Question

1. How do you think we should decide about the moral status of any being, such as a fetus, a comatose person, or a dog, or even a tree? What are the morally significant differences between these beings and yourself, which would allow you to treat them differently than you would want to be treated?
2. Should the father have a right to participate in an abortion decision? Should his wishes count as much as the mother’s wishes? Should it matter whether the mother and father are married (but disagree on whether to abort a pregnancy)? Why or why not?

Answer 1

1. Such decisions are taken on the theory of utilitarianism. In case of fetus or a comatose person we should have a right to take decision. It depends on the nature of the thing. When a fetus is harmful to mother or there is risk of death of the mother then the mother can take to spoil the fetus on the advice of the doctors. Again, in case of a comatic person, we know that there is a law called euthanasia. In this law, when it is found that there is nothing to do by the medical science and then the relatives of the victim can take physician assisted death. Again, when we find that a dog is mad and it can be threat to us, then we have to kill it.

According to the theory of utilitarianism, we must think of maximum human happiness. The consequence should be good to all. If the consequence is good, then there is no problem.

2. father does not have the rights of taking decision of abortion. It is ethical consideration that fetus should have right. There is also the right of the unborn. But bother carries it in her body. One should have the rights of body. In this right mother can take decision of doing abortion. But father can not force mother for abortion. It is ethically and legally wrong.