No Stupid Questions

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.

It's only complicated because of people different spiritual beliefs, which really shouldn't affect anyone outside of themselves.

If you take it from a scientific point of view, when a fetus has no brain or thoughts or feelings or sentience, there is nothing to protect or give rights to.

The mother on the other hand clearly should have a right over their own body.

For me it's a basic question of who gets to make your medical decisions, you, or someone else.

It isn't a person yet it's not a baby and it is "human" only by DNA. At that point it is indistinguishable from an embryo of a dolphin or other mammal. It can't even think yet, but for some reason people think of is special enough to be worth denying you your body autonomy.

I'm of the belief that separating out rights into different groups allows societies or governments a way to weasel out of protecting certain groups because it's not socially or politically advantageous. Reading through the information on positive or negative rights, it seems that's a pretty common concern. Also looks as if that's the entire point since it stems from legal philosophy. Bodily autonomy of the mother is an absolute right. Abortion is an absolute right. Only a woman and her doctor should be involved in medical decisions.

The right to abortion itself is a negative right; it should prevent a woman from being forced to keep a pregnancy against her will.

However, it must (in the moral sense) be followed by a positive right: the right to medical assistance to terminate the pregnancy.

Think of it this way, any negative right can become a positive right if someone gives it to you. A positive right can't exist without it.

The 2nd Amendment states that you have the right to keep and bear arms. This means that you can own and utilize a gun for self defense, which is a negative right. It can be made a positive right if the government provides everyone with a a gun for this purpose, but the right to self defense is different from the right to be given the means to accomplish it. Meanwhile the right to vote is something that can't exist without the government providing it. For $20 I can make a gun with supplies from Home Depot. With $1,000,000 I can't vote without an existing government system.

Abortion is a function of the right of bodily autonomy and freedom of religion. It's not the right to have the government "un-pregnant" you on demand, but the right to decide what biological functions you wish to perform. The primary argument against it is based in religious morality, which violates the 1st Amendment's separation of church and state. The government cannot establish an official religion and impose a specific religious doctrine on you. Since it is something that require you to seek it out and implement it is a negative right.

The real reason abortion is such a delicate political issue is that its true morality is based in religion. If you believe that the soul (a religious concept) begins at or before conception, it is murder which makes it inherently evil. If you believe that the soul becomes a person at viability or birth, it is simply a regulatory restriction like a highway having a speed limit of 60 vs 65 mph. The inability of either side to acknowledge that personal religious beliefs determine whether or not it is literal murder makes a lot of the back and forth shouting an exercise in futility. At the end of the day "Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise." Saying you can't do something because someone else's religion forbids it is a direct violation of that, but ignoring that to some people it is literally murder makes it harder to have honest debates on it. At least having a basic awareness of why the other side is so rabidly opposed to it is very useful in breaking through the emotional arguments that dominate the discussion over the fundamental factors of what is and is not an actual right.

Negative right. It's freedom from interference. It's not a positive right in that it is not compelling anyone to have or to perform an abortion, only preventing uninvolved parties from interfering in the decision.

IMO whether abortion turns out to be a negative or a positive right depends on the laws in the country in question. In the US the legal status of abortion is currently up to the states. In the couple states where abortion is explicitly a legal right you have a positive right to an abortion. That is, the state will ensure you have access to one.

In most states it’s a negative right—the state guarantees that if you pursue an abortion you’ll be protected from people who might want to hurt you for doing it. Sort of like being protected from religious persecution is a negative right in many places.

So, to me whether abortion is a positive or negative right (or not a right at all) depends on the legal jurisdiction.

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.

Nonya damn business

My view on the matter is that access to abortions falls under the umbrella of the right of bodily autonomy; specifically, protection from being medically exploited. Which by your phraseology would make it a "negative right".

My go-to comparison is, perhaps oddly, bone marrow donation. Someone with bone cancer is likely doomed to die a horrible death, unless they can find a compatible donor who will consent to share marrow with them. For any given recipient, only a few people at best will be a viable match. Maybe only one. But that person has the absolute right to refuse. You cannot be forced to use your body for the health of another person without your consent.

Some people would say, that's not comparable to pregnancy, and that having sex/getting pregnant is in itself, somehow, initial consent. But, at least here in Canada, they stress heavily that you can withdraw consent at any point during the procedure. They also explicitly let you know that, at a certain point in the procedure, the recipient's bone marrow will have been irradiated, and that if the donor backs out at that point, the recipient will die, but that they're still allowed to do so. The right to bodily autonomy means any ongoing use of one's body requires their continued consent, even with a living, breathing human person on the scales. Morally is certainly another question, but the diagram of law and morality is not a perfect circle.

If I'm protected from being the life support of any person, surely that covers an unfinished fetus.

Is the right to abortion belief based to MY belief system?! ... again. no. It's an intrinsic right of autonomy. Until you can prove 'the soul' this isn't even academic.

In the academic sense of the term, negative rights include the right to not have things done to you (e.g., to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law).

Positive rights include the right for you to do something, generally as against others (e.g., the right to have food, healthcare, or education be provided to you by other people).

I'm not sure it is useful to try to categorize abortion rights, for similar reasons why it would be difficult to categorize the right to try and grab the only parachute on a crashing plane. Even if it causes injury or death to others, our general tendency is to treat positive acts of genuine self-preservation as a negative right, if only in the sense that we would never enforce a rule that prohibits the person from trying.

A funky brain teaser on the topic might be whose right of life prevails when a perfectly healthy person turns out to be the only match for 5 patients with failing organs, one needing a new heart, another needing a new intact liver, etc., who are each about to die if we don't kill the healthy person and harvest their organs for transplant. And would the answer change if this wouldn't kill the healthy person, but severely decrease their quality of life - such as involuntarily taking one of their lungs and one of their kidneys?

It's a negative right and the fetus doesn't have relevant rights. If both your kidneys fail and I have two that are a match, do you have a right to one of mine? That's the beginning and end of it. You don't have the right to anyone else's body, not even if you'll die without it. We can discuss whether it's morally virtuous to offer your body, whether or not you should, but nobody has the right to your body and you don't have the right to theirs.

The issue when discussing abortion is that there is no generally accepted point in which a blastocyst/zygote/foetus becomes a fully-fledged, sentient being. Some argue that the point of conception instills personhood; others make arguments based upon how developed a foetus is and if it has differentiated sensory organs; some make an arbitrary distinction based on the elapsing of time; and others still agree that personhood is conveyed only once a baby is born and survives labour.

Those arguing this point have a tendency to become entrenched in their opinions, be it because of religious or cultural norms, or even just the basic human condition of stubbornness. This creates permanent rifts between people who share FAR more in common than they differ.

My personal opinion is a technocratic one - I don’t believe that this decision should be made by anyone other than relevant medical professional(s) and the pregnant person. That means that legislatively (or constitutionally), I’m advocating for no legal restrictions on abortions whatsoever and empowering health professionals to determine what is reasonable or safe.

This position is often (intentionally) misunderstood as not believing that the unborn have rights as well - they absolutely do. I’m a child protection caseworker and we regularly work with pregnant people who show signs there may be risk of harm after birth (issues like substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, disability without sufficient support etc.) in order to preserve the best start to life that an unborn child can have. I just don’t accept that there are any circumstances under which the right of an unborn child trumps professional medical opinions. Doctors are best placed to determine when and if an abortion is appropriate or necessary.

Each individual maintains the right to not have an abortion forced on them, but then gains the right to engage in an abortion if it’s medically safe and sound.

If the fetus can survive on it's own, it's a person. If it can't survive on it's own, it's a parasite. Parasites on a living host have no rights.

the right to abortion is just a subset of bodily autonomy: noone should be able to make decisions or take actions upon your body except you/with your consent.

you can survive with half a liver, and livers regenerate. you can also donate significant amounts of your blood, and even more plasma, without ill effect. these things are lifesaving, but despite that, you cannot be forced to do so against your will.

abortion is no different. just because it can't survive without you doesn't mean it gets priority over your own bodily autonomy.

as far as im aware, no one is legally compelled to perform an abortion

thats practically the sole determinator

Both. Depends on when you do it. Maybe also the circumstances.