Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T22:03:08.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reply to Professor Sumner1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Lorenne M.G. Clark*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reply
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

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.