Some Pro-Life as Anti-Human Right
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Phoebe Davies-Owen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Assorted In-Sight (In-Sight Publishing)
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2016/12/08
Abortion remains contentious. Two vague positions dominate the discourse: pro-life/anti-choice and pro-choice/anti-life. The forward-slash indicating an “or” implies the respective opposition’s position implied view of them. That is, a pro-life position is seen as anti-choice; a pro-choice position is seen as anti-life, logically at least.
We could expound on a long, boring, and worn-out discussion on abortion and reproductive health alone. However, we will not; we will focus on human rights and international law focused on reproductive health, which emphasizes abortion for this brief discussion. We will not define pro-life or anti-choice as absolutes – too many abound. We will make the case for human rights.
As with Human Rights Watch (HRW) on abortion, HRW said, “…equitable access to safe abortion services is first and foremost a human right,” (Human Rights Watch, n.d.). That is, abortion equals a human right.
The Human Rights Commission of the United Nations affirmed abortion as a human right as well (Grimes, 2016; Flynn, 2016; Amnesty International, 2016). Abortion, as a service within reproductive rights and health, implies the on-the-ground impacts on millions of women throughout the world.
Continually, international human rights, and international women’s rights, connected to reproductive health and rights implies international law. Center for Reproductive Rights states:
In 2008, an estimated 86 million women had unintended pregnancies…Governments that prosecute and punish women who have had abortions penalize women for exercising their basic rights…International legal support for a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion are found in numerous international treaties…Laws that restrict abortion have the effect and purpose of preventing a woman from exercising any of her human rights or fundamental freedoms on a basis of equality with men…Laws that deny access to abortion, whatever their stated objectives, have the discriminatory purpose of both denigrating and undermining women’s capacity to make responsible decisions about their bodies and their lives…(Center for Reproductive Rights, 2011)
Where these are violated, the rights of women to safe and legal abortion, the international law is violated because the international rights are violated. Violations imply illegality; illegality implies its complement legality, and so legality implies laws, followed or violated. Pro-life positions, if defined by, premises in its argument on, restriction of women’s right to safe and legal abortion, equate to positions against human rights.
Some definitions of pro-life equate to anti-human right; some pro-life positions and actions stand in violation, in practice or theory, of international law. Pro-life positions seem dominated by conservative perspectives.
The nuances differ between those holding “pro-life” positions, whatever those happen to mean for them, and so ‘pro-life as anti-human right’ does not implicate all, even most, conservative (or other) positions on abortion. Most likely, some pro-life positions are anti-human right by the aforementioned reasons and ratiocination. Of course, sociological and economic factors count too.
Indeed, the rich countries, and wealthier women, can afford the reproductive health services, including abortion, more than the poor countries and women in poverty. Furthermore, lack of access to abortion associates with poverty for women as well (O’Hara, 2016).
Even so, it seems that, although the issue of abortion is contentious, women, and Western women in particular, are adamant in their refusal to be denied their right to terminate a pregnancy. The vast majority of the unsafe abortions occur in impecunious conditions, which remains the developing world (Cohen, 2009).
To illustrate this, in France, on the first of December, the French Assembly approved a motion that would criminalise websites that appeared neutral on the issue, but promoted an anti-abortion agenda and put pressure on women to terminate their pregnancies (Toor, 2016).
This has, inevitably, led to arguments on the right of freedom of expression, but the government sees that these groups are working in “a masked way,” deliberately trying to trick women (Chrisafis, 2016). Women have protested proposed restrictions on abortion in Poland (Jacobsen & Jackson, 2016). Others in Ohio in the United States (Ingles, 2016). Other women protested in London in solidarity with women in Ireland (The Socialist, 2016).
At the moment, the situation in Ireland is tenuous. In the republic, abortion is illegal and it carries a sentence of up to a life in prison – unless the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
But on Wednesday the thirtieth of November, the government agreed to compensate a woman for travelling to the UK to receive an abortion, the first incident of its kind. Amanda Mellet was offered £25,000 in compensation after being forced to travel to England in 2011 to receive an abortion after being told that her baby would not survive outside of the womb.
It is situations and individual narratives such as these that instigate serious reflection on women’s right for health and wellbeing, especially in the domain of reproductive services and health including abortion. In reaction to the restriction to “the first and foremost a human right” becomes the basis for outrage, letters, piecemeal reform attempts, even moderate to large protests or mass social movements at the extremes, the international stipulations state that this is such, not simply two writers or handfuls of individuals (Human Rights Watch, n.d.).
Bibliography
1. Amnesty International. (2016, June 9). Ireland’s ban on abortion violates human rights – ground-breaking UN ruling. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/irelands-ban-on-abortion-violates-human-rights/.
2. Center for Reproductive Rights. (2011, October). Safe and Legal Abortion is a Woman’s Human Right. Retrieved from https://www.reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Safe%20and%20Legal%20Abortion%20is%20a%20Womans%20Human%20Right.pdf.
3. Chrisafis, A. (2016, December 1). French MPs vote to ban abortion websites that intimidate women. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/01/french-mps-debate-plan-to-ban-abortion-websites-that-intimidate-women.
4. Cohen, S.A. (2009, November 20). Facts and Consequences: Legality, Incidence and Safety of Abortion Worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.guttmacher.org/about/gpr/2009/11/facts-and-consequences-legality-incidence-and-safety-abortion-worldwide.
5. Flynn, D.J. (2016, June 10). The UN Declares Abortion A Human Right. Retrieved from https://spectator.org/the-un-declares-abortion-a-human-right/.
6. Grimes, D.A. (2016, February 1). United Nations Committee Affirms Abortion as a Human Right. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/united-nations-committee-affirms-abortion-as-a-human-right_b_9020806.html.
7. Human Rights Watch. (n.d.). Abortion. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/legacy/women/abortion.html.
8. Ingles, J. (2016, November 17). Abortion Rights Advocates Protest Against Pair Of Bills That Would Restrict Abortion In Ohio. Retrieved from http://radio.wosu.org/post/abortion-rights-advocates-protest-against-pair-bills-would-restrict-abortion-ohio.
9. Jacobsen, S.D. & Jackson, N. (2016, October 6). Black Monday – Women’s Reproductive Rights in Poland. Retrieved from http://www.conatusnews.com/black-monday—women-s-reproductive-rights-in-poland.html.
10. O’Hara, M. (2016, April 27). Lack of access to abortion leaves women in poverty. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/contraception-abortion-access-women-poverty.
11. The Socialist. (2016, November 30). Repeal the 8th protest for abortion rights. Retrieved from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/927/24040/30-11-2016/repeal-the-8th-protest-for-abortion-rights.
12. Toor, A. (2016, December 2). France moves to ban misleading anti-abortion websites. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/2/13816434/france-abortion-websites-ban-law.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 
Comments are closed.