Search

The Abortion Act 1967 constructs women as patients seeking care, rather than as women choosing abortion, portraying them as vulnerable subjects in need of assistance to make a responsible decision. This article reviews recent proposed women-protective amendments to the Abortion Act focussing upon the proposed introduction of a requirement that women be offered independent counselling. It argues that the issue of abortion should be reframed as a matter of the protection of human dignity, rather than as a conflict between the woman’s right to autonomy and the life of the foetus and, drawing comparatively upon case law from Germany and the United States of America, considers the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bundesverfassungsgericht have constructed human dignity in the abortion context. Ultimately it is argued that reproductive exceptionalism must end and that by locating the regulation of abortion within a framework of respect for dignity, it is possible to prioritise choice so that the woman’s dignity, which necessarily includes respect for her autonomy and bodily integrity, is not subject to the whims of the medical profession. It is suggested that dignity operates as a lens through which the woman’s claim to autonomy and the interest in foetal life are best viewed, enabling the conflicting interests to be reconciled and simultaneously protecting foetal life and the woman’s autonomy and bodily integrity. The protection of human dignity does not require that these interests be given an equal degree of protection throughout pregnancy and thus it is argued that at least during the first trimester a lower level of protection is demanded in respect of the foetal life, whilst the woman’s right to autonomy and bodily integrity are given precedence. With increased gestation dignity will require that the balance is adjusted so that from viability the foetal life should be prioritised over the woman’s autonomy, albeit with exceptions for risks to her health and life.

In most Welfare States, for most citizens of working age, access to a minimum income is typically conditional on employment-related activity such as job search, training or work itself. This chapter explores a case for unconditional minimum income (UMI). It discusses the possible justifications for conditionality. Conditionality in the income support system is presented as a means of ensuring that citizens do not enjoy income support on terms that violate the reciprocity principle. The chapter elaborates the fairness argument for conditionality that focuses on the principle of reciprocity: that those who choose to share in the benefits created by others' productive efforts should make a reciprocal effort in return. It indicates how this principle, far from being a 'neo-liberal' idea, is deeply rooted in egalitarian traditions of political thought and how making a minimum income conditional on work is also a common-place within this tradition. The chapter also situates the reciprocity principle within a wider discussion of economic fairness.