In response to a comment on my earlier post on the subject here.
I love this language of ours. A two word phrase can spark such a fabulous debate.
"Reproductve rights" is both a loaded and woefully imprecise phrase. It is, as I understand it, not a class of human rights unto itself, but rather a delineation of rights which fall more broadly under the category of bodily rights. This category includes things like the right not to be unlawfully imprisioned, the right not to suffer what the Constitution calls cruel and unusual punishment, the right to travel freely.
The right of control over one's own body includes the right to control when and if one participates in reproduction. I can refuse to have sex, I can use contraception, I can have an abortion, becuase these fall under the auspices of that right.
I can see that that explanation makes it seem as though "reproductive rights" are different for men and women. However, I believe that the rights are identical. A man has a right to control over the reproductive functions of his body as does a woman. If those functions different, it doesn't create two different classes of rights defined by gender. In fact, it is the belief that two such classes exist which has made it so easy for men to restrict women's rights historically.
Two other things which are tangentially related to this.
First, I don't buy the premise that in order for something to be considered a right, a person must be able to accomplish it without outside assistance. All humans have a right to self-defense. To the extent that exercizing this right in the most extreme situation would require a weapon, it would also require outside assistance since few people are or ever will be capable of forging a sword or constructing a gun by themselves. Or take the example of abortion. I would need a doctor to perform one, but that doesn't mean access to an abortion isn't part of the broad category of bodily rights.
Second, rights don't exist in a vacuum. As a member of society which has established a government of, by and for the people, I accept that some minor constraints on my rights exist. For instance, I have a right to the fruits of my own labor, but the government takes some to spend on government programs of all kinds, not all of which I agree with. I could, I suppose, withdraw from this society and live entirely off the land, subsisting only on that which I could create myself. In such a state, the government would have no claim on me, and I would have no claim on the government. But, if I choose to remain in society, then those minor constraints pertain. The tightrope which a government of, by and for a free people must walk is to make those constraints as small as possible while providing those services which allow everyone under its jurisdiction the ability to exercise their rights equally.
Rights are inherent and immutable, but the ability to exercise those rights is vulnerable, becuase although all humans are created equal, not all humans are born into equal situations. And the best governments are instituted to guarantee that all people have the oportunity to exercise their rights. Whether such a government exists, or is even possible, is a debate which I expect will continue far past my the end of my lifespan.
2 comments:
Kathryn I love ya, but your wrong, at least on the rights issue. You have the right to defend yourself, but the outcome is not garenteed.
You do not have a right to a gun, but if you think you do, show me how you can exercise that right.
To do as you please with your body, which is your property, is a right, but their can be not right to abortion. If you believe it is a right, show my how you obtain one is no one is willing to provide it.
Your only option in either of those cases is to use fraud or force to get what you want.
If it requires force, fraud or outside help it cannot be a right.
And as for "some minor constraints" on your rights, some people feel that outlawing abortion and birthcontrol are minor constraints. So who is right?
Which right is more right.
Our Constitution does not grant rights, it codifies them and says that the government is not to touch them in any way.
You cannot play incrementalist games with rights, either you are in control of them or someone decides for you, there is no middle ground.
In so far as you claim that nothing can be a right which requires force to obtain, you are incorrect. Or do you claim that since for slaves to be free, force was required, that slaves did not (do not?) have the right to freedom? Many, if not most, rights depend for their exercise on the exercise, past, present, or threatened, of force (and I use the term here in its broadest sense, as, I believe, do you).
As for abortion, there are ways to abort without resorting to an M.D., but they are not really practical in today's America. For instance, herbal abortificants which have been in use since before recorded history. My argument here is that so long as an avenue towards exercising a right exists (i.e. so long as doctors willing to perform abortions exist) the only force or fraud in the system is created by the people who want to block my access to that avenue.
Also, I am always tempted to reject the "no middle ground" argument out of hand. It's all middle ground, as far as I am concerned. Again, you speak as though rights were exercised in a vacuum. Even if no government or authoritiy existed to curtail my rights, I (and most people) would curtail them myself for the greater good. For example, I would give away food or clothing I had rightfully purchased or earned in order to benefit someone who had less. This is the essence of moral humanism. I agree it stands in stark contrast to a philosophy of radical self-interest, but I believe that radical self-interest can never create a successful society.
You also say that the Constitution only codifies our rights, which is a distinction I wish more people understood. If they did, we wouldn't be up against the literalist arguments regarding separation of church and state and privacy. But I wonder, then, do you think the Second Amendment codifies a non-existent right?
Post a Comment