'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 :)
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.
"There is nothing to protect or give rights to"
"Clearly should have a right to her own body"
This is actually not clear at all. Consider self-harm, if people actually do have a right to their own body to do whatever they please then we have absolutely no right to take any measures to prevent self-harm; it is a violation of their rights. So if someone says "I want to cut my arm off", you have no basis for saying "no you really shouldn't" because it is "their body their choice". The minute you say "Actually self-harm is irrational" means that it is not what the person wants that matters, but what a rational person would want. And then one could easily argue that a rational person wouldn't want to engage in self-mutilation or killing a fetus. This is known in the literature as the "suicidal Bob problem" or the "argument of the idealised self".
This and many other issues with defining bodily autonomy in such a way as to permit abortion is why it has largely been rejected in serious ethics; it's only popular among the public because it's essentially an elaborate appeal to emotion fallacy.
We dont protect inanimate objects over the life of innocent people. Before a fetus develops a brain it doesn't have thoughts or feelings to protect. It can't. That's scientific. If you think it has some kind of soul to protect then you are legislating based on your religious views.
Exploiting a double meaning; nobody claims that a fetuses right to life is greater than the mothers. You are conflating someone's lifestyle choice with a right to life. Guess what? Society is based on restricting lifestyle choices, you can't just scream and yell at everyone you meet. You'll face repercussions that deter such behaviour.
"It doesn't have thoughts or feelings to protect"
And you think this is why killing is wrong? You realise that these are emergent properties of neurological behaviour? You can't even possess thoughts or feelings without some time interval, so by that criteria you should be killable so long as your brain hasn't established a pattern sufficient to be considered a thought? In other words you can be killed at any moment so long as it is fast enough.
"That's scientific"
You say to a scientist. Boy do I love when lay people try to incorrectly appeal to abductive reasoning.
FYI, also an atheist, another hilarious intellectual faux pas on your behalf.