Why did the US abortion cause a huge storm?What is the ethical problem behind it?

On June 24, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that the US Constitution no longer protects women's abortion. Since a decision in the United States in 1973, American women have the right to medical abortion, and this right will fail on June 24th. It's right. How to look at this from the perspective of moral philosophy, let's talk about it today.

Earlier, we introduced three major ethical and moral outlooks. The first is the "utilitarian" moral outlook represented by British philosopher Bian Qin. Therefore, Bian Qin proposed the "greatest happiness principle", which can bring the greatest happiness to the whole of society, which is moral and legitimony.

第二个是以康德和罗尔斯为代表的“义务论”或者是“道义论”，这种道德观认为，公正就意味着尊重人们选择的自由，或者是人们在平等的原初状态中， The possibilities of the hypothetical choice, in this moral outlook, people are regarded as their own owner, with independent and free choice. The third is the "communityism" moral outlook represented by Mcing Tail and Sander. They believe that fairness involves the cultivation of morality and reasoning. Natural obligations, voluntary obligations, and solidity of unity.

Sander believes that there are two main defects in utilitarianism. The first is that it has made fairness and rights a quantitative calculation, not a principle. They equated their interests with their moral legitimacy, which is wrong. The second defect is that they include all human goodness into a unified measure of measurement, and do not consider the difference between them.

The obligation of Kant and Rores is also defective. Based on the rights and freedoms of their personal choices, although they solve the first problem of utilitarianism, that is, the difference between the difference between the amount of interest and the legitimacy of morality. However, they tried to establish a moral principle that separated any interests and purposes from real life based on personal rights and freedom, which cannot be realized.

Sander pointed out that in order to form a fair society, we must pay attention to the significance of a good life and what kind of good life in reasoning. Kant and Rores tried to find an independent principle, once and for all prove that the principle of income, rights, and opportunities was generated based on this principle. This idea seems very attractive. If we can find such principles, then we will not face the debate of ethical and moral issues, but in fact these arguments are unavoidable. The true justice cannot avoid judgment. It is impossible to have an absolute, neutral, and perfect moral principle. It can exist independently of any real life. Instead of pursuing absolute moral principles, we need to pay more attention to how to think about justice, just what is the purpose of justice, etc.

Sander believes that any moral principles have basic assumptions, and they are completely separated from any interests and purpose of morality. Let's take a look at a hot topic before: American abortion.

On June 24, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that the Constitution no longer protects the right to abortion. Since a decision in the United States in 1973, American women have the right to medical abortion, and this right has failed on June 24th. This means that the US Constitution no longer protects women's abortion, and this ruling has caused a stir globally. In the United States and Western countries, the problem of abortion is not only ethical and moral issues, but also involves religious, political, economic, legal, and social issues. The situation is very complicated. Today we simply analyze the ethical and moral philosophy, the moral reasoning behind this incident.

In simple terms, whether female abortion is allowed to be allowed to involve a core question, whether the fetus in development is a life. If the fetal fetus is identified and is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion means killing a child. This is not only an ethical issue, but also a legal issue. On the other hand, if the fetus is considered to be part of the body of a pregnant woman and is not an independent life, then it means that pregnant women have the right to decide their bodies, and abortion does not have any moral issues and legal issues. This is in line with the ethical and moral outlook on "liberalism" and "individualism", just as the protests of American women shouted: my body, my uterus, I do, so whether to choose abortion is purely a personal choice of personal freedom.

However, if we carefully analyze, we will find that in the proposition of prohibiting abortion, it is actually based on an important assumption. That is, in the doctrine of Catholicism, the fetus is wrong. As Sandell said, we accept this assumption, that is, the point of view of Catholicism is wrong. This is not to prohibit abortion. In fact, both views are preset for some kind of assumptions, and they need to explain the legitimacy of this assumption. Therefore, Sander pointed out that there is no existence of completely neutral, absolutely fair law and moral principles.

Although Sandel did not give a certain answer to the abortion problem, this time the United States overturned the right to abortion, but had a profound impact. The root cause was the concept of "freedom, democracy and human rights" advocated by the United States Bring challenges. In terms of political influence, it is actually the victory of religious and conservative forces, and a victory of the Republican Party for the Democratic Party. Former Republican President of the United States, Trump came out for the first time that this was his credit. In fact, Trump's own invitation is not completely unreasonable. Now, of the nine lifelong judges in the United States, six are Republicans. Among them, Trump nominated three. The former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary said: "This is the retrogression of women's power and human rights." It is forbidden for women to abortion, or to accurately say that the US constitution no longer protects women's abortion, at least in the ethical field, there is no doubt that the US democracy and freedom are backward, because in the usual sense, although some religious doctrine treats the fetus during pregnancy, For an independent life, but at the legal level, the fetus during pregnancy does not have an independent personality. Some people point out that if the fetus is regarded as an independent life during pregnancy, why does the fetus not calculate the fetus in the census? Therefore, at the legal level, in fact, babies during the default pregnancy are part of the pregnant woman themselves.

In the Roy Roy in 1973, it was also protected by "protecting women's privacy", and women's abortion rights were protected. But now, this right of American women has been canceled, which first means that the deprivation of women's free choice has also lost their own ownership. We said earlier that in the field of ethics and morality, the core proposition of individualism and liberalism is: I have myself completely and have completely autonomous rights. And this ruling denied that women had their own legitimacy. American women no longer have themselves completely. From this perspective, it is indeed a retrogression of "American Democratic Freedom".

Well, this is the content of today. If you like my article, please like the collection and follow me. See the next article.

- END -