Jon Henke over at QandO ponders the question of when do Jefferson’s inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property begin. I offered my thoughts in their comments section, but figured I would repost them here for further discussion in needed. ~sk
Natural law would argue that this begins at the very moment of “personhood” as it were.
Aristotle argued this occured at the moment of quickening, about 20 weeks when you could feel the baby move.
Augustine and Aquinas argued from a modified version of quickening towards “ensoulment”.
Eventually science determined that ensoulment and quickening weren’t really definable boundaries, and that the fetus truly did exist. Because the science changed, the bar was set further back to the moment the fetus consisted of a human being, no matter where it’s course of development stood.
Hence the argument for life beginning at conception.
As for the threee – life, liberty, and property – Jefferson borrowed these ideas from Grotius, who borrowed them from Aquinas. There is a reason why they are structured in this order. If you do not have liberty, you cannot possibly have property. If you do not have life, you cannot possibly have liberty (how does a rock have liberty?).
Life is the starting point for ensuring the rights of liberty and property. All of which structure themselves around the autonomy of the individual.
Fast forwarding from the 18th century concern about free men and prosperity, in the 21st century debate about abortion, natural law dictates that life begins at conception. If this is the case, then all life no matter what it’s station holds the inalienable rights to its life, its liberty, and its property.
Now all this having been said, there are ethical concerns now as to when does someone elses liberty stop and mine begins, when do ideas of property stop and when do they begin, etc.
Example 1: As the owner of a store, and you the employee, I ask you to climb up this rickety old ladder to pull down the can from the top aisle. You refuse and demand a better ladder. Have you impinged upon my right to property? The answer is yes, BUT the reason why is because your liberty and life are more important than my right to property. Therefore, I have an *obligation* to ensure your life and liberty by maintaining my property.
Example 2: A woman is pregnant with a child. The child impedes upon her liberty and property. However, the child’s right to life is supercedes that of the woman’s right to liberty and property.
Now one might argue that if the child were not a child, but instead a tapeworm, would the woman have the right to remove the tapeworm? Of course.
Some incorrectly argue that the difference between the two is intelligence, or the potential for intelligence, but this would be incorrect — newborns do not possess intelligence, yet they still qualify in most people’s minds as a life.
Another misplaced argument is that the fetus is a “parasite” of sorts, sharing the characteristics of the tapeworm, and can thusly be removed. A newborn is independent in a way, and can therefore be considered a life. However, remove that newborn from the care of its mother, or some other creature providing nourishment, and the child would quickly die. So would most teenagers removed from the care of their parents, but that’s another debate…
Another misplaced argument is that the fetus is not a life per se, but rather signifies the potential *for* life. If this is so, where does life truly begin? For lack of a definition, this argument falls flat, as it is a rehashing of the old Aristotlean and Augustinian arguments.
The natural law answer to Example 2 is that the child possesses the right to life by virtue of being a human life. Therefore, all other rights such as liberty or property are superceded.
Now in cases where the choice has to be made based on “who’s life to save, the mother or child,” natural law has an answer for this too. Firstly, one cannot make a decision based on hypotheticals. The situation must be actual. Secondly, abortions can and are morally acceptable if they are the result of “unintended effect.” So for instance, if a mother has uterine cancer, and goes to have the cancer removed, and an abortion occurs as a result, that is not considered an offense. The effect was unintended. Thirdly, in cases where the lives of the mother and child are held equally in the balance, the decision (and culpability) is placed solely with the mother. Either/or situations aren’t political or religious, they’re just tragic and should be treated (as all cases of abortion should be) with charity.
IN SHORT, there is a reason why life, liberty, and property are in that order. They are sequential because life is the prerequisite for all freedoms, and when we infringe upon that right, we infringe upon them all.
So goes the natural law argument!
UPDATE: Forgot to answer the questions he posed!
Your questions (and my apologies):
1: The fetus is entitled to life at the moment of conception. Life, liberty, and property are sequential because they hold pre-eminence in that order (i.e. without life, there can be no liberty, without liberty, there can be no property).
2: All persons are entitled to liberty at the moment they possess the prerequisite of life. Liberty – because it differs from the extremes of tyrrany on one hand and license on the other – must be properly excercised, hence the reason why you can “coerce” children into doing what is percieved to be right. Executing the right to liberty must always respect the lives of others.
3: Life and liberty being prerequisites, property stems from a just assertion of both of these rights. Disposing of property requires a respect for both the lives and liberty of others.
Very important to remember that Jefferson did not get these ideas from Locke; he received them from Grotius and Sydney, who in turn received them from Aquinas and ultimately Aristotle.
Hope the abridged version helps.