One of the most controversial and sensitive issue confronting most individuals: Abortion. A liberal democratic society is the one in which elections are fair and free while encouraging competition in the political process. These type of societies seeks to bring justice and fairness in the political arena, social and economic sectors. In this sense, the government is used as a tool of making decisions where they are needed. On the other hand, democracy brings about vesting of authority on the citizens. In such types of democracies, why or why not should abortion be a criminal offense?
Abortion is a key subject for understanding the actual workings of liberal-democracy. Every such society needs to take a position on it, and it can be highly controversial. The aim of liberal-democracy is to promote sufficient peace and prosperity that as few citizens as possible see any need to protest in a violent manner.
As we know from the American experience, the abortion issue can break this down. So what position should a liberal state take on this issue? Quite simply, the one that promotes least violence, or most peace (if you prefer).
Think of the abortion issue as a continuum. At one end is no abortion under any circumstances. At the other is abortion on demand. In between are all sorts of other possibilities. Allow in cases of rape. Allow to save the mother's life. And so on....
You choose by working out the least threat to peace in your particular society, at this particular time. In the UK, which is Protestant, we generally allow it up to the point where "life begins" for the embryo which was decided by Mary Warnock, an eminent philosopher! In Ireland, which is Catholic, it was mostly illegal for many decades. But that, in someways, was a convenient fiction. It kept the peace, but wasn't true. If they had the money, women would "visit family" in England if they needed the services of a legal, professional abortion clinic.
Good question!
Christopher NOCK
I dont agree that the criminal offensive have the great influence to liberal democratic societies , liberalism has its own immunity from the society and individuals especially .
I think it is high time this matter is settled. It should not be a criminal offence.
It is a criminal offence from medical point of view only when there is a risk of the concerned pregnent woman.
It may be due to criminal abortion by non doctors, abortion at advance stage of pregnency etc.
But in the present era of contraceptive pills, requirement of abortion is reduced to a large extent.
Complicated question that has caused enormous pains in the USA. Should a rape victim be jailed if she choses to end her pregnancy or be forced to carry the rapist child?
I think people can not be allowed to irresponsibly fall pregnant and then go to an abortion facility willy-nilly. There must be circumstance that people must fulfill before they can be allowed to do so. Such circumstances would normally include rape and life threatening medical conditions etc
Well yes, there's good points here all over! But notice how no women have chosen to respond to a question that, I'd have thought, effects them (and the embryo) most of all. Let's try to ensure we maintain an inclusive environment.
I see that violence in America over the abortion issue has recently flared up again! Why America? What's it about the culture there that makes this such a long-standing and serious problem? Too much fundamental religion? Too little tolerance? I wonder why because their protesters are coming here (the UK) to recruit for protests here. I don't like that.
NOCK
Abortion is a criminal offence in liberal and non liberal societies. It is a vicious act against humanity as it violates the ethical, moral, religious and social values of mankind.
Abortion should ordinarily be adopted only if the life of the mother is at risk. Prevention of pregnancy through any of the family planning means should be adopted by those who are not ready to shoulder the responsibility of raising a baby. The sanctity of life has to be protected.
Well, ask yourselves this: would you be so opposed to abortion under so many circumstances IF it was men who carried babies in pregnancy, and gave birth? And got gang raped? And who could die in child birth? And we're considered evil by too many of the opposite sex? And....
NOCK
Karen, thanks for the input! My tendency is to think the pregnant woman's shoes are the most important place in all of this.
NOCK
Historically, many societies experienced death rates around the same level as birth rates, but famine or disease could raise the death rate for short periods. If a society faces the potential for extinction, one would expect its members to limit abortion in order to encourage births. Birth rates have consistently exceeded death rates only in recent centuries. Society now has less of a stake in individual fertility. I do not think these considerations are definitive. I mention them solely one example of the many different ways to think about abortion. It is never an isolated event. It is always part of a network of relations that are heavily influenced by economic factors, the relative power of men and women, the social view of childhood (are children viewed primarily as producers or consumers), and even ideas of war. There have been periods in history when abortion was considered "unpatriotic" because each male child was considered a potential soldier. The threads are close to infinite that connect the issue of abortion to every other issue we face. In a liberal democracy, there is a hope that citizens will deliberate on public issues in the light of a variety of considerations and not become rigid in their thinking. The biggest problem with the abortion issue is that it has tended to evoke rigid, doctrinaire thinking, and that is the death of social reason.
Well, that's a most interesting answer. Most of it is based on thinking I would never have undertaken myself. So, for me, it's new and fresh. It forces me to think certain things through, which is good! Thanks.
The last little flourish on liberal democracy is less convincing, however. It's purpose is to maintain the peace, not promote debate (although that can be helpful). So it reaches decisions to that end, and must enforce them against dissenters, especially small numbers of violent ones. Large numbers of relatively peaceful ones is a different matter, and may lead to changes in the rules over a period of time.
Anyone too committed to a current "wrong" view must be monitored (police at abortion clinics), and punished if they continue once warned.
NOCK
There are countries (democracies) where this is now playing out. If we take the protection of human rights as a sign of the embrace of liberal, universal values, a criminalization of abortion is a violation of the right to health, to be free from torture, and ill treatment.
Not granting a woman that right is by the Human Rights Committee/UDHR definition, a cruel punishment if a woman is forced to carry a child to term. Criminalizing that choice limits individual freedoms. I believe El Salvador, Chile and Argentina recently went through legislative deliberations on this same issue.
El Salvador reportedly has the highest rate of gender-based killings of women and girls in Central America and the unfortunate distinction as having some of the toughest laws against women in the region, a criminal prohibition on abortion, where women with obsteric emergencies were convicted of aggravated homicide and serving up to 30 years in prison.
Christopher, I don't want to venture too far off topic, but I want to contest the view that there is a given end or purpose in a liberal democracy. For many political philosophers, the defining feature of political liberalism is neutrality on questions of what makes a good society. Some classical liberals might have argued that the liberal state should seek to find the optimal trade-off between liberty and order, but I don't know of any who simply made order or peace the end of the state. I would say your view of the state is more compatible with classical republican thought. I personally would like to see a revival of republicanism as a counterbalance to liberalism, but since the question was about the criminalization of abortion in liberal democratic society, I tried to stay within that framework. Of course, no term, such as "liberal" or "republican" in political theory has a univocal meaning, so you are perfectly free to argue that the pursuit of order is the end of the liberal state, but not all advocates of liberalism will agree.
Well, I'm those philosophers, who have also read at great length, are plain wrong. Please see my "The Rights of Men" chapter available on my "contributions" page.
NOCK
Karen, I have great sympathy for your views on this! I particularly like the notion of guilty men, even if it's consensual! But I'd have gone further: especially when it's consensual! At other times, it's already wrong.
But this gets us into a new realm. It might mean you asserting your individual rights against a (vaguely) collective decision. Does that help? Maybe you just might slip off to a more favourable jurisdiction? Another state? Canada? The UK? For a week or two....
NOCK
From a psychological perspective, you have to look at the underlying reasons, for instance rape, incest, safety of the mother and the unborn child, and one very important point 'Education'! From this perspective we have to see the person, what are they going through? would they be able to cope with looking after a young child? I don't feel that making abortion a criminal action is going to help the issue. We live in a world that advocates the use of contraception I do think we have to look at how we educate people and why it is not as effective as it should be! The amount of children that at present are suffering from abuse, malnutrition and unfortunately disabilities, I think we should be focusing on the question, 'if abortion was made a criminal act how many more unwanted children are going to suffer?'
Susan, thanks so much for reviving this important question! I particularly like your point about our (non-Catholic) world promoting contraception. Indeed, many Catholics wish the Pope to do the same. I think that does raise the subject of education. Abortion should never be a substitute for contraception. But this has been a long term problem in the UK. Indeed, I raised it in a secondary school class discussion in about 1972!!! The girls told me I was talking rubbish when I framed my question in terms of abortion as contraception...silly me!
NOCK
Susan, you should ask your question right here on researchgate! Go to top left of your front page. There's a button "More" (I think). Click it and click on "questions". You can enter it there. I apologize if you already know how that works! I'm trying to be encouraging not condescending.
I think it's a challenging question.
NOCK