human rights

[egb_hibs]

i think this grand notion is being perverted by those who want to turn it into some kind of religion.

this has occured to me before but i was recently reminded of it by the amnesty thing, where abortion is being declared a human right.

this imho is manifestly absurd, on this basis: while the notion of human rights is obviously a fiction, and on one level no right is any less a fiction than another, i still think that for the concept to have any meaning at all, this fiction requires a rational philosophical underpinning.

i'd propose that the obvious one is this; that 'rights' are based upon the condition we are born into, without limits or constraints being put upon that by other humans.

thus:

- the 'right not to be killed' is a right (whereas the 'right to life' is abject nonsense)

- the right to 'freedom of expression' is a right

- the right to 'freedom of conscience' is a right

and so on.

something like access to abortion, whatever it is or isn't, is manifestly not a right, being dependent on human interference with the natual state; which is almost the inverse of the basis for 'rights'.

i think this definition has in it's favour a philsophical coherence and a lack of reliance on imposed moral systems and hence a potentially universal appeal and application.

without such limits, human rights becomes nothing but a vehicle for the prosecution of subjective values by those that hold power, which is potentially dangerous on many levels and to all intents and purposes theocratic in nature.

if nothing else discredits the idea and leads to division not harmony.

thoughts?

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

this has occured to me before but i was recently reminded of it by the amnesty thing, where abortion is being declared a human right.

Originally Posted by Amnesty

Amnesty International today firmly stood by the rights of women and girls to be free from threat, force or coercion as they exercise their sexual and reproductive rights.

Originally Posted by Amnesty

Defending the right of women to sexual and reproductive integrity in the face of grave human rights violations, Amnesty International recently incorporated a focus on selected aspects of abortion into its broader policy on sexual and reproductive rights. These additions do not promote abortion as a universal right and Amnesty International remains silent on the rights and wrongs of abortion.

Originally Posted by Amnesty

"Amnesty International’s position is not for abortion as a right but for women’s human rights to be free of fear, threat and coercion as they manage all consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations," clarified Kate Gilmore.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300122007

[Colr]

Originally Posted by wee 162

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300122007

What is the Catholic church's record on women's rights?

Amnesty seem to be very supportive of them. What's the history here?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

What is the Catholic church's record on women's rights?

Amnesty seem to be very supportive of them. What's the history here?

can you discuss any topic whatsoever without mentioning the catholic church?

what has the above got to do with my post?

[egb_hibs]

Al, there's a thread already for the specifics of the amnesty question. if your challenging my description - the amnesty stuff is full of weasel words worthy of the oiliest business consultant. it certainly is saying that abortion is a human right, perhaps not under all conditions, but it's saying it nonetheless.

anyway, regarding the point of this thread; i would say that what you've quoted is a false definition of rights according to my view which i describe above. this doesn't mean you can't take a position for or against women being legally allowed to do this or that under whatever conditions. but my contention is this is a wholly discreet thing than 'human rights'.

what do you think?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

can you discuss any topic whatsoever without mentioning the catholic church?

what has the above got to do with my post?

It was in response to Wee162's post and the abortion issue that you referenced yourself.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

It was in response to Wee162's post and the abortion issue that you referenced yourself.

but ffs C, i referenced that as an example to illustrate an abstract point, not to reopen the same discussion ongoing on another thread.

there's oodles of others; the rights to all kinds of state spoon feeding for example; that should appeal to you more perhaps

an alltime classic though: the 'right' not to be offended. what royal bollocks.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

but ffs C, i referenced that as an example to illustrate an abstract point, not to reopen the same discussion ongoing on another thread.

there's oodles of others; the rights to all kinds of state spoon feeding for example; that should appeal to you more perhaps

Its a reasonable question in response to Wee162's post. Do you know the answer?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

Its a reasonable question in response to Wee162's post. Do you know the answer?

i'm tired of your monomania Col. i'm not going with you there again. i'd appreciate if you could take it to another thread if you must persist.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

i'm tired of your monomania Col. i'm not going with you there again. i'd appreciate if you could take it to another thread if you must persist.

You don't like the question.

Maybe someone else knows, then.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Al, there's a thread already for the specifics of the amnesty question. if your challenging my description - the amnesty stuff is full of weasel words worthy of the oiliest business consultant. it certainly is saying that abortion is a human right, perhaps not under all conditions, but it's saying it nonetheless.

And as I said in the other thread, the Catholic Church are opposed to abortion in all cases including rape and incest. And they hardly emphasise that point when they are drawing attention to their viewpoint.

And I'm challenging your position because it is a complete mis-representation which the briefest cursory glance at the actual statement Amnesty made a couple of days ago which was widely reported would have shown. I made no comment whatsoever on the content I just posted, it speaks for itself compared to your hyperbolic initial statement.

If you start new threads based on a repeated false premise I'm not going to say "well it is being debated on another thread" since you patently aren't bothered about that.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Colr

You don't like the question.

Maybe someone else knows, then.

try follow follow, you'll get the answer you want there i suspect.

please stop thread hijacking though, your obsession is not shared by everybody else.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by wee 162

And as I said in the other thread, the Catholic Church are opposed to abortion in all cases including rape and incest. And they hardly emphasise that point when they are drawing attention to their viewpoint.

And I'm challenging your position because it is a complete mis-representation which the briefest cursory glance at the actual statement Amnesty made a couple of days ago which was widely reported would have shown. I made no comment whatsoever on the content I just posted, it speaks for itself compared to your hyperbolic initial statement.

If you start new threads based on a repeated false premise I'm not going to say "well it is being debated on another thread" since you patently aren't bothered about that.

Al, there is a thread for the specifics of this, as i say.

my initial post here does not depend on anything amnesty do or don't say - i maintain they have made just such a declaration, but if you disagree there are many people who hold that abortion is a 'right' in the most unambiguous terms. whether amnesty are among them is really inessential to the point of this thread.

here is but one example, human rights watch - http://hrw.org/women/abortion.html

is this feckin clear enough:

"International human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion."

so, now we have established that my premise is anything but false - and abortion was only a feckin example, not the core point - can we please address the point or take it elsewhere.

[egb_hibs]

col, i don't know why i'm bothering but one final attempt to engage you in this debate; for your question to be 'reasonable' we must first define what 'womens rights' are, otherwise it's hopelessly imprecise, unempirical and subjective.

that question proceeds from the point i'm posing here. so please, can we address it?

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

try follow follow, you'll get the answer you want there i suspect.

please stop thread hijacking though, your obsession is not shared by everybody else.

I doubt they will know much about the historical position of any church.

As I said, I was following Wee162's post.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

col, i don't know why i'm bothering but one final attempt to engage you in this debate; for your question to be 'reasonable' we must first define what 'womens rights' are, otherwise it's hopelessly imprecise, unempirical and subjective.

that question proceeds from the point i'm posing here. so please, can we address it?

Well, lets keep away from ordination of women whic is the current debate. The right to work, not bear children and vote for starters have been importnat areas for women in the 20th Century which still raise the heckles of some folk.

[Burbank Lilywhite]

I fear I am going to be skewered but here goes as I dive into the deep end of the pool.

The only human right we are entitled to, is 'the right of self determination'. From this right comes all other 'rights'. From self determination comes the formation of society as peoples group together bound by common ideals, principles and thoughts. From the formation of society comes law to govern, which creates 'rights' for the society as a whole.

It is the most dangerous human right, because it is easily suberverted and manipulated because it is intrinscally linked to the human need to be heard, and feeling of important and mattering.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

Al, there is a thread for the specifics of this, as i say.

my initial post here does not depend on anything amnesty do or don't say - i maintain they have made just such a declaration, but if you disagree there are many people who hold that abortion is a 'right' in the most unambiguous terms. whether amnesty are among them is really inessential to the point of this thread.

here is but one example, human rights watch - http://hrw.org/women/abortion.html

is this feckin clear enough:

"International human rights legal instruments and authoritative interpretations of those instruments compel the conclusion that women have a right to decide independently in all matters related to reproduction, including the issue of abortion."

so, now we have established that my premise is anything but false - and abortion was only a feckin example, not the core point - can we please address the point or take it elsewhere.

Well you are sourcing one organisations policy now, and it is not the same policy as Amnesty which you incorrectly portrayed, and of course different organisations are going to have different opinions about what constitutes Human Rights Abuses.

If that's your point, I agree. If you are suggesting that the only thing any Human Rights organisations should pursue are things which you agree with constitute abuses, then I think you are barking. Apartheid was not considered a human rights abuse by all. Neither is lack of access to contraception. Neither is torture. Neither is the death penalty. Neither is access to medicine. Neither is starvation. If we had complete agreement about what constitutes human rights abuses then there would be no need for Human Rights Organisations to exist.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Burbank Lilywhite

I fear I am going to be skewered but here goes as I dive into the deep end of the pool.

The only human right we are entitled to, is 'the right of self determination'. From this right comes all other 'rights'. From self determination comes the formation of society as peoples group together bound by common ideals, principles and thoughts. From the formation of society comes law to govern, which creates 'rights' for the society as a whole.

It is the most dangerous human right, because it is easily suberverted and manipulated because it is intrinscally linked to the human need to be heard, and feeling of important and mattering.

That's not a bad definition in an ideal world tbh. Only problem is that you don't have complete freedom of movement for people to move to a society which suits them, so rights are not only going to apply to those who intrinsically agree with them depending on the society they are born into, or as society changes.

I think there is a role given this for there to be some accepted universal human rights which all governments have to aspire to. IMO those would be freedom of expression, the right to housing, access to medical care, adequate nutrition, no torture, and no discrimination against anyone. Humanity is rich enough to do that without batting an eyelid.