|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Title: | Abortion and the Right to Life - Part I |
| Author: | Sam Vaknin |
|
|
I. The Right to Life
It is a fundamental principle of most moral theories that all
human beings have a right to life. The existence of a right
implies obligations or duties of third parties towards the
right-holder. One has a right AGAINST other people. The fact
that one possesses a certain right - prescribes to others
certain obligatory behaviours and proscribes certain acts or
omissions. This Janus-like nature of rights and duties as two
sides of the same ethical coin - creates great confusion. People
often and easily confuse rights and their attendant duties or
obligations with the morally decent, or even with the morally
permissible. What one MUST do as a result of another's right -
should never be confused with one SHOULD or OUGHT to do morally
(in the absence of a right).
The right to life has eight distinct strains:
IA. The right to be brought to life
IB. The right to be born
IC. The right to have one's life maintained
ID. The right not to be killed
IE. The right to have one's life saved
IF. The right to save one's life (erroneously limited to the
right to self-defence)
IG. The Right to terminate one's life
IH. The right to have one's life terminated
IA. The Right to be Brought to Life
Only living people have rights. There is a debate whether an egg
is a living person - but there can be no doubt that it exists.
Its rights - whatever they are - derive from the fact that it
exists and that it has the potential to develop life. The right
to be brought to life (the right to become or to be) pertains to
a yet non-alive entity and, therefore, is null and void. Had
this right existed, it would have implied an obligation or duty
to give life to the unborn and the not yet conceived. No such
duty or obligation exist.
IB. The Right to be Born
The right to be born crystallizes at the moment of voluntary and
intentional fertilization. If a woman knowingly engages in
sexual intercourse for the explicit and express purpose of
having a child - then the resulting fertilized egg has a right
to mature and be born. Furthermore, the born child has all the
rights a child has against his parents: food, shelter, emotional
nourishment, education, and so on.
It is debatable whether such rights of the fetus and, later, of
the child, exist if the fertilization was either involuntary
(rape) or unintentional ("accidental" pregnancies). It would
seem that the fetus has a right to be kept alive outside the
mother's womb, if possible. But it is not clear whether it has a
right to go on using the mother's body, or resources, or to
burden her in any way in order to sustain its own life (see IC
below).
IC. The Right to have One's Life Maintained
Does one have the right to maintain one's life and prolong them
at other people's expense? Does one have the right to use other
people's bodies, their property, their time, their resources and
to deprive them of pleasure, comfort, material possessions,
income, or any other thing?
The answer is yes and no.
No one has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or
prolong them at another INDIVIDUAL's expense (no matter how
minimal and insignificant the sacrifice required is). Still, if
a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between
the parties, then such a right may crystallize in the contract
and create corresponding duties and obligations, moral, as well
as legal.
Example:
No fetus has a right to sustain its life, maintain, or prolong
them at his mother's expense (no matter how minimal and
insignificant the sacrifice required of her is). Still, if she
signed a contract with the fetus - by knowingly and willingly
and intentionally conceiving it - such a right has crystallized
and has created corresponding duties and obligations of the
mother towards her fetus.
On the other hand, everyone has a right to sustain his or her
life, maintain, or prolong them at SOCIETY's expense (no matter
how major and significant the resources required are). Still, if
a contract has been signed - implicitly or explicitly - between
the parties, then the abrogation of such a right may crystallize
in the contract and create corresponding duties and obligations,
moral, as well as legal.
Example:
Everyone has a right to sustain his or her life, maintain, or
prolong them at society's expense. Public hospitals, state
pension schemes, and police forces may be required to fulfill
society's obligations - but fulfill them it must, no matter how
major and significant the resources are. Still, if a person
volunteered to join the army and a contract has been signed
between the parties, then this right has been thus abrogated and
the individual assumed certain duties and obligations, including
the duty or obligation to give up his or her life to society.
ID. The Right not to be Killed
Every person has the right not to be killed unjustly. What
constitutes "just killing" is a matter for an ethical calculus
in the framework of a social contract.
But does A's right not to be killed include the right against
third parties that they refrain from enforcing the rights of
other people against A? Does A's right not to be killed preclude
the righting of wrongs committed by A against others - even if
the righting of such wrongs means the killing of A?
Not so. There is a moral obligation to right wrongs (to restore
the rights of other people). If A maintains or prolongs his life
ONLY by violating the rights of others and these other people
object to it - then A must be killed if that is the only way to
right the wrong and re-assert their rights.
(continued)
About the author:
Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism
Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is
a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press
International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health
and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory,
Suite101 and searcheurope.com.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
|
|
|
|
|
