Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"?
Is the right to abortion a "negative right" or a "positive right"?
'Where negative rights are "negative" in the sense that they claim for each individual a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are "positive" in the sense that they claim for each individual the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of well-being like health.'
'Negative rights are considered more essential than positive ones in protecting an individual's autonomy.'
So when one individual's positive right to do something is at odds with another's negative right to protect them from something, as much as it would be ideal for both parties to have exactly what they want without harming or inconveniencing/upsetting the other, since that's often not possible, the negative right to 'protect' an individual from something seems to trump the positive right for an individual to 'do' something in hierarchy of moral importance and most ethicists seem to agree.
For example, I think people's 'positive right' to choose animal-based product or service options when there are equally suitable plant-based options that achieve all the same purposes, isn't as important as sentient animals' negative right to not be unnecessarily exploited and killed, and to be protected from those undesirable experiences, states or conditions. Hence the position of veganism is very clear and obvious for me, and resolves an "easy" ethical issue with a clear solution (essential negative (protective) right prevails over others' ultimately unnecessary positive ("doing") right).
When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it's a tricky situation ethically. I'm pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it's not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That's because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual's negative (protective) right. It would seem to be a clear ethical dilemma, where neither outcome is desirable, in almost comparably important ways. However, ultimately I had to decide that protecting a woman/person from an enforced pregnancy (and the physical and life-changing, even life destroying (or killing) effects, results and experiences that can have), a person being a fully formed, conscious and sentient individual, is more tangibly important than protecting an undeveloped, unconscious "mass of cells" from being prevented from developing into a human being.
My thoughts on the matter aside... It seems like in one way the right to abortion is a positive right by claiming assistance from others to "do" something being terminate a pregnancy, while in another way it's a negative right by "protecting" the person via preventing undesirable states and experiences that would be imposed on them by others 'interfering' and forcing them to undergo pregnancy, by denying them an abortion.
I'm honestly just wondering what kind right this would be considered. Positive right or negative right? Or both? Thanks :)
You're viewing a single thread.
When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it's a tricky situation ethically. I'm pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it's not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That's because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual's negative (protective) right.
I'm going to answer this, because if we remove the ethical dilemma you have everything else is meaningless.
The right to bodily autonomy is essentially absolute in most people's moral compass, let's give an example: imagine a fully grown adult was in a car accident, completely out of his control, he lost a lot of blood and his kidneys were damaged, you are a match to him, and he will 100% die unless you donate blood and one kidney, in that scenario: should the government be able to force you to donate your kidney and blood?
There is no question that the person will die if you don't, there is no doubt the person is a human being, there's no doubt you'll survive the procedure and live a normal life afterwards, yet the vast majority of people would agree that the government should not be able to force you, because we recognise that a person's right to their own body triumphs over other people's right to that person's body. Applying the same logic to a Fetus is straightforward, even if it was a person, it wouldn't have a higher right to your body than you do, there's no moral dilemma there just like there isn't one in the kidney situation.
In the unlikely event that you think the government should in fact be able to force you to donate your kidney, it means you value life above bodily autonomy, the logical next step is that as long as it saves more than one life it's okay for the government to kill you, e.g. if your heart and lungs are compatible with two people who will die without them, then it should kill you to get them because obviously saving two lives is better than saving one.
That's an interesting take. Unfortunately, brains are considered 'fully developed' at 24 weeks of pregnancy. Since most abortions are done well before that, the analogy doesn't quite match. A more apt analogy would be to give your kidney to a brain dead person who may never recover/survive and if they don't recover but do survive even with your best attempts then you are responsible for them for the rest of their lives.
Because an abortion, most frequently embryos not fetuses, are unable to support themselves as beings. A similar situation would be how unplugging a machine keeping someone alive isn't considered murder because they would otherwise be dead. Except instead of a machine it's a person. And they are being forced to not only support this person for 9 months but the rest of their lives, regardless of if the person is capable emotionally/physically/financially.
It should also be noted: in 2001, Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University argued, citing their research and earlier studies, that children who are unwanted or whose parents cannot support them are likelier to become criminals.
Yes, my entire point is that even if it was a human being, no questions asked, fully developed, with 100% chance of dying and 100% chance of you surviving, still the vast majority of people would agree the government can't take your kidney, which means that on a case where there's debate whether it's even a human being, when it's debate whether its alive or not, and where there's questions as to whether it will even survive, the argument becomes that much stronger. Bodily autonomy is one of the rights out society considers most valuable.
I'm against forced birth, but have to point out that there is the argument, whether realistic or not, that the parent can always give the baby to the foster care system once it's born, so their obligation would be limited to 9 months total.
Personally what I take issue with is the inconsistency of forced-birth laws in the absence of comparable forced-labor laws. In a world of ideal policy, maybe we as a society might agree that a person should be obligated to sacrifice their time and health for the sake of preserving or creating human life. But then it shouldn't be applied only to adult women who had consensual sex. Why shouldn't non-pregnant people be forced to tend a farm for 9 months to produce food for those who are starving, or to spend 9 months working 80-hour weeks at an emergency call center with no pay?
I suspect the answer is that the rights themselves are not the issue here, but rather the motivation to punish women who have consensual sex.
the parent can always give the baby to the foster care system once it's born, so their obligation would be limited to 9 months total.
That argument entirely overlooks the physical and mental changes that accompany pregnancy that persist well after the baby is delivered. Forcing the child bearing person to give up 9 months of their life for something they don't want or won't keep is awful alone, but the possible complications and life long issue that can come with it should make it unreasonable to force someone to go through that unwillingly.
As you surmises, this is about power and punishment, not rights. Rights are just a convenient smokescreen for the autocratic control of women.
Thank you! This is a great response. The only thing I would add as a response is that the laws are not only punishing women who have consensual sex, just those who have had a penis in them in general. Proving it wasn't consensual is a long and arduous process which can lead to career, legal, and social issues even if found true in court.