The Objective ordering of rights

·          South African law seems to base the right to abortion on a woman's right to bodily integrity. However in an objective ordering of rights in which some rights are obviously more vital than others, the right to life trumps that of bodily integrity and this should be reflected in the law.

 

·          The right to life is the most basic right, because it is a precondition for the possibility of having any other rights. It makes no sense to say I have the right to equality, if my right to life does not hold, because if I am deprived of life, it is impossible for me to enjoy the right to equality, or housing, or freedom of expression, or bodily integrity, or any other right.

 

·          If the foetus was recognized as a separate being with moral status, who has the fundamental right to life, this right to life would therefore justifiably limit one's right to bodily integrity.

 

The Humanity of the unborn child

 

·          Abortion is allowed up to birth, with no upper age cap, for various reasons.

 

·          Medical advances have made the humanity of the unborn child in the womb more visible (Medical evidence like 3d Scans etc).

 

·          It has also lowered the age of viability, as medical technology makes it possible for premature babies to survive at a much earlier age.

 

·          The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was a law passed in USA in 2002. It extended legal protection to an infant after a failed attempt at abortion.

 

Hypocrisy

 

Trying to prevent foetal alcohol Syndrome protecting something which legally does not exist?

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?.set_id=1&click_id=125 & art_id=vn20070116000515 468C294440

 

·          Passing laws to protect the disabled, giving them a special protected status, whilst seriously discriminating against them in the womb (allowed to abort them long after 'normal' foetuses)

 

·          United States gives some status to the unborn child eg if the child has been a victim of certain crimes, whilst in the womb - Unborn Victims of Violence Act, 2004, recognizes a"child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed

 

http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Unborn Victims of Violence Act


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/07/laci.bill/

http://www.news24.com/News24/South _Africa/News/ 0,,2-7-1442_1888664,00.html

Argument for extending the right to life to the unborn

 

·          In order to argue against abortion it is necessary to show that the embryo/foetus has moral status;

 

·          in other words that it is a morally significant being and should not be killed unjustifiably. Human infants after birth are generally accepted to be these types of being.

 

·          If we proceed from the assumption that, after birth, human infants are beings with moral status (who therefore enjoy a right to life), to support abortion it is necessary to show how the nature of a newborn infant is different from the foetus before birth; in other words why birth represents a morally significant dividing line.

 

·          It is clear that birth does not change the nature of the being in question in any morally significant way. To make this event the marker of the infant acquiring moral status is irrational and arbitrary.

 

·          Is there any point in pregnancy (or characteristic of the foetus which is developed during pregnancy) which changes the nature of the foetus in such a way that it becomes a being with moral status, when it was not such a being previously.

 

·          South African law makes no reference at all to the nature of the foetus, but implies that 20 weeks is such a dividing line, as conditions under which abortion is legal are limited to some degree after this point. If 20 weeks is a morally significant dividing line, the onus is on lawmakers to show why this is so. If one cannot say why his point is morally significant, the decision to disallow abortion after this point, while allowing it before this point, is arbitrary.

 

·          Characteristics which have been considered relevant in this regard are quickening, the ability to feel pain, or viability. However, none of these characteristics can be shown to be morally significant. The inability to move, feel pain, or survive independently cannot be rationally defended as characteristics which deprive a being of moral status (not valid after birth ­imagine the implications if they were). It is impossible to identify a point in pregnancy which represents a morally significant dividing line, apart from conception, when a new being comes into existence.

 

·          Therefore we are logically left with two options ­acknowledge that the foetus has moral status from conception, or deny that it has moral status, and accept the implications of this ie infanticide is acceptable.

 

·          As the second option is morally repugnant to most people, and is not accepted in South African law, we must logically accept that the foetus has moral status from conception