what did John Locke think about pro-life?

Question

I'm doing a paper for philosophy on Abortion and I have to include famous philosophers that deal ethics and life. What did philosophers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes think about the subject of abortion?

Answer 1

In their time there were very few effective ways to cause abortion that didn't kill the mother. Much more common was just abandoning infants, which was unambiguously murder. But this is the easy answer. What you need to do is look deep into their writing to see how much they valued life and whether or not anything they said can be construed as extending the rights of the living to the not yet born.

Answer 2

do you have to pick those types of philosophers?
there are many other more modern philosophers that cover the abortion issue, such as Mary warren, peter singer etc.

As for Locke and Hobbes, i really don't know, they were mainly political philosophers.

I think you are choosing the wrong types of philosophers.
have a look at an ethical philosophy book and start there.

Answer 3

Pro-life

Answer 4

Hard to say, I would say you must first make a stand on what you are trying to say on your essay. Then refer to them as pillars for your thoughts. Remember back then things were different, just like they are going to be in the future, anything is just a theory, but I think they would attack more on the reasons of what leads to abortion on epidemic numbers.
Eg, not enough education, the media, parenting, politics, social classes, etc, etc.

Answer 5

These quotes may help or give clue to what their opinion may be.

My opinion is that John Locke would say if according the Will of the people, then to the freedom for the people, Liberty to do so.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr04.htm
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

"CHAP. IV.

Of Slavery.

Sec. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. "

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/locke.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/hobbes.htm

"III. The cause of mutuall fear consists partly in the naturall equality of men, partly in their mutuall will of hurting: whence it comes to passe that we can neither expect from others, nor promise to our selves the least security: For if we look on men fullgrown, and consider how brittle the frame of our humane body is, (which perishing, all its strength, vigour, and wisdome it selfe perisheth with it) and how easie a matter it is, even for the weakest man to kill the strongest, there is no reason why any man trusting to his own strength should conceive himself made by nature above others: they are equalls who can doe equall things one against the other; but they who can do the greatest things, (namely kill) can doe equall things. All men therefore among themselves are by nature equall; the inequality we now discern, hath its spring from the Civill Law."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/decive1.htm

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/decive.htm

"Many also (perhaps most men) either through defect of minde, or want of education remain unfit during the whole course of their lives; yet have Infants, as well as those of riper years, an humane nature; wherefore Man is made fit for Society not by Nature, but by Education: furthermore, although Man were born in such a condition as to desire it, it followes not, that he therefore were Born fit to enter into it; for it is one thing to desire, another to be in capacity fit for what we desire; for even they, who through their pride, will not stoop to equall conditions, without which there can be no Society, do yet desire it."


So, subsumming from this short excerpt of his reasoning, it is possible that he may consider only those fit for the capicity needed for education in society, shall have authority for law giving. If you could find something contradictory to that assumption, then he may say that such ethics are best democratically decided.