Search This Blog

Thursday, June 22, 2023

Abortion-rights movements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-rights_movements

Abortion-rights activists in São Paulo, Brazil

Abortion-rights movements, also self-styled as pro-choice movements, advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion. They seek to represent and support women who wish to terminate their pregnancy without fear of legal or social backlash. These movements are in direct opposition to anti-abortion movements.

The issue of induced abortion remains divisive in public life, with recurring arguments to liberalize or to restrict access to legal abortion services. Some abortion-rights supporters are divided as to the types of abortion services that should be available under different circumstances, including periods in the pregnancy such as late term abortions, in which access may or may not be restricted.

Terminology

Many of the terms used in the debate are political framing terms used to validate one's own stance while invalidating the opposition's. For example, the labels pro-choice and pro-life imply endorsement of widely held values such as liberty and freedom, while suggesting that the opposition must be "anti-choice" or "anti-life".

These views do not always fall along a binary; in one Public Religion Research Institute poll, they noted that the vagueness of the terms led to seven in ten Americans describing themselves as "pro-choice", while almost two-thirds described themselves as "pro-life". It was found that, in polling, respondents would label themselves differently when given specific details about the circumstances around an abortion including factors such as rape, incest, viability of the fetus, and survivability of the mother.

The Associated Press favors the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" instead.

History

Abortion practices date back to 1550 BCE, based on the findings of practices recorded on documents. Abortion has been an active practice since Egyptian medicine. Centuries later, abortion was a topic taken up by feminism. According to historian James C. Mohr, there was an earlier acceptance of abortion, and opposition to abortion, including anti-abortion laws, only came into being in the 19th century. It was not always a crime and was generally not illegal until quickening, which occurred between the fourth and sixth month of pregnancy. In the 19th century, the medical profession was generally opposed to abortion, which Mohr argues it arose due to competition between men with medical degrees and women without one, such as Madame Drunette. The practice of abortion was one of the first medical specialities, and was practiced by unlicensed people; well-off people had abortions and paid well. The press played a key role in rallying support for anti-abortion laws.

The ideas of the legalization of abortion in the late 19th century were often opposed by feminists, seeing it as a means of relieving men of responsibility. In The Revolution, which was an official published newspaper of women's rights that went out weekly, operated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, an anonymous contributor signing "A" wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. The Revolution newspaper highly impacted the women's rights movement, and for the first time, it seemed like women's voices were being heard through the proclamations of these unacknowledged subjects regarding women and their everyday rights and safety as citizens. The writer wrote that simply passing an anti-abortion law would "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. ... No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

Between 1900 and 1965, there were not any anti-abortion movements or rallies because states had already passed a law banning abortions at all levels, including prescriptions and procedures. The only exception for a woman to get an abortion without fear of legal retribution was if a licensed physician determined the abortion would protect the mother's life. Physicians who provide abortions and women who have abortions were constantly harassed by courts and prosecutors. In the 1960s, some states began to request changes with the abortion law. In 1959, a group of experts set up a model enactment that supported the advancement of the abortion laws. These experts suggested that the abortion laws should provide exemptions for women that were sexually assaulted or for a baby that may not have a good quality of life. The abortion-rights movement became a controversial topic in the United States regarding abortion and reproduction.

United Kingdom

Stella Browne was a feminist who campaigned for the liberalization of abortion law.

The movement towards the liberalization of abortion law emerged in the 1920s and 1930s in the context of the victories that had been recently won in the area of birth control. Campaigners including Marie Stopes in England and Margaret Sanger in the US had succeeded in bringing the issue into the open, and birth control clinics were established which offered family planning advice and contraceptive methods to women in need. Birth control is a method of pregnancy prevention through controlled contraception.

In 1929, the Infant Life Preservation Act was passed in the United Kingdom, which amended the law (Offences against the Person Act 1861) so that an abortion carried out in good faith, for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother, would not be an offense. Many citizens had mixed opinions on this, but ultimately started protesting this as child destruction. Child destruction was known as taking the life of a viable unborn child during a pregnancy or at birth, before it is independent of its mother. If there is an intent of death and no good faith is carried out in the process in order to protect the mother's livelihood, the offense carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The Infant Life Preservation Act defines the difference between murder and abortion-the causing of a miscarriage.

Stella Browne was a leading birth control campaigner, who increasingly began to venture into the more contentious issue of abortion in the 1930s. Browne's beliefs were heavily influenced by the work of Havelock Ellis, Edward Carpenter and other sexologists. She came to strongly believe that working women should have the choice to become pregnant and to terminate their pregnancy while they worked in the horrible circumstances surrounding a pregnant woman who was still required to do hard labor during her pregnancy. In this case she argued that doctors should give free information about birth control to women that wanted to know about it. This would give women agency over their own circumstances and allow them to decide whether they wanted to be mothers or not.

In the late 1920s, Browne began a speaking tour around England, providing information about her beliefs on the need for accessibility of information about birth control for women, women's health problems, problems related to puberty and sex education and high maternal morbidity rates among other topics. These talks urged women to take matters of their sexuality and their health into their own hands. She became increasingly interested in her view of the woman's right to terminate their pregnancies, and in 1929, she brought forward her lecture "The Right to Abortion" in front of the World Sexual Reform Congress in London. In 1931, Browne began to develop her argument for women's right to decide to have an abortion. She again began touring, giving lectures on abortion and the negative consequences that followed if women were unable to terminate pregnancies of their own choosing such as: suicide, injury, permanent invalidism, madness and blood-poisoning.

Aleck Bourne was acquitted for performing an abortion on a rape survivor in 1938, a landmark case in the movement for abortion rights.

Other prominent feminists, including Frida Laski, Dora Russell, Joan Malleson and Janet Chance began to champion this cause – the cause broke dramatically into the mainstream in July 1932 when the British Medical Association council formed a committee to discuss making changes to the laws on abortion. On February 17, 1936, Janet Chance, Alice Jenkins and Joan Malleson established the Abortion Law Reform Association as the first advocacy organization for abortion liberalization. The association promoted access to abortion in the United Kingdom and campaigned for the elimination of legal obstacles. In its first year ALRA recruited 35 members, and by 1939 had almost 400 members.

The ALRA was very active between 1936 and 1939 sending speakers around the country to talk about Labour and Equal Citizenship and attempted, though most often unsuccessfully, to have letters and articles published in newspapers. They became the most popular when a member of the ALRA's Medico-Legal Committee received the case of a fourteen-year-old girl who had been raped, and received a termination of this pregnancy from Dr. Joan Malleson, a progenitor of the ALRA. This case gained a lot of publicity, however once the war began, the case was tucked away and the cause again lost its importance to the public.

In 1938, Joan Malleson precipitated one of the most influential cases in British abortion law when she referred a pregnant fourteen-year old rape survivor to gynaecologist Aleck Bourne. He performed an abortion, then illegal, and was put on trial on charges of procuring abortion. Bourne was eventually acquitted in R v. Bourneas his actions were "...an example of disinterested conduct in consonance with the highest traditions of the profession". This court case set a precedent that doctors could not be prosecuted for performing an abortion in cases where pregnancy would probably cause "mental and physical wreck".

The Abortion Law Reform Association continued its campaigning after the Second World War, and this, combined with broad social changes brought the issue of abortion back into the political arena in the 1960s. President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists John Peel chaired the committee advising the British Government on what became the Abortion Act 1967, which allowed for legal abortion on a number of grounds, including to avoid injury to the physical or mental health of the woman or her existing child(ren) if the pregnancy was still under 28 weeks.

United States

The United States Supreme Court membership in 1973 at the time of Roe v. Wade

In America an abortion reform movement emerged in the 1960s. In 1964, Gerri Santoro of Connecticut died trying to obtain an illegal abortion and her photo became the symbol of the abortion rights movement. Some women's rights activist groups developed their own skills to provide abortions to women who could not obtain them elsewhere. As an example, in Chicago, a group known as "Jane" operated a floating abortion clinic throughout much of the 1960s. Women seeking the procedure would call a designated number and be given instructions on how to find "Jane".

In the late 1960s, a number of organizations were formed to mobilize opinion both against and for the legalization of abortion. The forerunner of the NARAL Pro-Choice America was formed in 1969 to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion. In late 1973, NARAL became the National Abortion Rights Action League.

The landmark judicial ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. This was back in 1970, where Jane Roe, (which was actually a fictional name used in the court documents in order to protect the plaintiff's identity), had filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade. He was the district attorney of Dallas County in Texas, where Jane Roe resided. She was challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor's orders to save a woman's life. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy. The Court held that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being in the decision Doe v. Bolton, delivered concurrently.

From the 1970s, and the spread of second-wave feminism, abortion and reproductive rights became unifying issues among various women's rights groups in Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, Britain, Norway, France, Germany, and Italy.

In 2015, in the wake of the House of Representatives' vote to defund Planned Parenthood, Lindy West, Amelia Bonow and Kimberly Morrison launched ShoutYourAbortion to "remind supporters and critics alike abortion is a legal right to anyone who wants or needs it". The women encouraged other women to share positive abortion experiences online using the hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion in order to "denounce the stigma surrounding abortion."

In 2019, the You Know Me movement started as a response to the successful 2019 passage of fetal heartbeat bills in five states in the United States, most notably the passing of anti-abortion laws in Georgia (House Bill 381), Ohio (House Bill 68) and Alabama (House Bill 314). This movement was started off by actress Busy Philipps because she had previously had an abortion when she was a teen. The actress and many others believe that it is important for women to speak up and shift the narrative, especially because abortion is such a taboo subject.

In the mid-19th century, concerns around abortion only consisted of the danger of a woman being poisoned and risking her health, not because of religion, ethics, or diplomacy. Ending a pregnancy before the fetus began movement, or "post-quickening" was only a wrongdoing, not a crime. The laws that were against abortions post-quickening removals were put in place to protect the well-being of the women that were pregnant, not the fetal life. It was more common for women to pass on during early terminations due to the usage of pre-owned instruments as opposed to natural abortifacients. Some women who engaged in quickening abortions were not prosecuted because there was no evidence and quickening was hard to prove.

Between 1900 and 1965, there were not any anti-abortion movements or rallies because states had already passed a law banning abortions at all levels included the prescription of drugs or undergoing procedures. The only exception for a woman to proceed with an abortion without worrying about breaking any anti-abortion laws is if a licensed physician were to prove that the abortion was for the protection of the mother's life. Abortion care providers and women who had obtained an abortion were pestered by courts and prosecutors.

In the 1960s, some states began to request changes, around the abortion law, from their states. In 1959, a group of experts set up a model enactment that supported the advancement of the fetus removal laws that were put in place. These experts suggested that the abortion laws should exempt women that were sexually assaulted, whose babies well-being were to be questioned and whose babies that were to be born out of its true, natural or original state. The Abortion Rights Movement became a cultural shift in The United States about the intentions of reproduction and abortion.

In 1973, the Roe v. Wade verdict changed the abortion laws altogether, making abortion legal. Many physicians and healthcare professionals jeopardized their medical licenses, risked being put in prison and fined by the state because they wanted to continue to provide abortions.

There were more than 1,000 abortion laws passed and enacted between 2011 and 2019 that limited access to abortion procedures. Some of these laws forbid a woman getting an abortion past a certain gestational age and was also based on race and specific pregnancy conditions. Other laws were established that ban particular abortion methods.

Targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) was put in place to target abortion clinics by demanding unnecessary requirements that made it hard for women to get an abortion. Anti-abortion rights claim that these requirements are for the safety of the mother and child, but that has not been scientifically proven. TRAP has placed limitations on abortion facilities to make it more difficult for them to provide abortion services that will essentially force them to not provide abortion services at all. TRAP policies have been put in place by 26 states as of 2020. During the pandemic, numerous states prohibited non-essential medical procedures, including abortion services. Policymakers in twelve states saw this as a chance to certify abortion as non-essential, therefore ending services.

Around the world

Legal on request:
  No gestational limit
  Gestational limit after the first 17 weeks
  Gestational limit in the first 17 weeks
  Unclear gestational limit
Legally restricted to cases of:
  Risk to woman's life, to her health*, rape*, fetal impairment*, or socioeconomic factors
  Risk to woman's life, to her health*, rape, or fetal impairment
  Risk to woman's life, to her health*, or fetal impairment
  Risk to woman's life*, to her health*, or rape
  Risk to woman's life or to her health
  Risk to woman's life
  Illegal with no exceptions
  No information
* Does not apply to some countries or territories in that category
Note: In some countries or territories, abortion laws are modified by other laws, regulations, legal principles or judicial decisions. This map shows their combined effect as implemented by the authorities.

Africa

South Africa allows abortion on demand under its Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act. Most African nations, however, have abortion bans except in cases where the woman's life or health is at risk. A number of abortion-rights international organizations have made altering abortion laws and expanding family planning services in sub-Saharan Africa and the developing world a top priority.

To classify the reasons as to which abortion should be legally permitted, countries in Africa fall within six categories: abortion is not permitted at all, abortion is only allowed to save the life of a woman, abortion can be performed if a woman's physical health is at risk, to save the mental health of a woman, to save or preserve socioeconomic reasons and abortions are allowed without any restrictions. But there are only five countries in Africa where abortion is legal and those countries are Cape Verde, South Africa, Tunisia, Mozambique and Saõ Tome & Principe.

During 2010–2014. 8.2 million abortions were performed each year in Africa. This number increased drastically compared to the 4.6 million abortions that were performed during 1990–1994. But this increased number of abortions is due to the increase of women that are reproducing at a young age. Approximately 93% of women within their reproductive age live in countries that have very restrictive abortion laws and abortion is only legal in 10 out of 54 African countries, leading to fewer women not being able to obtain a safe procedure. The World Health Organization only recommends trained personnel when performing induced abortions but not many women in Africa have access to trained professionals who are able to provide them with the best service to decrease the number of complications due to abortion. Approximately 1.6 million women are treated for abortion-related complications and only one in four abortions in Africa are safe. Africa has the highest number of deaths that are related to abortion and this is due to the most common complication of abortion that consist of excessive blood loss and an incomplete abortion that can lead to an infection.

Asia

During 2010–2014, 36 million abortions were performed in Asia. Majority of abortions occurred in Central and South Asia at a rate of 16 million in India and Asia and 13 million in China alone.

Although the abortions performed in Asia are not known, there is an estimated 4.6 million women who are treated because they have complications due to the performance of an unsafe abortion. The major complication of abortion is an incomplete abortion where a woman can experience an immoderate amount of blood loss and can develop an infection. Less common complications of abortion include a woman going into septic shock, damaging the internal organs and causing the peritoneum to be inflamed, all due to the unclean and unsterilized instruments that are being used doing the procedure. Untreated complications from abortions can leave women to experience negative health consequences for life that include infertility, chronic pain, inflammation of the reproductive organs and pelvic inflammatory disease. Unsafe abortions go deeper than just a woman's health but they lead to reduced productivity for women increased costs to an already struggling family. Although it is not completely known, a drug known as misoprostol is used to perform abortions in Asian countries and evidence shows that the sales of this drug has increased in Asia over the course of years.

On record, out of all the pregnancies in Asia, 27 percent of them end in abortions. This is the reason for the Asia Safe Abortion Partnership (ASAP).  This program was formed to increase the accessibility to safe and legal abortions and health care that is needed after any abortion service. 50 countries occupy Asia and out of those 50, 17 countries do not have a restriction on abortions excluding, gestational limits and permission from a spouse or parent. ASAP satisfies the demand for safe and accessible abortions through educational and advocacy. By grouping with other countries to promote advocacy networks, ASAP has created a worldwide and generational feminist power that advocates for women's abortion rights, autonomy and dignity. Anti-abortion groups have tried their best to discriminate the reproductive autonomy of women but ASAP has members spread across 20 countries that promote the women's movement for abortion rights, laws, and access. 

Even though abortion is legal in Asia, that does not mean that women always have access or adequate health care during these times. For example, abortions in India have been legal since 1951 but women who are particularly poor or marginalized make up 50% of unsafe abortions. Women in the Philippines are more than likely to undergo an unsafe and unsanitary abortion causing around 1,000 death annually due to abortion complications. The Philippines along with Iraq and Laos are the countries that has not made abortion legal, excluding legal exceptions, therefore they have not made it available to where women can have admissions to legal abortions that are safe for them and their bodies. Countries such as Afghanistan, Thailand, China and Lebanon, have all been impacted by the determined long-term feminist motion by ASAP for women's abortion rights.

This work ranges from workshops, journalist, advocates to menstrual management, violence against women, and issues surrounded around unplanned pregnancies. "Youth champions" were created by ASAP to share the knowledge that they have learned to their peers about sexual activity, abortions, women's rights and reproductions, reproductive health, and the abortion rights movement in general. Youth champions have been trained directly by members of ASAP and have been very successful in their training that include issues around disability rights that can widen the interrelation research of the women's forces to help assimilate reproductive and sexual rights within the human rights movement.

Japan

Chapter XXIX of the Penal Code of Japan makes abortion illegal in Japan. However, the Maternal Health Protection Law allows approved doctors to practice abortion with the consent of the mother and her spouse, if the pregnancy has resulted from rape, or if the continuation of the pregnancy may severely endanger the maternal health because of physical reasons or economic reasons. Other people, including the mother herself, trying to abort the fetus can be punished by the law. People trying to practice abortion without the consent of the woman can also be punished, including the doctors.

An advocate for the right to safe and legal abortion demonstrates with a sign.

South Korea

Abortion has been illegal in South Korea since 1953 but on April 11, 2019, South Korea's Constitutional Court ruled the abortion ban unconstitutional and called for the law to be amended. The law stands until the end of 2020. The Constitutional Court has taken into consideration abortion-rights cases by women because they find the abortion ban as unconstitutional. To help support the legalization of abortion in South Korea, thousands of advocates compiled a petition for the Blue House to consider lifting the ban. Due to the abortion ban, this has led to many dangerous self-induced abortions and other illegal practices of abortion that needs more attention. This is why there are advocates challenging the law to put into perspective the negative factors this abortion ban brings. By making abortion illegal in South Korea, this also creates an issue when it comes to women's rights and their own rights to their bodies. As a result, many women's advocate groups were created and acted together to protest against the abortion ban law.

Global Day of Action is a form of protest that advocates to make a change and bring more awareness to global warming. During this protest, a group of feminist Korean advocates called, "The Joint Action for Reproductive Justice" connected with one another to promote concerns that requires more attention and needs a quick change such as making abortion legal. By combining different advocate groups that serves different purposes and their own goals they want to achieve into one event, it helps promote all the different aspects of reality that needs to change.

Abortion-rights Advocate Groups:

  • Center for Health and Social Change
  • Femidangdang
  • Femimonsters
  • Flaming Feminist Action
  • Korea Sexual Violence Relief Center
  • Korean Women's Associations United
  • Korea Women's Hot Line
  • Network for Glocal Activism
  • Sexual and Reproductive Rights Forum
  • Womenlink
  • Women with Disabilities Empathy

Russia

In 1920, under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin, Russia became the first country in the world to legally permit abortion, no matter the circumstances.

But in the 20th century, the laws surrounding abortion were repeatedly modified between the years of 1936 and 1955. According to data from the United Nations in 2010, Russia had the highest rates of abortion per woman of reproduction. Results from the abortion rates of China and Russia were compared and out of a population of 1.3 billion people, China only reported 13 million abortions, a huge difference when contrasted to the population in Russia of 143 million people with 1.2 million abortions. Since abortion was illegal in the Russian Empire, it was not recognized in the Domostroi. The Domostroi was a set of tasks that were to be followed that were structured around rules, instructions surrounded by religious, social and domestic issues that were centered within the Russian Society. These rules enforced respect and compliance to God and the church.

Different rulers had different views about abortion. During Romanov's reign, abortion was illegal, frowned up, and if a woman were to go through with an abortion, her punishment was death. But after Romanov's reign ended, Peter the Great lifted the punishment of death for abortions but it was still considered a serious issue in 1917. Before the punishment for abortions was death, according to the Russian Penal Code that dates back to 1462–1463, women were dispossessed of their basic human and civil rights and banned from the city or they were forced into hard labor.

These harsh treatments and illegality surrounded around abortion still did not stop women from pursuing abortions. "Black Market" abortions were known as unauthorized and discreet procedures done by women who have experience in childbirth. These women were known as older women that were midwives and rural midwives, respectfully. Although these women were not abortion care providers, they were the only accessible obstetric personnel that women could go to without facing the harsh punishment and consequences forced upon by the Russian Society. Since adequate medical care was not provided for women looking to terminate their pregnancy, midwives and nurses from villages were trained to care for these women the best to their ability, but of course with illegal abortions there are always repercussions.

During the Soviet period in Russia, abortions ranked as the highest rates world-wide. After the Soviet period ended inn the Russian union, abortion numbers decreased with further enforced sex education courses and use of contraceptive birth control.

Europe

Ireland

Republic of Ireland

Abortion was illegal in the Republic of Ireland except when the woman's life was threatened by a medical condition (including risk of suicide), since a 1983 referendum (aka 8th Amendment) amended the constitution. Subsequent amendments in 1992 (after the X Case) – the thirteenth and fourteenth – guaranteed the right to travel abroad (for abortions) and to distribute and obtain information of "lawful services" available in other countries. Two proposals to remove suicide risk as a ground for abortion were rejected by the people, in a referendum in 1992 and in 2002. Thousands of women get around the ban by privately traveling to the other European countries (typically Britain and the Netherlands) to undergo termination, or by ordering abortion pills from Women on Web online and taking them in Ireland.

Sinn Féin, the Labour Party, Social Democrats, Green Party, Communist Party, Socialist Party and Irish Republican Socialist Party have made their official policies to support abortion rights. Mainstream center-right parties such as Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not have official policies on abortion rights but allow their members to take a conscience vote in support of abortion in limited circumstances. Aontú, founded in January 2019, is firmly anti-abortionist and seeks to "protect the right to life".

After the death of Savita Halappanavar in 2012, there has been a renewed campaign to repeal the eighth amendment and legalize abortion. As of January 2017, the Irish government has set up a citizens assembly to look at the issue. Their proposals, broadly supported by a cross-party Oireachtas committee, include repeal of the 8th Amendment, unrestricted access to abortion for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and no-term limits for special cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest.

A referendum on the repealing of the 8th Amendment was held on May 25, 2018. Together for Yes, a cross-society group formed from the Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment, the National Women's Council of Ireland and the Abortion Rights Campaign, were the official campaign group for repeal in the referendum. Activists utilized social media to bring the narrative of women's voices to the forefront of the campaign, making clear that the Eighth Amendment was dangerous for pregnant women to try and encourage voters to vote in favor of repeal. The 67% majority in favor of repeal is a testament to these stories and the women who braved the public Twitter sphere to change the law around women's reproductive lives.

Northern Ireland

Despite being part of the United Kingdom, abortion remained illegal in Northern Ireland, except in cases when the woman is threatened by a medical condition, physical or mental, until 2019. Women seeking abortions had to travel to England. In October 2019, abortion up to 12 weeks was legalized, to begin in April 2020, but remains near-unobtainable.

Poland

In October 2020, protests break out following changes to abortion laws in Poland.
 

Poland initially held abortion to be legal in 1958 by the communist government, but was later banned after restoration of democracy in 1989.

Currently, abortion is illegal in all cases except for rape or when the fetus or mother is in fatal conditions. The wide spread of Catholic Church in Poland within the country has made abortion socially 'unacceptable'. The Pope has had major influence on the acceptance of abortion within Poland. Several landmark court cases have had substantial influence on the current status of abortion, including Tysiac v Poland.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the Abortion Act 1967 legalized abortion on a wide number of grounds, except in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, the law states that pregnancy may be terminated up to 24 weeks if it:

  1. puts the life of the pregnant woman at risk
  2. poses a risk to the mental and physical health of the pregnant woman
  3. poses a risk to the mental and physical health of the fetus
  4. shows there is evidence of extreme fetal abnormality i.e. the child would be seriously physically or mentally handicapped after birth and during life.

However, the criterion of risk to mental and physical health is applied broadly, and de facto makes abortion available on demand, though this still requires the consent of two National Health Service doctors. Abortions in Great Britain are provided at no out-of-pocket cost to the patient by the NHS.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are predominantly pro-abortion-rights parties, though with significant minorities in each either holding more restrictive definitions of the right to choose, or subscribing to an anti-abortion analysis. The Conservative Party is more evenly split between both camps and its former leader, David Cameron, supports abortion on demand in the early stages of pregnancy.

Middle East

Abortion laws in the Middle East reflect variation of opinions. Some countries permit abortion in cases involving a pregnant woman's well-being, fetal impairment, and rape. Abortion was widely practiced during the colonial period, and allowed a longer term termination. By the 19th century, progressive interpretations cut the abortion time limit down to the first trimester. However, a 2008 World Health Organization report estimated 900,000 unsafe abortion occurred each year in the Middle Eastern and Northern Africa regions. While many countries have decriminalized abortions and made it more accessible, there are still a few remaining countries yet to do so.

Iran

Abortion was first legalized in 1978. In April 2005, the Iranian Parliament approved a new bill easing the conditions by also allowing abortion in certain cases when the fetus shows signs of handicap, and the Council of Guardians accepted the bill on June 15, 2005.

Legal abortion is now allowed if the mother's life is in danger, and also in cases of fetal abnormalities that makes it not viable after birth (such as anencephaly) or produce difficulties for mother to take care of it after birth, such as major thalassemia or bilateral polycystic kidney disease.

North America

United States

Abortion-rights advocacy in the United States is centered in the United States abortion-rights movement.

South America

Abortion rights campaigning in the Dominican Republic

Across the world, there are only four countries in which abortion is completely banned. Honduras, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have yet to legalize abortions, even if it is for the woman's health and safety. Since 2018, there have been no changes in the laws regarding abortion in these Latin-America countries. The Ministry of Public Health collected data that showed nearly half the pregnancies in the Dominican Republic alone are unwanted or unplanned; often stemming from incest or rape. Women in South America continue fighting for their rights and protection, but there has been no recent call of action.

Argentina

'Legalize abortion now!' Abortion rights banner at the Argentine Parliament, December 10, 2020
 

Because Argentina has been very restrictive against abortion, reliable reporting on abortion rates is unavailable. Argentina has long been a strongly Catholic country, and protesters seeking liberalized abortion in 2013 directed anger toward the Catholic Church. Argentina is the home of the anti-violence organization Ni una menos, which was formed in 2015 to protest the murder of Daiana García, which opposes the violation of a woman's right to choose the number and interval of pregnancies.

On December 11, 2020, after a 20-hour debate, the Chamber of Deputies voted 131 to 117 (6 abstentions) to approve a bill legalizing abortion up to 14 weeks after conception. The bill's passing resulted in large-scale celebrations by abortion rights activists who had long campaigned for it. The Argentine Senate approved the bill 38–29 on December 29, and it is expected to be signed by President Alberto Fernandez. Argentina will become the fourth Latin American country to legalize abortion.

Because of the ongoing discrimination that women face around the world, many organizations have come together and will come together to work and make efforts to equalize the rights and respect for women. Women's Autonomic, Equality and Reproductive Health and International Human Rights: Between Recognition, Backlash and Regressive Trends is a group that makes efforts towards the discrimination against women in law. This organization represents and advocates the rights of women to equality, dignity, and respect for her private life without discrimination. They have certain beliefs and outlooks towards humanitarian rights regarding termination of pregnancy at any time during the full pregnancy, and make aware that they believe the right of pregnant women to access termination of pregnancy should be autonomous affordable and effective. The fight for women's right, especially regarding her choice to abortion, has been an ongoing event with many negotiations, arguments, and exception. Overtime, many political figures have tried to contribute to the best of their ability to equalize women's rights, which surfaces the main discriminators of all women who seek out abortion. It is not limited to the political figures, but the women's peers, authorities, family, friends, coworkers, etc. Discrimination is not limited to law, and as this becomes more apparent, it is the goal of this movement, the Abortion Rights Movement, to allow women to choose discreetly what is best fitting for their lifestyle and their needs.

Right to life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Venezuelan protestors in 2014 with a sign that reads "Peace; Freedom; Justice; Right to life" in Spanish

The right to life is the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not be killed by another entity. The concept of a right to life arises in debates on issues including capital punishment, with some people seeing it as immoral; abortion, where some feel an unborn fetus is a human being whose life should not be ended prematurely; euthanasia, where the decision to end one's life outside of natural means is seen as incorrect; and in killings by law enforcement, which is seen by some as an infringement of a person's right to live. Various individuals may disagree in which of these areas the principle of a right to life might apply.

Abortion

Diagram depicting a surgical abortion

The term "right to life" is used in the abortion debate by those who wish to end the practice of abortion, or at least reduce the frequency of the practice, and in the context of pregnancy, the term right to life was advanced by Pope Pius XII during a 1951 papal encyclical:

Every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life directly from God and not from his parents, not from any society or human authority. Therefore, there is no man, no society, no human authority, no science, no “indication” at all whether it be medical, eugenic, social, economic, or moral that may offer or give a valid judicial title for a direct deliberate disposal of an innocent human life

— Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession Papal Encyclical, October 29, 1951.
President Ronald Reagan meets with representatives of the Right to Life movement, 1981

In 1966 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) asked Fr. James T. McHugh to begin observing trends in abortion reform within the United States. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) was founded in 1967 as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. To appeal to a more broad-based, nonsectarian movement, key Minnesota leaders proposed an organizational model that would separate the NRLC from the direct oversight of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and by early 1973 NRLC Director Fr. James T. McHugh and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC move toward its independence from the Roman Catholic Church.

Ethics and right to life

Peter Singer at Crawford Forum 2017
 

Some utilitarian ethicists argue that the "right to life", where it exists, depends on conditions other than membership of the human species. The philosopher Peter Singer is a notable proponent of this argument. For Singer, the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. This extends the concept to non-human animals, such as other apes, but since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack this, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be "justified" (but are not obligatory) in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of a disabled infant whose life would be one of suffering.

Bioethicists associated with disability rights and disability studies communities have argued that Singer's epistemology is based on ableist conceptions of disability.

Capital punishment

Paris Die-in on July 2, 2008

Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is a violation of the right to life, while its supporters argue that the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life because the right to life should apply with deference to a sense of justice. The opponents believe that capital punishment is the worst violation of human rights, because the right to life is the most important, and capital punishment violates it without necessity and inflicts to the condemned a psychological torture. Human rights activists oppose the death penalty, calling it "cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment", and Amnesty International considers it to be "the ultimate, irreversible denial of Human Rights".

The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.

Killings by law enforcement

The International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement has created a system whereby it is recognised that international human rights law is binding upon all state actors, and that said state actors must know and be capable of applying international standards for human rights. The right to life is for the most part an inalienable right granted to every human upon the planet, however, there are certain situations in which state actors are required to take drastic action, which can result in civilians being killed by law enforcement agents.

Appropriate occasions for killings by law enforcement are strictly outlined by the International Human Rights Standards for Law Enforcement. Any lethal action taken by law enforcement agents must be taken following a certain set of rules that have been set out in the 'Use of Force' section of the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police. The essential tenet of the Pocket Book surrounding the use of lethal force is that all other means of a non-violent nature should be employed initially, followed by proportionately appropriate use of force. Proportionately appropriate use of force can, and will in some circumstances, refer to lethal force if a law enforcement agent genuinely believes that ending the life of one civilian would result in the preservation of his life, or the lives of his fellow civilians, as is outlined in the 'Permissible Circumstances for the Use of Firearms' section of the Pocket Book. The Pocket Book also outlines in the 'Accountability for the Use of Force and Firearms' section that there are stringent measures of accountability in place to maintain integrity within state law enforcement agencies as regards their right to the use of lethal force.

Protests at Ferguson on August 14, 2014

International institutions have outlined when and where law enforcement agents might have the availability of lethal force at their disposal. The International Association of Chiefs of Police have 'Model Policies' which incorporate various pieces of information from leading sources. One of these model policies states that law enforcement agents will engage in reasonable necessary force to efficiently bring a scenario to a conclusion, giving specific thought to both the safety of themselves and other civilians. Law enforcement officers are given the prerogative to engage in department-approved methods to safely bring a conclusion to a scenario and are also given the ability to use issued equipment to resolve issues in scenarios where they are required to protect themselves or others from damage, to bring resistant individuals under control, or to safely conclude unlawful incidents. There is no mention as to what "reasonably necessary" should be interpreted as meaning, but there is reference made to the reasonable man method of determining how one should approach a scenario. However, it has been highlighted through events such as the killing of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, which resulted in public unrest, that there is confusion and debate surrounding the use of firearms and lethal force. The 'Procedure for the Use of Firearms' section provides the process through which law enforcement agents must progress when using firearms. It states that they must identify themselves as a law enforcement agent, issue a clear warning, and give an adequate amount of time for response (providing that time would not likely result in harm being done to the agent or other civilians) before deadly force can be used within the bounds of international law.

While the Pocket Book on Human Rights for the Police outlines the academic circumstances under which law enforcement agents may use lethal force, the literal scenarios in which police killings have occurred are also relevant. Rosenfeld states that there is considerable literature that gives reason to believe that social conditions also have a part to play in how law enforcement killings can occur. Rosenfeld states that there are numerous studies that have been conducted which link law enforcement agents' use of lethal force to the area's rate of violent crime, the size of the non-indigenous population and the socioeconomic position of the community concerned. Appropriating a blanket description of how police killings can occur across the board is difficult given the vast differences in social context from state to state.

George Floyd mural Mauerpark Berlin, May 2020

Perry, Hall and Hall discuss the phenomena across the United States of America which became highly charged and widely documented in late 2014, referring to the use of lethal force from white police officers on unarmed black male civilians. There is no legal prerogative which gives law enforcement agents the ability to use lethal force based on the race of the person they are dealing with, there is only a legal prerogative to engage in lethal force if there is a reasonable fear for your life or the lives of others. However, the Propublica analysis of federal data on fatal police shootings between 2010 and 2012, showed that young black male civilians were 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white male civilians. The use of lethal force from law enforcement agents in the United States created widespread feeling amongst US citizens that they were not being protected by the police. The justice system mostly found that these agents acted within the boundaries of the law because the actions of the people who were shot were judged to be sufficiently questionable in character for the police officer to fear for their own life or the lives of others. Coppolo investigated Connecticut law and reported that the use of lethal force must be followed by a report that determines whether the law enforcement agent's lethal force was proportionately necessary in the circumstances. Coppolo also stated that a reasonable lethal response must only be made when there is a reasonable belief that the facts you have been presented with could realistically result in a risk of death or grievous bodily harm.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia machine (Australia)

Those who believe a person should be able to make the decision to end their own life through euthanasia use the argument that persons have a right to choose , while those who oppose the legalization of euthanasia argue so on the grounds that all persons have a right to life, which they interpret as an obligation to live. They are commonly referred to as right-to-lifers.

Juridical statements

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

— Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

— Article 4.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

— Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
  • The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany holds the principle of human dignity paramount, even above the right to life.
  • The Catholic Church has issued a Charter of the Rights of the Family in which it states that the right to life is directly implied by human dignity.
  • Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950, guarantees the right to life to all persons within the territory of India and states: "No person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Article 21 confers on every person the fundamental right to life and personal liberty which has become an inexhaustible source of many other rights.

Right to personal identity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_personal_identity

The right to personal identity is recognised in international law through a range of declarations and conventions. From as early as birth, an individual's identity is formed and preserved by registration or being bestowed with a name. However, personal identity becomes more complex as an individual develops a conscience. But human rights exist to defend and protect individuality, as quoted by Law Professor Jill Marshall "Human rights law exist to ensure that individual lifestyle choices are protected from majoritarian or populist infringement."[1] Despite the complexity of personal identity, it is preserved and encouraged through privacy, personality rights and the right to self-expression.

Concept and history

The right to personal identity begins with the right to life. It is only through existing that individuals can cultivate their identity. Nevertheless, since ancient Greek philosophy, humans have been recognised with a "soul", making them more than physical bone and flesh. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created to preserve the biological and philosophical elements of human beings since its establishment in 1948. Therefore, the notion of individual identity and personality has been encouraged and preserved from the birth of human rights. However, throughout the years there have been developments towards the protection of personal identity through avenues that manifest identity such as private life, expression rights, personality rights and the right to know your biological origin.

Private life

Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights has been interpreted to include "personal identity" within the meaning of "private life." Article 8 protects against unwanted intrusion and provides for the respect of an individual's private space. Professor Marshall explains that this space is necessary for individuals to "think reflectively without interference" and "to be in control of one's own faculties." as Macklem puts it: "independence of mind." This protection of inner privacy allows individuals to develop and cultivate their personal identity. "Private life" has been interpreted to protect the development of relationships. The ECHR highlighted in the case of Bruggemann and Scheuten v Germany Yearbook the significance of relationships concerning the "emotional field" and "the development of one's own personality."

With respect of privacy comes respect for personal autonomy, which Article 8 has also been interpreted to protect. The ECHR Online states that the scope of Article 8 is to "embrace personal autonomy" and the freedom to make choices without the interference of the state to develop one's own personal life. As illustrated by the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, through protecting a person's autonomy, a person's identity is also protected, as both are integral to each other.

Expression rights

The Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 and Article 10 of the ECHR give everyone the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Macklem explains that "freedom of expression is not merely the freedom to communicate one's voice to others. It is more importantly the freedom to develop a distinctive voice of one's own." Therefore, Articles 19 and 10 encourage the manifestation of personal identity. In the case of Handyside v UK the court stated "Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man." Freedom of expression not only endorses individuals to participate and contribute to public life but it also gives them the opportunity to discover who they personally are.

Article 9 of the ECHR also provides the right to freedom (and the manifestation) of thought, conscience and religion. According to Locke, thought and consciousness establish personal identity, for these are the foundations of who a person is. In addition, a person's beliefs also contribute to internal and external identity. For example, some believe women who have freely chosen to wear the Islamic headscarf or full-face veil are expressing their religious beliefs and personal identity. This has led to much debate and controversy within states which have banned the wearing of full-face veils in public.

Full-face veils

As of 2011, both Belgium and France have banned the full-face Islamic veil in public places. The ban occurred under the administration of President Sarkozy, who stated that veils oppressed women and were "not welcome" in France. But Marshall highlights that the ban is disproportionate and it is not government's place to determine what women should wear especially when it misrecognises her and disrespects her identity and personality. While France explains that the intentions of the ban were to promote public order and secularism, Arslan v Turkey held that Article 9 had been violated and that France has failed to recognise the intrinsic worth of women who freely choose to wear such veils. As illustrated under Article 1 of the Declaration of Human Rights, all beings are born equal and therefore have equal worth. Finally, Amnesty International has repeatedly urged France not to impose the ban, saying it violates European human rights law.

The issue of the full-face veil ban in France and Belgium illustrates the extent of legal protection an individual has on their personal identity. Being empowered to make self-determined choices, such as freely choosing to wear a full-face veil to illustrate beliefs, Marshall believes, is an interpreted concept of human dignity and human freedom, allowing each woman's identity to be legally recognised. The enjoyment of these rights and freedoms in the ECHR are protected under Article 14, and "shall be secured without discrimination regardless of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

However, these are the opinions of only some scholars. This is a contested issue and others believe that the banning of full-face veils is about liberating females to express their sexuality and providing them the opportunity to show the world who they truly are. These aspects also promote and encourage personal identity.

Personality rights

The right to have and develop a personality is addressed in Article 22 of the UDHR: "Everyone is entitled to the realisation of the rights needed for one's dignity and the free development of their personality." Article 29 also protects the right to develop one's personality: "[e]veryone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible." Manuc explains that personality rights can be defined as those expressing the quintessence of the human person, and are intrinsic to being human. These rights recognise the "spirit" within an individual and have developed from the issues of privacy. Personality rights emerged from the German legal system in the late twentieth century to seek distance from the horrors of Naziism. It was also a mechanism to improve tort law surrounding privacy, as illustrated in the Criminal Diary case.

The case concerned the issue of personality structure and having the right to determine oneself. Ederle explained this as a right individuals have to choose how to be related in the world. Through the help of the German Constitutional Court, an individual can actively seek and create an intimate sphere so his personality can develop and be protected. Some states see no need for a specific law to personality, as their system of law possesses a different foundation for personality protection. For example, France, South Africa and England have an all-embracing law that protects an individual's interest concerning physical integrity, feelings, dignity and privacy and identity. However, in addition to substantial protection to personality through privacy, the Netherlands and Austria also recognise a general right to personality.

Blood and biological right

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child stresses the value and importance of a child's identity. Giroux and De Lorenzi separate the understanding of identity into two parts: static and dynamic. The static aspects of identity concern attributes that make one visible to the outside world, for example, physical features, sex, name, genetics, and nationality. Dynamic aspects include morals and religious and cultural characteristics. Under Article 7, a child has a right to have a "legal" identity by being registered, and has a right to a name and a nationality. These protect mainly the static aspects of identity. However, Article 8 protects and encourages the child's dynamic aspects of identity through preserving his or her identity in relation to nationality, name and family relations. Article 8 illustrates the state's duty to protect this right, both passively and actively.

Articles 7 and 8 developed to confront the issues of children in political struggles and disappearances. For example, Gelman v Urugnay concerned the kidnapping of Maria Gelman which prevented her from developing relationships with her parents and concealing her true identity from her. 193 states have ratified the convention, making it the most-ratified convention in history, including all United Nation members except the United States, Somalia and South Sudan.

Identity is also within people's genes as evidenced by debates concerning anonymity for gamete donation. Since 2005, in the UK, donor-received people can contact their donor once over 18 to find out where they have come from and prevent genealogical bewilderment. However, there are global differences towards the debate; for example, in Canada and the United States there are no regulations, whereas in Switzerland the donor must be willing to be identified, and in France, anonymity is forced.

Criticisms

There are some scholars who believe the right to identity must be treated with caution. Rosemary J. Coombe expressed her concerns of personal identity becoming property as there is the belief that through marginalising identity, it could be accepted as private and exclusive property. Lionel Bently is also concerned with this idea and highlights his worry through a quote from the Du Boulay case: "Property rights in 'identity'… have the potential to curtail the liberties of those who wish to build their own identities, in whatever way, and for whatever reason." Other scholars believe that enshrining personal identity into the law is restricting people's choices and flexibility to transform and change who they are. However, human rights can also perform the contrary and protect individuals' choices on personal identity. While developing personal identity comes down to the individual to manifest character and work out 'who they are,' Marshall highlights that jurisprudence has evolved to create a positive obligation on states to provide social conditions such as private and personality rights to be respected, demonstrating that the international audience acknowledges that legal recognition is necessary to allow individuals to choose how they want to live and who they are.

Personal identity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal identity is the unique numerical identity of a person over time. Discussions regarding personal identity typically aim to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions under which a person at one time and a person at another time can be said to be the same person, persisting through time.

In philosophy, the problem of personal identity is concerned with how one is able to identify a single person over a time interval, dealing with such questions as, "What makes it true that a person at one time is the same thing as a person at another time?" or "What kinds of things are we persons?"

In contemporary metaphysics, the matter of personal identity is referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity. The synchronic problem concerns the question of what features and traits characterize a person at a given time. Analytic philosophy and continental philosophy both inquire about the nature of identity. Continental philosophy deals with conceptually maintaining identity when confronted by different philosophic propositions, postulates, and presuppositions about the world and its nature.

Continuity of substance

Bodily substance

One concept of personal persistence over time is simply to have continuous bodily existence. As the Ship of Theseus problem illustrates, even for inanimate objects there are difficulties in determining whether one physical body at one time is the same thing as a physical body at another time. With humans, over time our bodies age and grow, losing and gaining matter, and over-sufficient years will not consist of most of the matter they once consisted of. It is thus problematic to ground the persistence of personal identity over time in the continuous existence of our bodies. Nevertheless, this approach has its supporters who define humans as a biological organism and asserts the proposition that a psychological relation is not necessary for personal continuity. This personal identity ontology assumes the relational theory of life-sustaining processes instead of bodily continuity.

The teletransportation problem of Derek Parfit is designed to bring out intuitions about corporeal continuity. This thought experiment discusses cases in which a person is teleported from Earth to Mars. Ultimately, the inability to specify where on a spectrum does the transmitted person stop being identical to the initial person on Earth appears to show that having a numerically identical physical body is not the criterion for personal identity.

Mental substance

In another concept of mind, the set of cognitive faculties are considered to consist of an immaterial substance, separate from and independent of the body. If a person is then identified with their mind, rather than their body—if a person is considered to be their mind—and their mind is such a non-physical substance, then personal identity over time may be grounded in the persistence of this non-physical substance, despite the continuous change in the substance of the body it is associated with.

The mind-body problem concerns the explanation of the relationship, if any, that exists between minds, or mental processes, and bodily states or processes. One of the aims of philosophers who work in this area is to explain how a non-material mind can influence a material body and vice versa.

This is controversial and problematic, and adopting it as a solution raises questions. Perceptual experiences depend on stimuli which arrive at various sensory organs from the external world and these stimuli cause changes in mental states; ultimately causing sensation. A desire for food, for example, will tend to cause a person to move their body in a manner and in a direction to obtain food. The question, then, is how it can be possible for conscious experiences to arise out of an organ (the human brain) possessing electrochemical properties. A related problem is to explain how propositional attitudes (e.g. beliefs and desires) can cause neurons of the brain to fire and muscles to contract in the correct manner. These comprise some of the puzzles that have confronted epistemologists and philosophers of mind from at least the time of René Descartes.

Continuity of consciousness

Locke's conception

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in four books (1690) by John Locke (1632–1704)

John Locke considered personal identity (or the self) to be founded on consciousness (viz. memory), and not on the substance of either the soul or the body. Chapter 27 of Book II of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), entitled "On Identity and Diversity", has been said to be one of the first modern conceptualizations of consciousness as the repeated self-identification of oneself. Through this identification, moral responsibility could be attributed to the subject and punishment and guilt could be justified, as critics such as Nietzsche would point out.

According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are the same person to the extent that we are conscious of the past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we are conscious of present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which "goes along with the substance…which makes the same person," then personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal identity consists: not in the identity of substance, but…in the identity of consciousness." For example, one may claim to be a reincarnation of Plato, therefore having the same soul substance. One would be the same person as Plato only if one had the same consciousness of Plato's thoughts and actions that he himself did. Therefore, self-identity is not based on the soul. One soul may have various personalities.

Neither is self-identity founded on the body substance, argues Locke, as the body may change while the person remains the same. Even the identity of animals is not founded on their body: "animal identity is preserved in identity of life, and not of substance," as the body of the animal grows and changes during its life. On the other hand, identity of humans is based on their consciousness.

This border case leads to this problematic thought that since personal identity is based on consciousness, and only oneself can be aware of one's consciousness, exterior human judges may never know if they are really judging—and punishing—the same person, or simply the same body. In other words, Locke argues that one may be judged only for the acts of the body, as this is what is apparent to all but God. We are only responsible for the acts of which we are conscious. This forms the basis of the insanity defense—one cannot be held accountable for acts of which one was unconscious—and therefore leads to philosophical questions:

personal identity consists [not in the identity of substance] but in the identity of consciousness, wherein if Socrates and the present mayor of Queenborough agree, they are the same person: if the same Socrates waking and sleeping do not partake of the same consciousness, Socrates waking and sleeping is not the same person. And to punish Socrates waking for what sleeping Socrates thought, and waking Socrates was never conscious of, would be no more right, than to punish one twin for what his brother-twin did, whereof he knew nothing, because their outsides were so like, that they could not be distinguished; for such twins have been seen.

Or again:

PERSON, as I take it, is the name for this self. Wherever a man finds what he calls himself, there, I think, another may say is the same person. It is a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit; and so belong only to intelligent agents, capable of a law, and happiness, and misery. This personality extends itself beyond present existence to what is past, only by consciousness,—whereby it becomes concerned and accountable; owns and imputes to itself past actions, just upon the same ground and for the same reason as it does the present. All which is founded in a concern for happiness, the unavoidable concomitant of consciousness; that which is conscious of pleasure and pain, desiring that that self that is conscious should be happy. And therefore whatever past actions it cannot reconcile or APPROPRIATE to that present self by consciousness, it can be no more concerned in it than if they had never been done: and to receive pleasure or pain, i.e. reward or punishment, on the account of any such action, is all one as to be made happy or miserable in its first being, without any demerit at all. For, supposing a MAN punished now for what he had done in another life, whereof he could be made to have no consciousness at all, what difference is there between that punishment and being CREATED miserable? And therefore, conformable to this, the apostle tells us, that, at the great day, when every one shall 'receive according to his doings, the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open.' The sentence shall be justified by the consciousness all person shall have, that THEY THEMSELVES, in what bodies soever they appear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the SAME that committed those actions, and deserve that punishment for them.

Henceforth, Locke's conception of personal identity founds it not on the substance or the body, but in the "same continued consciousness", which is also distinct from the soul since the soul may have no consciousness of itself (as in reincarnation). He creates a third term between the soul and the body. For Locke, the body may change, while consciousness remains the same. Therefore, personal identity, for Locke, is not in the body but in consciousness.

Philosophical intuition

Bernard Williams presents a thought experiment appealing to the intuitions about what it is to be the same person in the future. The thought experiment consists of two approaches to the same experiment.

For the first approach Williams suggests that suppose that there is some process by which subjecting two persons to it can result in the two persons have "exchanged" bodies. The process has put into the body of person B the memories, behavioral dispositions, and psychological characteristics of the person who prior to undergoing the process belonged to person A; and conversely with person B. To show this one is to suppose that before undergoing the process person A and B are asked to which resulting person, A-Body-Person or B-Body-Person, they wish to receive a punishment and which a reward. Upon undergoing the process and receiving either the punishment or reward, it appears to that A-Body-Person expresses the memories of choosing who gets which treatment as if that person was person B; conversely with B-Body-Person.

This sort of approach to the thought experiment appears to show that since the person who expresses the psychological characteristics of person A to be person A, then intuition is that psychological continuity is the criterion for personal identity.

The second approach is to suppose that someone is told that one will have memories erased and then one will be tortured. Does one need to be afraid of being tortured? The intuition is that people will be afraid of being tortured, since it will still be one despite not having one's memories. Next, Williams asked one to consider several similar scenarios. Intuition is that in all the scenarios one is to be afraid of being tortured, that it is still one's self despite having one's memories erased and receiving new memories. The last scenario is identical to the first.

In the first approach, intuition is to show that one's psychological continuity is the criterion for personal identity, but in second approach, intuition is that it is one's bodily continuity that is the criterion for personal identity. To resolve this conflict Williams feels one's intuition in the second approach is stronger and if he was given the choice of distributing a punishment and a reward he would want his body-person to receive the reward and the other body-person to receive the punishment, even if that other body-person has his memories.

Psychological continuity

In psychology, personal continuity, also called personal persistence or self-continuity, is the uninterrupted connection concerning a particular person of their private life and personality. Personal continuity is the union affecting the facets arising from personality in order to avoid discontinuities from one moment of time to another time.

Personal continuity is an important part of identity; this is the process of ensuring that the qualities of the mind, such as self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment, are consistent from one moment to the next. Personal continuity is the property of a continuous and connected period of time and is intimately related to do with a person's body or physical being in a single four-dimensional continuum. Associationism, a theory of how ideas combine in the mind, allows events or views to be associated with each other in the mind, thus leading to a form of learning. Associations can result from contiguity, similarity, or contrast. Through contiguity, one associates ideas or events that usually happen to occur at the same time. Some of these events form an autobiographical memory in which each is a personal representation of the general or specific events and personal facts.

Ego integrity is the psychological concept of the ego's accumulated assurance of its capacity for order and meaning. Ego identity is the accrued confidence that the inner sameness and continuity prepared in the past are matched by the sameness and continuity of one's meaning for others, as evidenced in the promise of a career. Body and ego control organ expressions and of the other attributes of the dynamics of a physical system to face the emotions of ego death in circumstances which can summon, sometimes, anti-theonymistic self-abandonment.

Identity continuum

It has been argued from the nature of sensations and ideas that there is no such thing as a permanent identity. Daniel Shapiro asserts that one of four major views on identity does not recognize a "permanent identity" and instead thinks of "thoughts without a thinker"—"a consciousness shell with drifting emotions and thoughts but no essence". According to him this view is based on the Buddhist concept of anatta, "a continuously evolving flow of awareness." Malcolm David Eckel states that "the self changes at every moment and has no permanent identity"—it is a "constant process of changing or becoming;" a "fluid ever-changing self."

Bundle theory of the self

A Treatise Of Human Nature: Being An Attempt To Introduce The Experimental Method Of Reasoning Into Moral Subjects. For John Noon, 1739

David Hume undertook looking at the mind–body problem. Hume also investigated a person's character, the relationship between human and animal nature, and the nature of agency. Hume pointed out that we tend to think that we are the same person we were five years ago. Though we've changed in many respects, the same person appears present now as was present then. We might start thinking about which features can be changed without changing the underlying self. Hume denied a distinction between the various features of a person and the mysterious self that supposedly bears those features. When we begin introspecting:

[We] always stumble on some particular perception or other.… I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity and are in perpetual flux and movement.

It is plain that in the course of our thinking, and in the constant revolution of our ideas, our imagination runs easily from one idea to any other that resembles it, and that this quality alone is to the fancy a sufficient bond and association. It is likewise evident that as the senses, in changing their objects, are necessitated to change them regularly, and take them as they lie contiguous to each other, the imagination must by long custom acquire the same method of thinking, and run along the parts of space and time in conceiving its objects.

Note in particular that, in Hume's view, these perceptions do not belong to anything. Hume, similar to the Buddha, compares the soul to a commonwealth, which retains its identity not by virtue of some enduring core substance, but by being composed of many different, related, and yet constantly changing elements. The question of personal identity then becomes a matter of characterizing the loose cohesion of one's personal experience.

In short, what matters for Hume is not that 'identity' exists, but the fact that the relations of causation, contiguity, and resemblances obtain among the perceptions. Critics of Hume state that in order for the various states and processes of the mind to seem unified, there must be something which perceives their unity, the existence of which would be no less mysterious than a personal identity. Hume solves this by considering substance as engendered by the togetherness of its properties.

No-self theory

The "no-self theory" holds that the self cannot be reduced to a bundle because the concept of a self is incompatible with the idea of a bundle. Propositionally, the idea of a bundle implies the notion of bodily or psychological relations that do not in fact exist. James Giles, a principal exponent of this view, argues that the no-self or eliminativist theory and the bundle or reductionist theory agree about the non-existence of a substantive self. The reductionist theory, according to Giles, mistakenly resurrects the idea of the self in terms of various accounts about psychological relations. The no-self theory, on the other hand, "lets the self lie where it has fallen". This is because the no-self theory rejects all theories of the self, even the bundle theory. On Giles' reading, Hume is actually a no-self theorist and it is a mistake to attribute to him a reductionist view like the bundle theory. Hume's assertion that personal identity is a fiction supports this reading, according to Giles.

The Buddhist view of personal identity is also a no-self theory rather than a reductionist theory, because the Buddha rejects attempts to reconstructions in terms of consciousness, feelings, or the body in notions of an eternal/permanent, unchanging Self, since our thoughts, personalities and bodies are never the same from moment to moment, as specifically explained in Śūnyatā.

According to this line of criticism, the sense of self is an evolutionary artifact, which saves time in the circumstances it evolved for. But sense of self breaks down when considering some events such as memory loss, dissociative identity disorder, brain damage, brainwashing, and various thought experiments. When presented with imperfections in the intuitive sense of self and the consequences to this concept which rely on the strict concept of self, a tendency to mend the concept occurs, possibly because of cognitive dissonance.

Experimental philosophy

Since the 21st century, philosophers have also been using the methods of psychological science to better understand philosophical intuitions. This empirical approach to philosophy is known as Experimental philosophy or "xPhi" for short. Studies in xPhi have found various psychological factors predict variance even in philosophers views about personal identity.

Moral self theory

Findings from xPhi suggest that moral intuitions may have a major influence on our intuitions about personal identity. For example, some experimental philosophers have found that when a person undergoes a dramatic change (e.g., traumatic brain injury), people are less likely to think that the person is the "same" after their dramatic change if the person became morally worse (as opposed to morally better). Data like this support the "moral self hypothesis", that "moral traits are essential" to personal identity, with some going as far as saying that, "When someone undergoes dramatic mental change, their numerical identity—whether they're the same person as they were before—can seem to become disrupted".

Numerical and qualitative

While the direction of change (e.g., moral improvement vs. moral deterioration) has been found to cause substantial shifts in peoples' judgments about personal identity, multiple studies find that none of these shifts constitute thinking that someone is numerically non-identical to the person they were before the change—such that the person before the change is one person and the person after the change is an entirely separate second person: when people were asked how many people are described in cases of dramatic moral change, the vast majority of answers were "one" (rather than two or more). This aligns with more recent evidence that these shifts in intuitions about personal identity are about qualitative identity (i.e., how similar one is to a prior version of themselves) rather than numerical identity (i.e., whether there are two or more people described by cases in which a person undergoes a dramatic change).

Romance (love)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w...