| |
|
Empowering Men:
|
Justice Ginsburg's Attempt to
Head Off the Right to Life
Peter Zohrab 2019 |
|
|
Abortion is one issue where I had never heard Feminists talk about equality.
However, if you search the Web for the combination of the words “abortion”
and “equality”, you do find arguments for abortion which are based
on a notion of equality . Sunstein (2019) explains that the famous US Supreme
Court which legalized abortion, Roe v Wade, referred to privacy factors,
rather than equality, as the foundation of its judgment. That is probably
why I had never heard Feminists talk about equality in relation to abortion,
until I went searching for that.
Sunstein wrote his article because he was afraid that the Supreme Court
would overturn Roe v Wade. With the very conservative Donald Trump
as President, it is likely that any vacancy on the Supreme Court would be
filled by a young conservative judge, who would be there for decades. Even
as presently constituted, the Supreme Court is considered by some to be likely
to overturn Roe v. Wade . So Sunstein wanted to invent a new basis for holding
abortion to be legal under the US Constitution. That is why his article is
entitled: “Abortion Right Should Be Built on Equality, Not Privacy:
Roe v. Wade rests on a wobbly legal foundation. Here’s a firmer one”.
Sunstein says that there are two weaknesses inherent in the privacy argument
for abortion:
-
The US Constitution does not protect privacy in general;
-
The right of privacy usually has to do with personal information, which
does not seem relevant to abortion.
When you put it that way, it is amazing that the Supreme Court made the
decision that it made in Roe v Wade. I must conclude that if you
get a Supreme Court dominated by (male and female) Feminist judges, they are
capable of using any argument at all to legalise abortion!
Sunstein goes on to mention that the Supreme Court in 1992 tried a different
approach to supporting abortion. They relied on the concept of liberty. As
Sunstein points out, at least the concept of liberty is present in the US
Constitution! However, as he also points out,
“Liberty can be curtailed when the interests or rights of others
are at stake. What about the fetus?”
Sunstein realizes that the fetus has competing interests with those of
its mother (if she wants an abortion). However, it did not even occur to him
that the father also has competing interests of his own. What about child
support? Why should a father be liable for the upkeep of a child, when he
has had no legal right to participate in the decision as to whether it should
be aborted or born?
Then Sunstein goes on to cite a 1985 essay by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who later
became a Supreme Court Justice herself. Her most important suggestion was
to remodel discrimination law so that equality could be seen as relevant to
abortion and the US Constitution could be brought to bear on abortion on that
basis.
“In thinking about the right to choose,
she would have ‘added a distinct sex discrimination theme.’…
The very reason that restrictions on abortion are a form of sex discrimination
is that only women can get pregnant.”
Sunstein goes on to elucidate the philosophical background
to Ginsburg’s thinking as follows:
“… as early as 1985, Ginsburg emphasized
the centrality of ‘a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s
course’ – of ‘her ability to stand in relation to man,
society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining, equal citizen.’”
Sunstein seems to think that Ginsburg has constructed a good argument.
However, that is only the case to the extent that no intelligent legal argument
is mounted against it. Modern Western countries such as the USA, New Zealand,
etc. are so insanely Feminist that it may well be the case that no intelligent
legal argument would or will be mounted against it in court.
Political Correctness acts as a smokescreen for certain forms of oppression,
by taking it for granted that only particular scapegoat groups are capable
of carrying out oppression.
The point here is that anti-Feminist versions of her argument can easily
be constructed, as follows. Two versions must be stated: one that asserts
Men’s Rights as against female domination and another that asserts the
child’s right to life:
I) Men’s right to be free from female domination
In thinking about Choice for Men , we must add a distinct
sex discrimination theme.… The very reason that Feminist views on abortion
are a form of sex discrimination is that only women can get pregnant –
which means that men depend on women’s bodies in order to be able to
produce offspring.
We should elucidate the philosophical background
to the above thinking as follows:
We must emphasise the centrality of a man’s
autonomous charge of his full life’s course – of his ability to
stand in relation to woman, society, and the state as an independent, self-sustaining,
equal citizen, with the right to procreate.
II) The child’s right to life
In thinking about abortion, we must add a distinct
age discrimination theme.… The reason that Feminist views about abortion
are a form of age discrimination is that only very young humans are vulnerable
to being aborted – which means that they depend on the state to protect
them.
We should elucidate the philosophical background
to the above thinking as follows:
We must emphasise the centrality of a human’s
autonomous charge of his/her full life’s course – of his/her ability
to stand in relation to adults, society, and the state as an independent,
potentially self-sustaining, equal citizen, with the right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
23 August 2019 |
|
|
