during pregnancy and child rearing - which extend beyond the pain and complications of childbirth! Pregnancy demands a physical intertwinement beyond what a father will ever experience, who will never be exposed to the significant risks and sacrifices child bearing carries. Furthermore, as mothers are expected to become a child’s primary caretaker, they must be willing to enter a strong emotional relationship with a child for whom they must always selflessly care for and love. It is this physical and emotional connection, the risks involved, and the sacrifices made which prioritizes a woman’s reproductive rights (Little, 301). While the father also possesses these rights, they are not comparable to a woman’s because of the nature of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children. Woman must carry a much greater emotional and physical burden, and for this reason must be allowed to choose whether they are prepared to do so - regardless of the father’s opinion.

Conclusion: These ethical principles demonstrate why it is morally required for a woman’s reproductive rights to be prioritized and respected. Granting her husband or any other third party a moral claim to the fetus and thus her body, life, and future is a violation of these principles and thus immoral. The mother is the only individual capable of making decisions that implicate herself and her unborn child due to the intimate relationship between a mother and her fetus, which no other parties can be capable of fully understanding and evaluating.