No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reply to Professor Sumner1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
Abstract
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/61f2c/61f2c708732df7c28b161b76dcc955b2fd5b2f1f" alt="Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'"
- Type
- Reply
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 1974
Footnotes
Presented in substantially this form at the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Philosophical Association, Kingston, Ontario, June 1973, as a commentary on Professor L. W. Sumner's paper, “Toward a Credible View of Abortion.“
References
2 This despite the fact that legally speaking one literally cannot rape one's wife since ‘rape’ is defined as forcible intercourse with a woman other than one's wife, and in the face of the fact that even up to the present a woman had virtually no option but to become someone's wife.
3 It is interesting, however, that while the Criminal Code contains provisions against infanticide, these are rarely invoked against a mother who takes the life of the child within three months following birth. She is simply assumed to be suffering from post-partum psychosis and in need of psychiatric treatment rather than punishment.
4 And by ‘right’ here, I mean ‘claim', such that my having the right entails that someone else has a duty to provide me with that to which I have the right, if I want it.