Abortion, animals, rights
Peace and blessings. There are 4 questions that have come to my mind lately and I would appreciate your answers:
1. I know your moral position on abortion, but not your legal position. Do you think abortion or taking the “morning after pill” should be prohibited by law, to the point of imprisonment? If so, have you considered what the appropriate punishment would be at each stage of pregnancy (or should the punishment be the same when the fetus is one day old or 6 months old, for example?). The question arises in the wake of progress in Argentina on the issue – the president wants to pass a law that would imprison women who have abortions.
2. A similar question about animals: I know your position that it is immoral to eat and consume animal products, but do you think it should be legally prohibited? And here too, what would be the appropriate punishment?
3. A question that is a bit of a “definitional issue” but interests me – when a terrorist takes a life, it makes sense to think that he should be killed. In such a situation, has his right to life disappeared or has our moral obligation not to kill a person disappeared? Or both… And here too the legal question arises – let’s say he is not dead and they just arrested him, should the death penalty be allowed (as in some states in the United States)?
4. What is the metaphysical status of rights? Do the rights to property, life, security, and other rights actually exist, or would you divide and say that there are basic rights that exist and from which other “rights” are derived (or that there are no rights at all, only duties)? I am familiar with Hart’s argument regarding the right to liberty, from which other rights can be derived.
Thanks in advance!
1. Abortions, of course. This is murder. Regarding pills, it’s something else because it intervenes before a person is created. I don’t deal with punishments.
2. I don’t think so. Animals are not creatures with rights. Simply harming them is a crime, but harming them for use is another matter. What is needed is stricter regulation of the breeding processes, and then there will be no problem with eating them.
3. Both have not disappeared. But the need to defend themselves is overwhelming them.
4. I didn’t understand the question.
1. Morning-after pills work on an already formed embryo (cow's sperm, egg cell). If that's the case, should every woman who takes such a pill be put in jail? And if not, what's the difference between this and an abortion in the second week, for example? There seems to be no difference.
2. I agree that they don't have rights. But "for use" seems problematic to me. It seems that if someone just abused street urchins and then killed them and ate them, we would want to punish them. But since this is done by breeders and slaughterers, we don't punish them. Don't you think there's room to judge such massive animal abuse, even if it's for the purpose of eating? (Let's not talk about circuses or clothing industries)
4. I'm talking about a realist view of morality. Some argue that from an ontological-metaphysical point of view there are certain duties (e.g., don't murder), but regarding rights the discussion is more complex and it can be argued that there really are no rights, only duties. Or alternatively, that there are certain rights (e.g. the right to liberty) but not really other rights (e.g. the right to property). My question is, do you hold a realist position on rights, and if so, on which rights?
1. It is indeed the same thing.
2. I have stated my opinion on regulation.
4. I see no reason to divide between these and those. I am a moral realist (see column 456).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
