'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 :)
Once you assign rights to the unborn, you very quickly end up in an "no abortion except to save the life or health of the mother or prevent unnecessary suffering of a non-viable fetus".
And this is exactly why most jurisdictions have limits on abortion.
In my country, elective abortions are only legally allowed up to 24 weeks of gestation and the doctors only perform it up to 22 weeks.
Above that, there needs to be a serious medical situation that falls in the exceptional categories.
Practically speaking, it's mostly an ethics discussion. The vast majority of abortions take place within the first 12 weeks, most even within 8 weeks.
because at 24 weeks- assuming advanced medical care is available- there's a reasonable chance that child could survive outside it's mother's womb. it's 50/50 at that point. no doctors- even the US- are performing abortions on fetus's that are past 24 weeks, unless there is something very, very wrong. (ie the fetus has died, and it needs to be removed.)
and generally, that's about five months, so it's plenty of time to figure your shit out.
I would argue, however, that given the nature of it, that abortions should be available- and without restriction. People don't suddenly decide to end a pregnancy half way through without VERY good reasons. for doing so; and slapping vague and arbitrary rules around it is stupid. Politicians cannot account for every situation, and the laws are far more likely to hurt the people being regulated than they are to hurt the fetus.
One could also argue that legally allowing unrestricted abortions past 24 weeks is counterproductive, since it galvanizes the pro-life movement. Look at any rally and most protestors are showing pictures of very late term abortions. I remember being in school as a teenager and the pro-life activists coming to our classroom to graphically describe partial-birth abortions that suck out the brains of babies. I was pro-life for the next ten years or so.
Obviously, that's not representative at all of what a normal abortion looks like. But it's much less galvanizing to show a 6-8 week old bunch of unrecognizable bodily fluids, which is much more representative of the average abortion.
A clear timeline also puts a healthy pressure on pregnant women to make a difficult decision earlier, when everything is easier, less impactful and less risky, instead of postponing it.
I'm not an expert, but the happy balance seems to be with easy accessibility up to 12 weeks and progressive restrictions after that.
This was also the gist of the original Roe v Wade, which established a trimester framework.
if we're being honest... that's bad medicine. And ultimately... we should not have other people's religion dictating what healthcare is available. period.
As for the rest…. no system of laws can be flexible enough to account for every situation and any attempt to do so is more likely to deprive people of healthcare. because some people believe weird things. Hell. Their own ~~immutable word of god~~scripture contains instructions on how to do it. you know. The same scriptures many insist can't possibly be wrong and therefore, the world is only 6k years old, and that dino bones were planted and didn't actually exist... or something.
To be fair, all it says is that if your wife is pregnant with another man's baby, you should sweep the church floor, put that dust and dirt in some water, and make her drink it. Then the Lord decides (if there was enough germs in the potion to endanger the fetus.)
So it really doesn't say "How" to abort a pregnancy, just how to punish your whore wife.
Are you implying that Roe v Wade is religious? Cause you aren't making much sense.
Predicating laws on abstract generalizations of biology is bad law making- and bad medicine. That aspect of RvW makes no sense. Its an arbitrary line drawn by people whose sole qualification is.. totally unrelated.
The rest is just a rant about why abortion shouldn’t be regulated beyond any other routine healthcare procedure, in response to the rest.
Everyone’s pregnancy is different and unique, as are their situations. It’s impossible to accommodate everyone’s needs (or beliefs.) so they shouldn’t even try.
In the Us, the most ardent pushing pro-life do so because of their Christian beliefs. Many of the same are Young Earth Creationists (this is mostly a fundamentalist evangelical thing). These sorts are so confident in the absolute accuracy of the Bible, that when confronted with fossils of dinosaurs; assume they’ve been planted by whomever to deceive man.
We should not have our healthcare tied to such. Neither should we have our constitutionally separated government beholden to their beliefs.