Philosophy of human and women rights

[casslean]

You can point me to where women were being charged with assault for smoking or drinking, or carrying out any number of activities that could harm a fetus.

Actually, fetal abuse is a law on the books now, which means that women can and have been charged with abuse for substance abuse, failing to seek medical attention, etc. There have been approximately 200 cases of fetal abuse prosecuted since it was recognized (bearing in mind that child abuse has only been on the books since the 1960s).

Yet another contradiction in our fetal rights laws.

 

[aclausen]

Actually, fetal abuse is a law on the books now, which means that women can and have been charged with abuse for substance abuse, failing to seek medical attention, etc. There have been approximately 200 cases of fetal abuse prosecuted since it was recognized (bearing in mind that child abuse has only been on the books since the 1960s).

Yet another contradiction in our fetal rights laws.

There are certainly laws now. There were few if any in the past.

 

[casslean]

There are certainly laws now. There were few if any in the past.

What do you mean by “in the past”? There were few, if any, child abuse laws “in the past”; so does that mean a child is not or was not worthy of protection? The development of fetal abuse laws and child abuse laws actually coincided, as lawmakers drew little distinction between the unborn child and the born child. It wasn’t until the pro-abortion or “pro-choice” lobby gained strength that distinctions began to be drawn.

You seem to feel that until the law declares a class of people as “persons” they have no legal rights. That isn’t true. It means they had fewer legal rights or that their rights were abrogated. It also does not mean they do not have legal protection, which is the issue under dispute in these matters.

 

[aclausen]

What do you mean by “in the past”? There were few, if any, child abuse laws “in the past”; so does that mean a child is not or was not worthy of protection? The development of fetal abuse laws and child abuse laws actually coincided, as lawmakers drew little distinction between the unborn child and the born child. It wasn’t until the pro-abortion or “pro-choice” lobby gained strength that distinctions began to be drawn.

You seem to feel that until the law declares a class of people as “persons” they have no legal rights. That isn’t true. It means they had fewer legal rights or that their rights were abrogated. It also does not mean they do not have legal protection, which is the issue under dispute in these matters.

I’m not attempting to measure the morality of past law. I’m stating that abortion bans did not come with commensurate protections of fetuses. Referring to the law as if abortion bans could be conflated with fetal rights simply is not true.

But I doubt you really want to lean on the law as a definer of such things anyways, seeing as current law in most industrialized countries is to permit abortion.

 

[casslean]

I’m not attempting to measure the morality of past law. I’m stating that abortion bans did not come with commensurate protections of fetuses. Referring to the law as if abortion bans could be conflated with fetal rights simply is not true.

But I doubt you really want to lean on the law as a definer of such things anyways, seeing as current law in most industrialized countries is to permit abortion.

The abortion ban was a protection of the unborn child. If it was not, what other mischief was trying to be avoided? What was the purpose of the law if not to protect unborn children?

And you are incorrect in your assumption. As a lawyer, I am happy to use the law to demonstrate how abortion laws are inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice that ahve long been defined and recognized by the courts.

 

[aclausen]

The abortion ban was a protection of the unborn child. If it was not, what other mischief was trying to be avoided? What was the purpose of the law if not to protect unborn children?

They were a protection against one form of harm. There were no protections against “lesser” forms of harm, and even the abortion laws did not have punishments anywhere close to what a murder conviction produced, so abortion wasn’t even in the same class of crimes.

 

[casslean]

They were a protection against one form of harm. There were no protections against “lesser” forms of harm, and even the abortion laws did not have punishments anywhere close to what a murder conviction produced, so abortion wasn’t even in the same class of crimes.

You are talking about a time where there were little or no penalities for “lesser” forms of harm against children at all - again, child abuse laws are largely a creation of the post WWII world.

But I’ll point out that you acknowledge that abortion laws were intended to protect the unborn child - thus illustrating my argument that legal protections under the law are not reserved merely for those to whom “personhood” has been granted.

By the way, the penalty for procuring an abortion in Canada from 1869 until its legalization in 1969 - life imprisonment. The penalty for murder - life imprisonment. And, in fact, in the Criminal Code, both offences are listed in the same section, Part VIII - Offences against the person. In the UK, both offences were part of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, and both carried the penalty of life in prison. So yes, until the pro-choice movement began lobbying, it was in the same class as murder and carried similar penalties. The only way in which abortion was slightly more lenient was that it did not, at any time in legal history, come with the risk of the death penalty being imposed.

 

[Rohzek]

I don’t understand women’s rights and are they included in human rights? Philosophically speaking. Two thing I have seen are two philosophical schools. Moral relativism and moral universalism (not sure what that one is). And Epistemic arguments.

The basis is that a woman’s body is hers and she can do what she wishes with it. I don’t see this. A person’s body is not there own. As we also believe “bought with a price”. Is killing our unborn children a human rights violation in the name of woman’s (human) rights? The the child is not human. What will it be.

I want to learn the epistemic and relativistic schools to defeat abortion. Prove woman have a duty to responsibilty. And…well I do not understand what “woman’s rights” are there no consistancy.

I honestly think your best bet is to start with the works from the Enlightenment that concern human rights, when arguing against abortion. These, of course, won’t directly concern abortion, but they approach human rights from the natural rights perspective. That is to say, universal rights. Sadly, many of the Third Wave feminists have completely abandoned the principles of the Enlightenment. And as a consequence almost everything they assert is based on relativism of some sort. If you pull from the Enlightenment, rather than from scripture (which they probably don’t believe in all that much any ways) or at least only scripture, you will have a far easier time convincing them.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s works might be a good place to begin. See The Nearly Complete Works of Mary Wollstonecraft.

Also, I suggest reading up on John Locke’s “On Identity and Diversity” (Book II, Chapter XXVII) in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He lays out some pretty basic principles on what constitutes a person that can be measured. As such whatever proves to be a person therefore has natural human rights, even if it is a human trapped in a parrot’s body. If you combine his principles with some of the linguistic work of Noam Chomsky and others, you can make a pretty strong case that fetuses are persons long before the delivery date because they think and are in the midst of developing language capacities just from the sounds they hear within the womb rather than them just being bundles of cells. Arguing with pro-choice people in this manner, of course, won’t get you the whole Catholic package of no abortion at any stage of pregnancy. However, at least it makes it extremely difficult for anyone to argue in favor of extremely late-term abortions or anything of the like. Language alone doesn’t make a person though. So there are other ways to push back the date of unacceptable abortions using Locke et al. I’ve just highlighted one method.

I hope this helps.

 

[aclausen]

You are talking about a time where there were little or no penalities for “lesser” forms of harm against children at all - again, child abuse laws are largely a creation of the post WWII world.

But I’ll point out that you acknowledge that abortion laws were intended to protect the unborn child - thus illustrating my argument that legal protections under the law are not reserved merely for those to whom “personhood” has been granted.

By the way, the penalty for procuring an abortion in Canada from 1869 until its legalization in 1969 - life imprisonment. The penalty for murder - life imprisonment. And, in fact, in the Criminal Code, both offences are listed in the same section, Part VIII - Offences against the person. In the UK, both offences were part of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, and both carried the penalty of life in prison. So yes, until the pro-choice movement began lobbying, it was in the same class as murder and carried similar penalties. The only way in which abortion was slightly more lenient was that it did not, at any time in legal history, come with the risk of the death penalty being imposed.

And how many convictions were there? My briefing reading of Canadian case law on the matter suggests juries were not to keen to convict doctors who performed abortions, and didn’t seem to convict women who had abortions at all. Even Henry Morgentaler got only 18 months.

Even if the maximum sentences were life, juries and the courts seemed unwilling to equate abortion with murder.

 

[casslean]

And how many convictions were there? My briefing reading of Canadian case law on the matter suggests juries were not to keen to convict doctors who performed abortions, and didn’t seem to convict women who had abortions at all. Even Henry Morgentaler got only 18 months.

Even if the maximum sentences were life, juries and the courts seemed unwilling to equate abortion with murder.

The fact that imperfect judges and juries could be swayed by imperfect arguments advanced by lobby groups with political motives does not change the pith and substance of the law. The will of the people does not change the fact of the law.

Your argument was first that the law prohibiting abortion did not amount to a protection of the unborn child. I’ve shown you it did. You then argued abortion was considered a lesser legal offence than murder. I’ve again shown you that was not the case - the fact of the law was that abortion was, in both classification and penalty, a criminal offence equal to murder.

The law simply does not support your assertions.

 

[edwest2]

Look up “personal autonomy”.

Or to put it another way, why should my choices about my body be mediated by what any particular church, or you specifically, think I should do with it?

Radical individualism or tribalism do not lead to a functional society. Everyone has two bodies, one spiritual and one physical. Even if someone does not recognize the spiritual part, personal responsibility in the case of abortion is not just about one person. Two people are required for pregnancy, and the only reason a woman makes a decision to abort is because there is a baby in the womb. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.

Ed

 

[Lucretius]

Medievals didn’t think that life began at conception, due to their understanding of biology at the time. Nevertheless, abortion was consider a mortal sin and criminally punishable. Vice President Joe Biden in fact tried to use St. Thomas to justify being both Catholic and pro-abortion.

We tend to justify abortion on grounds that it’s the mother’s right, while the Romans and Greek justified abortion on grounds that it is the father’s right. In one, abortion is seen as in opposition to the patriarchy, while the other abortion is seen as conforming to it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius