The Recent Election, Human Rights, and Pro-Abortion Rhetoric

One wonders how many of this year’s mid-term election races were won, based on the claim that the prolife candidate’s position was contrary to women’s rights, because he or she took a position against elective abortion on demand.




Sociopaths notwithstanding, we all agree that adult human beings enjoy an equal share in equal rights, which we commonly call human rights. What, though, is that property we all share that grounds our human rights?




Is it function, size, development, race, or gender that grounds human rights? No, because these criteria sometimes vary radically among people, while our claim to rights does not. Human rights do not come in degrees. Our rights are based on what we are, not what we can do.




That universal property which grounds human rights is the human nature. Human nature is not something that develops over time. Instead it’s a necessary precondition for all of our subsequent development. Therefore, human nature is prior to human development.




The continuum of human development begins at fertilization and continues to natural death. All humans, from conception onward, have an equal share in human rights, especially the right to life. Women's rights are what they are because of their more fundamental basis in human rights.




Consequently, the rhetoric that the prolife candidate or vote is one against women’s rights is absurd. Regardless of the fact that approximately half of all abortions take a tiny female’s life, women’s rights presuppose human rights, which all enjoy—almost all.