PHI-413V Case Study: Moral Stances Regarding Fetal Abnormality: Grand Canyon University

STANCES REGARDING FETAL ABNORMALITY Each individual embodies their own set of morals, ethics and values which develops through one’s lifetime molding their experiences and relationships with others. A person’s moral compass and worldview are of great importance in navigating through one’s life. Having a moral compass is a reference used when someone has the ability to determine right from wrong then act accordingly. A worldview is an overall perception from which one visualizes and interprets the world around. From the Case Study: Fetal Abnormality by Grand Canyon University, this paper analysis will: (1) briefly discuss the five theories of moral status, (2) explore and identify varying theories utilized by the characters: Maria, Dr. Wilson, Marco and Jessica for determining their moral status and their recommended action for the fetus and, (3) establish the main theory the author agrees upon that influences the recommended course of action for the fetus. Five Theories of Moral Status Moral status refers to how one negotiates in terms of what is human versus less than human or non-human. The properties one must have to acquire moral status are: human properties, cognitive properties, moral agency, sentience and relationships (Grand Canyon University, 2015). A theory based on human properties holds that it is only and distinctively human properties that confer moral status upon a being. It follows that all and only human beings, or Homo sapiens, have full moral status. The theory based on cognitive properties holds that “cognition refers to processes or awareness such as perception, memory, understanding, and thinking… and does not assume that only humans have such properties” (Beauchamp and Childress, 2013, p. 69). The theory based on moral agency holds that an individual is considered a moral agent if they “are capable of making judgments about the rightness or wrongness of actions and has motives that can be judged morally” (Beauchamp and Childress, 2013, p. 72).