Rape, abortion and rights

[Mulligan2]

I beg to differ.The most fundamental.basic right of human beings is the RIGHT to life.

The right to life actually refers to the right of the individual to self-determination - i.e. the right to their own life - to make their own choices, in pursuit of their own hopes and dreams, in accordance with their own values. The Founding Fathers of the USA made the point that these rights belong to each individual, as opposed to belonging to the government. I question the motives of anyone who would try to use the strong arm of government to impose their beliefs on another individual. You may use persuasion, but you may not use coercion. We do not live in a theocracy.

 

[JimG]

The right to life actually refers to the right of the individual to self-determination - i.e. the right to their own life - to make their own choices, in pursuit of their own hopes and dreams, in accordance with their own values. The Founding Fathers of the USA made the point that these rights belong to each individual, as opposed to belonging to the government. I question the motives of anyone who would try to use the strong arm of government to impose their beliefs on another individual. You may use persuasion, but you may not use coercion. We do not live in a theocracy.

The founders did not establish an anarchy wherin each individual determines his own law. It established a rule of law, not an anarchy. And as far as I know, they did not establish a right to arbitrarily kill one’s children. It took several hundred years for that alleged right to be ‘discovered.’

 

[Jeanne_S]

The right to life actually refers to the right of the individual to self-determination - i.e. the right to their own life - to make their own choices, in pursuit of their own hopes and dreams, in accordance with their own values. The Founding Fathers of the USA made the point that these rights belong to each individual, as opposed to belonging to the government. I question the motives of anyone who would try to use the strong arm of government to impose their beliefs on another individual. You may use persuasion, but you may not use coercion. We do not live in a theocracy.

A good start to the rights you state,would be to allow said individual to actually be born,don’t ya think?

 

[St_Francis]

The right to life actually refers to the right of the individual to self-determination - i.e. the right to their own life - to make their own choices, in pursuit of their own hopes and dreams, in accordance with their own values. The Founding Fathers of the USA made the point that these rights belong to each individual, as opposed to belonging to the government. I question the motives of anyone who would try to use the strong arm of government to impose their beliefs on another individual. You may use persuasion, but you may not use coercion. We do not live in a theocracy.

Do others have the right to defend themselves from those whose values, choices, dreams lead them to do bad things to people? The values and hopes of someone like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer are that killing others for their own pleasure or nutrition is all right–isn’t our protection from people like this one of the tasks of the government?

 

[Mulligan2]

Do others have the right to defend themselves from those whose values, choices, dreams lead them to do bad things to people? The values and hopes of someone like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer are that killing others for their own pleasure or nutrition is all right–isn’t our protection from people like this one of the tasks of the government?

Yes, you have the right to defend yourself from Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. Why would you even ask this? And to your other question, yes, the role of government is to protect individuals from those who would use coercion to violate the rights of others, such as Eric Rudolph.

 

[Mulligan2]

The founders did not establish an anarchy wherin each individual determines his own law. It established a rule of law, not an anarchy. And as far as I know, they did not establish a right to arbitrarily kill one’s children. It took several hundred years for that alleged right to be ‘discovered.’

And it also took several hundred years for African Americans to be treated as 5/5 of a person, and for Women to allowed to vote.

 

[SuzanneD]

Does it make anyone else feel sick inside to think that we live in a world where this is even an issue? We are so SELF important that our rights as women must be upheld. We must be allowed to kill our babies or we are being discriminated against.Really? How sad.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, you have the right to defend yourself from Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. Why would you even ask this? And to your other question, yes, the role of government is to protect individuals from those who would use coercion to violate the rights of others, such as Eric Rudolph.

So the government should protect the unborn against attacks against them.

 

[JimG]

Does it make anyone else feel sick inside to think that we live in a world where this is even an issue? We are so SELF important that our rights as women must be upheld. We must be allowed to kill our babies or we are being discriminated against.Really? How sad.

It is sad that the right to kill babies in the womb has become something to be so highly valued. But in the future birth may not even provide a safe haven. Some have argued for the right to kill newborns. They want to give parents a right to change their minds. Professor Singer has suggested that they have several months post-birth before the child is declared a person, giving the parents time to decide whether he or she meets their expectations.

 

[aux1]

Prescinding for the moment from the “state” … do you think that the rape victim has a MORAL obligation to bring the baby to term?

YES SHE DOES!

Please note that this question does not necessarily involve an adjudication of “rights claims”. We sometimes have a moral obligation that does not involve “rights”. For example, if someone leaves a baby on my doorstep, and I live in a cabin way out in the woods, hundreds of miles from the nearest town, without a telephone, do I have a moral obligation to help that baby?

YES YOU DO!

It may be that the baby does not a “right” to my property. But not to help the baby would appear to be a moral outrage.

YES!

However, if the state legislates that you MUST help the baby or face punishment, then the state is limiting your right to property, right?

The article also points morally significant differences between the violinist artificially plugged into someone else’s kidney and the developing baby in the womb. I’ll be glad to expound on those differences but you should first read the article.

I’ll get back to you after reading it.

 

[aux1]

So, who is the rapist in the violinist situation? Society of Music Lovers?

Not really. Observe, that a raped woman has her rights violated twice:

(1) when she is raped

(2) when an embryo attaches into her uterus without her consent

The violinist argument addresses the second part.

 

[levinas12]

aux1,

Thanks for the clarification.

Now when is it appropriate for the government to “enforce” a moral obligation through legislation?

Once we address this question, we can move on to property rights.

 

[aux1]

I’ll get back to you after reading it.

Okay.

It might be argued that the rape victim wants to restore the status quo ante as “the state of not being pregnant,” but while such a desire on her part would be understandable, achieving that state does not license a second immoral act.12 More importantly, however, this is not the proper description of the relevant status quo ante. The actual status quo ante is not “the state of not being pregnant” but rather “the state of not having been raped,” and obviously the killing of the child will do nothing to restore that state.13 In such cases when restoration is impossible (e.g., rape, murder, etc.), then generally the best that we can do is to impose justice in a political context (e.g., imprisonment).

This is incorrect, because the actual status quo ante is being not-raped and not-pregnant. These are orthogonal qualities; a woman can be raped without getting pregnant; and if an already pregnant woman is raped, the rape does not justify her abortion. So while you can’t revert to being not-raped, but you very much can revert to being not-pregnant. In fact, this is what the discussion is all about.

That’s just an aside though. I must note that the author agrees with me on my core point. Observe:

Let us return to Thomson. She claims that, in affirming a woman’s right to control her own body but denying her right to an abortion, her pro-life opponents hold inconsistent views. However, Thomson’s claim only follows if we add in two further premises: (i) the right to control one’s body is tantamount to self-ownership (i.e., one’s body is one’s private property), and (ii) if a woman owns her body as private property she has the right to dispose of it as she sees fit, including the right to eject her unborn child.

So, in order to attack premise (i)…

Thus, (i) fails and Thomson’s pro-life opponents can affirm that women (and men) have a limited “right to decide what happens in and to” their bodies, without that fact entailing that they own their bodies. Accordingly her pro-life opponents are not guilty of inconsistency so long as the properly limited right of bodily self-control does not extend to the permissibility of abortion.

The important part is that properly limited right of bodily self-control does not extend to the permissibility of abortion. In other words, the pro-life position requires a priori limiting one’s control over her own body. In other words, state must be given jurisdiction to limit what you can and cannot do with your own body. The author himself concedes that:

Of course this line of argument does not prove the impermissibility of abortion. All that we have done in this section is to demonstrate that accepting a woman’s limited “right to decide what happens in and to her body” does not require us to accept that she thereby has a right to procure an abortion. We need a separate pro-life argument to show that abortion does in fact lie outside the legitimate limits of bodily self-control. In other words, we need a separate positive argument to show that abortion is analogous to an illegitimate use of the body, like selling oneself into slavery, rather than to a legitimate (if perhaps unsavory) use of the body, like extensive tattooing or piercing.

The author then proceeds to build a positive pro-life argument:

Let us consider a competing analogy, which cuts to the heart of the matter. Suppose you live in a cabin far out in the wilderness, cut off from civilization by extreme distance and weather for much of the year, say, nine months. You have provisions for yourself, but no large excess of stores. One day you return to the cabin to discover that an infant has been left at the door without explanation. You have done nothing to invite its presence, and certainly you have not given somebody permission to abandon it on your doorstep. Do you have an obligation to care for the infant, who will surely die if you do not take it in?

It’s a completely valid position, except that the author does not realize the obvious implication:

The Society of Music Lovers asks you (uninvited) to act as a dialysis machine for the violinist for the next nine months. Do you have an obligation to help him?

I would also answer that you DO have such a moral obligation.

So let’s now move to legislation. Should the state legislate that you MUST fulfill such moral obligation in case of:

1. pregnancy from rape
2. a child found at your door in winter
3. a violinist needing dialysis

…and why?

In my opinion, if you believe that the state CAN legislate that in some cases, but not in others, then your position is inconsistent.

 

[Mulligan2]

So the government should protect the unborn against attacks against them.

There appears to be no limit to the power you would cede to the government. Of course, as long as it supports “your” beliefs.

 

[1AugustSon7]

That’s irrelevant to the argument, which is: if the state can force a woman to carry an unwanted (unconsented to) pregnancy, why can’t it force YOU to donate blood or kidneys?

The State has forced millions of men to donate their legs, arms, blood, kidneys and even their lives before: it was called conscription. And they could do it again.

 

[levinas12]

In my opinion, if you believe that the state CAN legislate that in some cases, but not in others, then your position is inconsistent.

Not necessarily.

It all depends upon the criteria used for sorting out those moral obligations that should be so enforced from those that shouldn’t.

Any suggestions?

 

[1AugustSon7]

There appears to be no limit to the power you would cede to the government. Of course, as long as it supports “your” beliefs.

Seriously? You want us to believe that conceding a right to the state to defend the lives of its citizens amounts, ipso facto, to totalitarianism? Next time don’t call the cops when a murderer breaks into your house: you’d be conceding an horrifying amount of authority to the government in order to defend “your” belief that people shouldn’t kill you and the government’s police actually have a positive duty and obligation to protect you.

 

[Mulligan2]

Seriously? You want us to believe that conceding a right to the state to defend the lives of its citizens amounts, ipso facto, to totalitarianism? Next time don’t call the cops when a murderer breaks into your house: you’d be conceding an horrifying amount of authority to the government in order to defend “your” belief that people shouldn’t kill you and the government’s police actually have a positive duty and obligation to protect you.

Are you trying to misrepresent my position on purpose? I’ll state it for you clearly, just so there’s no ambiguity. The role of government is to protect individual rights. Yes, the role of government is protect someone when a murderer breaks into their house. Yes, the role of government is to protect individual rights when it comes to a woman’s reproductive health. And no, these rights are not conferred until one is born. Surely you will disagree with me, and that’s your prerogative.

 

[St_Francis]

There appears to be no limit to the power you would cede to the government. Of course, as long as it supports “your” beliefs.

How does my “ceding” to the government the obligation to protect *all * lives become a limitless ceding to the government?

According to “my” beliefs, the government should forbid all use of artificial birth control, fornication and adultery, and should enforce marriage vows rather than allowing people to break up families on a whim and without penalty. Just for a start. So asking the government to prohibit people from killing other people doesn’t seem terribly shocking to me.

 

[St_Francis]

Are you trying to misrepresent my position on purpose? I’ll state it for you clearly, just so there’s no ambiguity. The role of government is to protect individual rights. Yes, the role of government is protect someone when a murderer breaks into their house. Yes, the role of government is to protect individual rights when it comes to a woman’s reproductive health. And no, these rights are not conferred until one is born. Surely you will disagree with me, and that’s your prerogative.

On what do your base your opinion that rights are not conferred until birth?