Over the past decades, abortion has been a hot-button topic that has significantly divided people across societies. The topic has created moral controversy, which has divided people into two sides. Some people argue in support of abortion, while others are against the act. Fundamentally, the sides are split between pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-choice side gives women the liberty to make choices concerning their reproductive rights, while the pro-life advocates for the welfare and life of the fetus and embryo. Among the moral reasons presented by those in support of abortion include bodily autonomy. They argue that women have a right over their bodies and can choose whether to have a baby (Bilmes, 2020). This way, women have the right to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. The pro-abortion side also provides the rationale that the unborn child does not have equal rights to that of the mother. Through this lens, the general health and welfare of the mother is paramount compared to that of the fetus or embryo, hence arguing for the legalization of abortion. Similarly, the woman might be too young or financially unstable to provide a quality lifestyle for the baby; thus, abortion would be the better option.

On the contrary, the commonly held moral reason against abortion is the concept that the act is murder. Opponents of abortion view the act as committing murder, whereby ending the life of an innocent fetus is a dreadful sin (Bilmes, 2020). Additionally, the anti-abortion side claims that everybody has the right to live. This includes the unborn babies; hence, abortion goes against the fetus’s right to life. This also fails to give them a choice. In most cases, Christians believe that life starts at conception; hence, the act is morally wrong as it involves ending the life of another human being. Pro-life proponents also provide alternative options to abortion, which do not include ending lives, like adoption.

Theoretically, “Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality” (Moseley, 2021). Therefore, an ethical egoist would say that people would assess abortion based on the act’s consequences on one’s self-interest. Fundamentally, if an individual thinks that conducting an abortion serves their self-interest, then the person should proceed with the act. The act would also be morally right. The side that an ethical egoist would take is the pro-choice as it serves the self-interest of the individual. To justify this position, an ethical egoist would argue that failing to do an abortion would result in unwanted pregnancies. In return, the mother would develop negative consequences like physiological issues and financial strains, which are not good for her self-interest. Notably, the abortion topic has a loyalty conflict between self and community. In as much as advocating for pro-choice gives women the autonomy to decide what they want to do with their bodies, it creates challenges for society in its attempt to protect the unborn. In this case, the best cause of action is to weigh a person’s autonomy and welfare against the value of human life and familial obligations.

On the other hand, “social contra theory argues that a person’s moral obligations are dependent upon an agreement among them to form a society in which they live” (Friend, 2023). Given its perspective, a social contract ethicist would asses the topic by putting into consideration the impacts it would have on social values and norms. The side taken by a social contract ethicist would be a balanced approach that takes into consideration bodily autonomy and, at the same time, protects the fetus. Such individuals would justify their position by arguing a just society built upon the balance between personal autonomy and protecting vulnerable individuals. To a greater extent, the aforementioned topic collides with personal and national obligations. Apparently, it involves a debate between individual reproductive rights and the nation’s obligation to protect the lives of all people, including the unborn. That being said, the necessary course of action is to form a dialogue within society that aims to promote a balance between bodily autonomy and the life of the fetus.

Given that abortion is a widely practiced procedure across many states, the act is protected by various professional codes of ethics. An example of these codes is the popular “American Medical Association (AMA)” code for physicians. The aforementioned code ensures that women’s reproductive rights are protected, which allows doctors to perform abortions. Evidently, “AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law” (AMA Journal of Ethics, 2013). AMA also allows for confidentiality between the patient and the physician, as well as for the physicians to accommodate the patient’s distinct values and needs while keeping in mind their professional judgment. In addition, despite the professional code of ethics, the issues surrounding abortion involve various conflicts between professional and familial obligations. For instance, healthcare providers are required to follow various ethics and codes to provide patient-centered healthcare. However, these healthcare providers, at times, find themselves in dilemmas when their individual beliefs contradict when delivering abortion services. In addition, women in need of abortion services might find themselves in conflict with familial expectations and their bodily autonomy in deciding about their reproductive health.