A British Court in 2019 ruled that a mentally disabled woman must have an abortion, even though the order was against both the woman’s wishes and her parents’ wishes. W

1

Excerpts from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

16 April 1963 My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in"… I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

…

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

…

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an

2

unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

…

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

…

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

U.K. Court Says Mentally Disabled Woman Must Have Abortion Yonette, Joseph . New York Times (Online) , New York: New York Times Company. Jun 23, 2019.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) A judge called her decision “heartbreaking,” but in the best interest of the woman, who is 22 weeks pregnant. FULL TEXT LONDON —A British court has ordered an abortion for a mentally disabled woman against her and her mother’s

wishes, with the judge calling the decision “heartbreaking” but in the best interests of the woman, who is 22 weeks

pregnant.

The unidentified woman, who lives in London, is in her 20s and has the mental capacity of a 6- to 9-year-old child,

according to evidence presented Friday at the court in London. The circumstances of the pregnancy were unclear,

the court was told, and a police investigation was underway, according to news reports.

The decision was first revealed by the Press Association and other British news media, including The Catholic

News Agency. The woman and her family were not identified, and neither her family nor her lawyers could be

reached for comment. But a spokesman for the court confirmed public details of the case by email on Sunday,

including the court proceeding and the judge’s comments.

Justice Nathalie Lieven handed down the decision at the Court of Protection, which hears cases on issues relating

to people who are considered to lack the mental capability to make decisions for themselves.

[An appeals court overturned the decision ordering a developmentally disabled woman to have an abortion.]

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the state to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that

she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,” Justice Lieven said in her decision.

But the judge said she had to act in the woman’s “best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”

The British charity Life, which says its mission is to create a society that “has the utmost respect for all human life

from fertilization,” said in a Facebook post that the decision was “truly horrendous.” Commentators on the site

described it as “terrible” and “devastating.”

“That is wrong on every level; doesn’t mean baby will have learning difficulties,” another person wrote on the

Facebook page of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

A spokeswoman for the British group Abortion Rights, which she said campaigned “to keep options open for the

many women who willingly choose to end their pregnancies,” described the case in a telephone call on Sunday as

not unprecedented but “really sad and complex.”

The group’s chairwoman, Kerry Abel, said in an email statement: “As heartbreaking as this case is, it is

opportunistic for antichoice organizations to use it to attack a woman’s right to choose. One in three women will

have an abortion in the U.K. for many, many individual reasons, and we shouldn’t undermine free, safe, legal

abortion based on one difficult case.”

The woman was under the care of a National Health Service trust, which sought the court’s permission for doctors

to perform the abortion, the court was told. The council that employs the social worker had also asked for a

decision.

Both the woman and her mother, identified by news reports as a former midwife from Nigeria, are against

terminating the pregnancy, with the older woman offering to care for the child, according to the court and news

media reports. The woman’s lawyers and a social worker also objected to terminating the pregnancy.

It was not immediately clear whether the woman and her lawyers had the option of appealing the decision.

Under Britain’s 1967 Abortion Act, abortions can be performed up to the 24th week of pregnancy. A section of the

abortion act allows the termination of a pregnancy if there is a significant risk of the baby’s being born seriously

disabled. Otherwise, abortions must take place during the first six months of pregnancy.

The Disability Rights Commission denounced that portion of the act in 2001, calling it discriminatory and

“offensive to many people.”

According to the latest statistics from Britain’s Department of Health and Social Care, there were 200,608

abortions by residents in England and Wales last year, a 4 percent rise compared with 2017, the highest number on

record. (The figure rose to 205,295 when nonresidents were counted.)

Last year, the British government announced that women in England would for the first time be legally allowed to

take an abortion pill at home to terminate pregnancies, following in the footsteps of Scotland and Wales.

The judge in the Court of Protection said she made her decision based on consideration of the abortion law, the

2005 Mental Capacity Act and evidence presented at the hearing. There was no evidence in this case that the

woman’s fetus is impaired.

But the court was told that the woman had been given a diagnosis of a “moderately severe” learning disorder and a

mood disorder.

The jurist said that though she was aware that the woman wanted to keep the baby, she was not sure the woman

had any sense of what having a baby “meant.”

“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” the judge said.

The judge noted the risks posed by the woman’s behavioral and psychological problems, and suggested that the

grandmother, who vowed to care for the child, might have to leave the mother and the home at some point.

She also said she thought the woman would suffer more if the baby was brought to term and taken away to foster

care or for adoption than if pregnancy was terminated.

The woman “would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed,” the judge said, adding, “It would at that

stage be a real baby.”

Palko Karasz contributed reporting. DETAILS

Subject: Evidence; Womens health; Attorneys; Social workers; Society; Pregnancy; Court

hearings &proceedings; Criminal investigations; Abortion; Intellectual disabilities

Location: Nigeria Scotland United Kingdom–UK Wales England

Company / organization: Name: Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; NAICS: 813940; Name:

Facebook Inc; NAICS: 518210, 519130

Identifier / keyword: Intellectual Disabilities Abortion Decisions and Verdicts Great Britain London

(England) National Health Service

Publication title: New York Times (Online); New York

Publication year: 2019

Publication date: Jun 23, 2019

LINKS Click here to order Full Text from OCLC ILLiad, Link to OCLC WorldCat

Database copyright  2021 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Section: world

Publisher: New York Times Company

Place of publication: New York

Country of publication: United States, New York

Publication subject: General Interest Periodicals–United States

Source type: Blogs, Podcasts, &Websites

Language of publication: English

Document type: News

ProQuest document ID: 2245043694

Document URL: http://eres.regent.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-

websites/u-k-court-says-mentally-disabled-woman-must-

have/docview/2245043694/se-2?accountid=13479

Copyright: Copyright 2019 The New York Times Company

Last updated: 2019-08-09

Database: ProQuest One Academic,ProQuest Central

1

Positive Duties (What you should do)

Positive and Negative Duties

Negative Duties (What you should not do)

The Moral Law

Perfect and Imperfect Duties: A Brief Introduction It’s difficult to escape the many obligations we face in everyday life. Some of these are enduring obligations, the do’s and don’ts of life, so to speak, which are often stated as general principles. You shouldn’t drive recklessly. Don’t use blasphemous words. In exchange for a fair wage, you ought to give an honest day’s work. You should show respect toward your elders. Each of these principles are examples of a special class of obligations called duties. Some duties are things we are told we shouldn’t do, like ‘don’t endanger others’ or ‘don’t speak blasphemy,’ whereas other duties are ways in which we are obliged to act, such as ‘give to others what is due to them’ or ‘be respectful.’ Such expressions emerge from the realm of ‘oughts’ and ‘ought nots’ or, in more contemporary language, the ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ of human action. These principles are largely based upon judgements about right versus wrong, and in some instances, they may even involve questions of good versus evil. In ethics, principles such as these are called moral duties. When we consider what some of these duties might be specifically, we quickly realize that some carry a stronger sense of obligation than others. You may, for example, feel an obligation to get to work on time, but your obligation to help a person in distress may cause you to stop and help and yet be late to work. Suppose you saw an elderly neighbor who had fallen in her driveway. Wouldn’t you feel compelled to attend immediately to her needs, even though you expect this would leave your boss and coworkers waiting for you to begin an important meeting? In many cases, we are forced to set aside one duty in favor of another which, in the moment, seems more pressing. The question we’ll examine here is whether or not there is something about the obligation itself, realized by virtue of the type of duty to which it belongs, which signals a built-in hierarchy and which, in more difficult moral questions, can give us a proper sense of precedence or priority. This hierarchy is what ethicists have in mind when they talk about duties being “positive” versus “negative” and “perfect” versus “imperfect.”

Negative duties are obligations that forbid or limit one's actions. They are called “negative”

because they proscribe certain things that we should not or must not do. In the Decalogue, eight of the commandments begin with the words “You shall not…” and are therefore expressed as negative duties. The remaining two commandments obligate us to do something rather than to refrain from some behavior. These commandments are examples of positive duties, or duties which tell us what we should or must do. The two positive commandments that appear in the Decalogue are “Keep holy the Sabbath” and “Honor your father and your mother.”

Yet it is clear that not all moral obligations are explicitly stated in the Ten Commandments. Examples of other negative duties most regard as moral obligations include “don't hurt people” or “don't be selfish.” Examples of positive duties include “keep your promises” and “help those in

2

distress.” Any time we use words to convey some part of the Moral Law, the way we express that moral obligation will always fall under one of two types: positive or negative.

Moral duties are also often classified as either “perfect” or “imperfect.” Perfect duties are obligations that are always in place no matter what the situation might be. Imperfect duties are duties that do not produce the same obligation for everyone in every circumstance. The reason perfect duties are called “perfect” is that they cannot be eclipsed by other duties or superseded by more pressing concerns. They are, therefore, duties which admit no exceptions. In other words, the term “perfect” is making the claim that some duties apply to all human beings at all times and in all instances, regardless of the circumstances.

If perfect duties truly exist and if some of these obligations dictate what you shouldn’t do (ie.

they are also negative duties), then there are certain acts that are, in and of themselves, always wrong. These perfect, negative duties are called moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are exceptionless moral rules that always prohibit human beings from committing certain acts. Aristotle, himself a non-Jewish, pre-Christian pagan who lived in the 4th century B.C., gives three examples of moral absolutes: murder, theft, and adultery (Nicomachean Ethics II.6 1107a14). The sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments of the Decalogue name these same prohibitions, and since the words used are “You shall not…,” they also appear to present these negative moral obligations as perfect duties and thus absolutes.

The fact that moral absolutes are also “perfect” moral obligations suggests that this special category of duties has the distinctive feature of being immune from conflicts with any other duties. A conflict in duties occurs when two duties oppose one another, creating a situation in which one obligation must be fulfilled at the expense of another. However, when a perfect duty and an imperfect duty come in conflict, the perfect duty must always take precedence. The reason is that perfect duties are, by definition, exceptionless, whereas imperfect duties are not and therefore can be subject to the particular circumstances a person faces.

Conflicts in duties are sometimes called moral dilemmas. Some think moral dilemmas present two moral choices which are both, in some sense, “wrong.” Fulfilling the duty to stop and help an elderly woman, for example, might come at the expense of getting to work on time, which is an obligation owed to one’s coworkers and employer. Following this line of thinking, it is wrong to get to work late, but it is also wrong not to stop and help. Since this situation presents a conflict in duties, doing wrong, some would say, is unavoidable.

3

Other Positive Duties

(What you should do)

The Decalogue and Perfect Duties

Negative Duties (What you should not do)

Love God

Love thy neighbor

IV. Keep holy the Sabbath.

V. Honor your father and mother.

I. You shall have no other gods before me. II. You shall not make for yourself an idol. III. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD.

VI. You shall not murder. VII. You shall not commit adultery. VIII. You shall not steal. IX. You shall not bear false witness. X. You shall not covet.

Positive duties

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (Jn 14:15)

Others, however, argue that some duties are imperfect and can therefore be superseded by a higher form of obligation. According to this view, imperfect duties are obligations we should undoubtedly fulfill, but only as best as we can and to the extent that we are able. If a conflict in imperfect duties occurs, one duty can therefore rightly be fulfilled at the expense of another when one duty carries greater weight, and this weighing is often dependent upon certain physical limitations, such as not being able to be in two places at the same time. My children, for example, may need my care and attention, but my friend might need my help with a paper he's writing. I am not able to be in both places at the same time, so I must choose to fulfill one obligation but not the other. I may decide that my obligation to my children, because of the degree to which they rely upon me, carries greater weight than my obligation to help my friend. In this way, I may find that one imperfect duty outweighs the other.

This weighing of duties, however, is not to be used when a “perfect” duty is at stake. If a perfect

duty seems to conflict with an imperfect duty, the perfect duty always carries the higher form of obligation. The soldier who has been ordered to execute a group of innocent women and children could therefore properly the refuse the order because he knows ‘never murder’ is a perfect duty despite the duty to obey his superiors, which he realizes is imperfect. If this moral diagnosis is correct, then classifying duties as perfect and imperfect helps define the hierarchy of duties and provides a built-in guide to assist in moral decision-making. Furthermore, this hierarchy resolves what might appear to be a moral dilemma between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty, allowing a person to reason through a difficult moral decision without being forced to “do wrong.”

We can now summarize the main points made about moral duties and obligations. Classifying duties as either “negative” or “positive” involves simply placing various duties into the categories of what should be done and what should not be done. Calling some duties perfect and others imperfect, on the other hand, does something much more profound: it involves making the claim that some duties are exceptionless and therefore always take precedence. Knowing which moral obligations are without exception – those which must always be upheld – is central to sound moral

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.