First, return to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.

  • Answer this question: What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
  • Next, articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions  using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three assignment).
  • Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources. You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.

Include the following:

  • Publication details
  • Annotation (a detailed reading of the source)

Each annotation section should include the following:

  • Summarize key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
  • Describe the controversies or “problems” raised by the articles.
  • State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
  • Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research project.
  • Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has helped you focus your understanding.






What would an Ethical Egoist say about this topic? What side would the Ethical Egoist take? What would the Ethical Egoist say to justify their moral position? Is there a conflict between loyalty to self and to community relevant to your topic? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.

Ethical egoists focus on pursuing their own exclusive self-interest (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). According to ethical egoism, the decision of the morality of abortion should be left completely to the mother. This should be in accordance with her personal preferences and interests. Abortion will only be considered immoral in this context if it does not appear to be in the best interests of the mother who is having the abortion. Abortion must be considered carefully by the mother in order to determine whether it will be of significant benefit to her in the long run. Even though abortion is frowned upon in her society, this does not necessarily imply that having one will be morally wrong. It will only be immoral if the mother is unable to cope with the sensation of guilt that will inevitably come as a result of the abortion. Abortion will be judged immoral if the woman is not physically and emotionally prepared to have the child. If the mother is certain that she will not be able to devote her attention to the child’s upbringing, abortion would be in his own self-interest and hence morally acceptable. If there is a significant potential or problem that will cause the mother to be unhappy after having a child, then it will be in the mother’s best interests to have an abortion, and the act will be morally acceptable.

As a result, an ethical egoist would support the decision that best serves the interest of the mother with regard to abortion. An ethical egoist would say that the decisions regarding abortions ought to be solely made by the mother since her body and bringing a child into this world has its own share of costs (Faúndes & Miranda, 2017). Every child deserves to live in the most favorable conditions and a mother knows quite well whether she will be able to provide those conditions.

There is a conflict between community and self with regard to abortion. What I find contradictory is the position of the mother who wishes to have an abortion in regard to the widely held belief that abortion is an attack on human life, and that no one should be refused the right to have an abortion. However, I believe that the best course of action in resolving the issue is to conduct a thorough analysis of the situation and determine which of the several situations would be most beneficial to all parties concerned.

What would a Social Contract Ethicist say about this topic? What side would the Social Contract Ethicist take? What would the Social Contract Ethicist say to justify their moral position? Does your topic involve a collision between personal obligations and national ones? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.

According to Rini, (2018) those who subscribe to the social contract theory believe that individuals live together in society in line with an agreement that determines moral and political standards of conduct. It is the purpose of a social contract to safeguard the rights of human beings. As a result, abortion might be considered as an act that passes judgment on other human beings by causing them physical or mental pain. Aborting a pregnancy is the same as killing foreigners because they do not belong in a particular country. Universally killing anyone is morally wrong hence a social contract ethicist would pick a side that opposes abortion.

In justifying their moral position a social contract ethicist would argue that every life matters hence the need to protect the life of an innocent child. In upholding social contract it is crucial for each one of us to uphold the moral precepts and human laws which are the fabric of our society (Schouten, 2017). This calls on everyone to defend human life hence defending the right of a child to live. Abortion is a crime since it involves taking the life of an innocent child.

There exists a collision between national and personal obligation because there exists a struggle between the interests of individual women and the interests of the collective society. In this instance, the right to life is defended from an even more universal perspective, one that is more committed to life itself as well as to the rights of people. In comparison to the ethical egoist, it is a more social and human vision of the problem, rather than one that is as extreme and subjective. Abortion is viewed as a direct attack on morality and societal laws by the social contract theorists, and it is a viewpoint that defends societal interests rather than the interests of individual persons.

There exists a collision between national and personal obligations. This is due to the conflicting realities of one particular event and an overarching, prefabricated vision of human duty with respect to society. I believe that protecting the public interest does not always alleviate the disadvantages of individual reality, as is frequently the case in my opinion. When we look at reality, we can observe the pervasive indifference of the general public toward single mothers, as well as the terrible conditions that exist for the care and education of their children. An appropriate course of action would involve addressing the underlying socioeconomic issues that frequently lead to women seeking abortions as opposed to denying the theme the ability to make decisions on abortion (Svenaeus, 2017).

Finally, reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, or any other pertinent professional code. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties.

The AMA Code of Ethics does not prohibit a given doctor from medically performing an abortion. The topic of abortion presents a conflict between familial and professional duties. Abortion is viewed by the general society as something that is going against familial values while at the same time a physician is expected to provide care services even when the service in question involves an abortion procedure.


Abortion. (n.d.). American Medical Association.

Faúndes, A., & Miranda, L. (2017). “Ethics surrounding the provision of abortion care.” Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 43, 50–57.

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Rini, R. (2018). Abortion, Ultrasound, and Moral Persuasion. Philosophers, 18().

Schouten, G. (2017, August 16). Fetuses, Orphans, and a Famous Violinist: On the Ethics and Politics of Abortion. Social Theory and Practice.

Svenaeus, F. (2017). Phenomenology of pregnancy and the ethics of abortion. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 21(1), 77–87.