Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

As medical technology has advanced, so too have our attitudes towards the level of control we can or should expect to have over our procreative capacities. This creates a multidimensional problem for the law and family planning services in terms of access to services – whether to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy – and the negligent provision of these services. These developments go to the heart of our perception of autonomy. Unsurprisingly, these matters also raise a moral dilemma for the law. Distinctively, discourse in this area is dominated by assertions of subjective moral value; in relation to life, to personal choice and to notions of the archetypal family. Against this, I stress that a model of objective morality can answer these challenging questions and resolve the inherent problems of legal regulation. Therefore, I argue that notions of autonomy must be based on a rational, action-based understanding of what it means to be a ‘moral agent’. I claim that from this we might support a legal standard, based on objective rational morality, which can frame our constitutional norms and our conception of justice in these contentious areas. This paper claims that the current regulation of abortion is outdated and requires radical reform. It proposes a scheme that would shift the choice towards the mother (and the father), remove the unnecessarily broad disability ground and involve doctors having a role of counsel (rather than gatekeeper).
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2016
EventGender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality - University of Westminster
Duration: 18 May 2016 → …

Conference

ConferenceGender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality
Period18/05/16 → …

Fingerprint

abortion
rationality
morality
autonomy
regulation
medical technology
Law
gatekeeper
family planning
pregnancy
father
disability
justice
reform
discourse
Values

Cite this

Thompson, J. (2016). Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate. Abstract from Gender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality, .
Thompson, Jack. / Rights, Rationality and Reproduction : Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate. Abstract from Gender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality, .
@conference{3729767aeab74ba7b27019a26e53dac3,
title = "Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate",
abstract = "As medical technology has advanced, so too have our attitudes towards the level of control we can or should expect to have over our procreative capacities. This creates a multidimensional problem for the law and family planning services in terms of access to services – whether to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy – and the negligent provision of these services. These developments go to the heart of our perception of autonomy. Unsurprisingly, these matters also raise a moral dilemma for the law. Distinctively, discourse in this area is dominated by assertions of subjective moral value; in relation to life, to personal choice and to notions of the archetypal family. Against this, I stress that a model of objective morality can answer these challenging questions and resolve the inherent problems of legal regulation. Therefore, I argue that notions of autonomy must be based on a rational, action-based understanding of what it means to be a ‘moral agent’. I claim that from this we might support a legal standard, based on objective rational morality, which can frame our constitutional norms and our conception of justice in these contentious areas. This paper claims that the current regulation of abortion is outdated and requires radical reform. It proposes a scheme that would shift the choice towards the mother (and the father), remove the unnecessarily broad disability ground and involve doctors having a role of counsel (rather than gatekeeper).",
author = "Jack Thompson",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
note = "Gender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality ; Conference date: 18-05-2016",

}

Thompson, J 2016, 'Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate' Gender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality, 18/05/16, .

Rights, Rationality and Reproduction : Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate. / Thompson, Jack.

2016. Abstract from Gender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality, .

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

TY - CONF

T1 - Rights, Rationality and Reproduction

T2 - Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate

AU - Thompson, Jack

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - As medical technology has advanced, so too have our attitudes towards the level of control we can or should expect to have over our procreative capacities. This creates a multidimensional problem for the law and family planning services in terms of access to services – whether to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy – and the negligent provision of these services. These developments go to the heart of our perception of autonomy. Unsurprisingly, these matters also raise a moral dilemma for the law. Distinctively, discourse in this area is dominated by assertions of subjective moral value; in relation to life, to personal choice and to notions of the archetypal family. Against this, I stress that a model of objective morality can answer these challenging questions and resolve the inherent problems of legal regulation. Therefore, I argue that notions of autonomy must be based on a rational, action-based understanding of what it means to be a ‘moral agent’. I claim that from this we might support a legal standard, based on objective rational morality, which can frame our constitutional norms and our conception of justice in these contentious areas. This paper claims that the current regulation of abortion is outdated and requires radical reform. It proposes a scheme that would shift the choice towards the mother (and the father), remove the unnecessarily broad disability ground and involve doctors having a role of counsel (rather than gatekeeper).

AB - As medical technology has advanced, so too have our attitudes towards the level of control we can or should expect to have over our procreative capacities. This creates a multidimensional problem for the law and family planning services in terms of access to services – whether to avoid conception or terminate a pregnancy – and the negligent provision of these services. These developments go to the heart of our perception of autonomy. Unsurprisingly, these matters also raise a moral dilemma for the law. Distinctively, discourse in this area is dominated by assertions of subjective moral value; in relation to life, to personal choice and to notions of the archetypal family. Against this, I stress that a model of objective morality can answer these challenging questions and resolve the inherent problems of legal regulation. Therefore, I argue that notions of autonomy must be based on a rational, action-based understanding of what it means to be a ‘moral agent’. I claim that from this we might support a legal standard, based on objective rational morality, which can frame our constitutional norms and our conception of justice in these contentious areas. This paper claims that the current regulation of abortion is outdated and requires radical reform. It proposes a scheme that would shift the choice towards the mother (and the father), remove the unnecessarily broad disability ground and involve doctors having a role of counsel (rather than gatekeeper).

M3 - Abstract

ER -

Thompson J. Rights, Rationality and Reproduction: Balancing Interests in the Abortion Debate. 2016. Abstract from Gender and Sexuality: Identities, Institutions, and Intersectionality, .