• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Human rights, Civil rights

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would anyone explain what exactly human right and civil right are? Between all these rights and laws, who dominates who? It is so confused. For example, between abortion and anti-abortion, which is human right, which is not? Is this one of the civil right if someone places our men/women in uniform to a more vulnerable situation by exposing the military secrets? Is hunting a human right? But then, if one group wants to hunt a certain kind of animal but another group must disallow such hunting, which group tries to remove the human right of the other group?
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
a civil right is a right granted by law. a human right is one that all humans share by virtue of being human.

human rights are ofted considered to be those given us by god.... which god... at what time... well, that gets a trifle complicated.

human rights are succinctly stated first by Isaiah and quoted by Jesus and parallelled by Confucious and Siddartha Gautama (and probably numerous others) suggesting that it might well be thought pretty universal (yes, i know that is a qualified absolute... so sue me).

the golden rule pretty much defines human rights. i have a right to be treated as well as you would expect to be treated. we all have the right to be treated in a manner that we would think just and fair.

geo.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would anyone explain what exactly human right and civil right are? Between all these rights and laws, who dominates who? It is so confused. For example, between abortion and anti-abortion, which is human right, which is not? Is this one of the civil right if someone places our men/women in uniform to a more vulnerable situation by exposing the military secrets? Is hunting a human right? But then, if one group wants to hunt a certain kind of animal but another group must disallow such hunting, which group tries to remove the human right of the other group?

As pertains to the abortion issue, many prochoicers believe that bodily sovereignty is a fundamental human right; that women (as well as men) should have complete control over their own reproductive functions.

Prolifers, on the other hand, believe that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings and deserve the right to "life"; they believe the right to "life" (even at the expense of occupying and cannibalizing the body of another human being against her will) is a fundamental human right. But they don't believe born people have this right, only fetuses.
For instance, they don't believe born people have the right to blood, bone marrow, or organs from unwilling donors, even if they need them to live.

My feeling is this: nobody has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling human host, nor to extract her bodily resources against her will.
Born people do not have that right.
Therefore, fetuses- even if one concedes that they are human beings- also do not have that right.
To live at someone else's expense, or to someone else's physiological detriment, by commandeering parts of their body, is not a human right.
Not in my opinion.

To which prolifers will reply, "Well then she shouldn't be spreading her legs then!"
At which point we've left the realm of "rights", both civil and human, and hopped an express train to Sillytown.

Anyway, that's my view on human rights as pertains to abortion; obviously, opinions vary.
It's a controversial and incendiary issue.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,842
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
To which prolifers will reply, "Well then she shouldn't be spreading her legs then!"
At which point we've left the realm of "rights", both civil and human, and hopped an express train to Sillytown.

Until it comes time for the father to write a check to support a kid he doesn't want, in which case, he shouldn't have dipped his pen. Then it's no longer "Sillytown," it's just "duh."

It's a controversial and incendiary issue.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,842
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Would anyone explain what exactly human right and civil right are? Between all these rights and laws, who dominates who? It is so confused. For example, between abortion and anti-abortion, which is human right, which is not? Is this one of the civil right if someone places our men/women in uniform to a more vulnerable situation by exposing the military secrets? Is hunting a human right? But then, if one group wants to hunt a certain kind of animal but another group must disallow such hunting, which group tries to remove the human right of the other group?

As used in modern parlance, "human rights" are usually codewords to promote a leftist, statist agenda -- particularly as they pertain to "rights" to be provided with material benefit.

Not always the case, of course, but if you look at most of the literature, the lists of "human rights" tend to be rights TO HAVE something, rather than rights to act. They tend to be less about liberty than they are about stuff.
 
Last edited:

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On a more general note, human rights are considered universal (by those who believe they exist at all), whereas civil rights are rights and protections provided by the government, and applicable to legal citizens only.

For instance, here in the US we have the right to a jury of our peers; we also have the right to freedom of religion.
Those are two of our basic civil rights.
But if, in some other country, they have a different kind of court system that doesn't involve jury trials, or if they have a national religion that everyone is required to adhere to, we are not going to take preemptive military action against that country on those grounds.
Other nations do not have to provide their citizens with the exact same civil rights that the US has. Other cultures have different values, and their civil rights are different.

On the other hand, human rights- such as the right to untainted water, and the right not to be systematically raped, tortured, or genocided- are considered universal and the US and other industrialized nations might well intervene (with either humanitarian aid or military force) if these things are happening to the citizens of a foreign country and no solution can be reached by their government through diplomatic means.

We don't care if people in other countries don't have the same civil rights as us; we do care (at least we should) if the human rights of any person anywhere in the world are being violated.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Until it comes time for the father to write a check to support a kid he doesn't want, in which case, he shouldn't have dipped his pen. Then it's no longer "Sillytown," it's just "duh."

It's a controversial and incendiary issue.

Again, you're talking civil versus human rights.
Or- if you're correct and the current situation is unfair to men- it's their civil rights only which are being violated; they're being forced to pay money they don't wish to pay.
That is not comparable to females being forced to host unwanted organisms inside their bodies, which subsist by extracting their bodily resources against their will.
That would be a human rights violation.

As I think I just demonstrated in my last post, civil rights violations are far less serious that human rights violations.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As used in modern parlance, "human rights" are usually codewords to promote a leftist, statist agenda -- particularly as they pertain to "rights" to be provided with material benefit.


I agree that the Left tends to be far more concerned about human rights.
It's part of what makes me proud to be a Leftist.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,842
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I agree that the Left tends to be far more concerned about human rights.
It's part of what makes me proud to be a Leftist.

Making stuff up to promote your statist agenda? Much to be proud of.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,842
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Again, you're talking civil versus human rights.
Or- if you're correct and the current situation is unfair to men- it's their civil rights only which are being violated; they're being forced to pay money they don't wish to pay.
That is not comparable to females being forced to host unwanted organisms inside their bodies, which subsist by extracting their bodily resources against their will.
That would be a human rights violation.

As I think I just demonstrated in my last post, civil rights violations are far less serious that human rights violations.

No, it's their human right (using your terms) to control over their reproductive choices.

If you choose not to acknowledge the double standard, it doesn't mean the double standard isn't there. I would point out that most pro-lifers I'm aware don't have this double-standard, and expect both to be responsible for the child they both created.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,842
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Please point to what I've "made up".

That the idea of the right to live your life unmolested isn't a "civil right" but a "human right," simply because it fits your argument better. I'm pretty sure the Civil Rights Movements had different ideas.

Also that the right to be provided with material benefit is somehow part and parcel of being human.

You also confuse simple prevention of crime and tortious harm with "human rights."
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, it's their human right (using your terms) to control over their reproductive choices.

If you choose not to acknowledge the double standard, it doesn't mean the double standard isn't there. I would point out that most pro-lifers I'm aware don't have this double-standard, and expect both to be responsible for the child they both created.

Men choose when they impregnate a woman.
Women then choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.
Men cannot, perforce, dictate this choice without violating women's right to bodily sovereignty.
That is basic human physiology.
Whining about how it's not fair is about as silly as women whining about how it's not fair that they have periods and have to spend extra money on pads and tampons , which men do not have to spend.
Cry to heaven, complain to the manufacturer.
There is no one here on earth that can alter the human condition, no matter how "unfair".
Men and women have different physiological roles in reproduction and in the perpetuation of the species. The fact that they have different rights reflects that.

If it makes you feel any better, men also have the right to bodily sovereignty; a male has every bit as much right to end a pregnancy as a female does, if a male ever manages to conceive a pregnancy.
That such a right will never be needed does not change the fact that it exists.

And women are also forced to pay child support, whether or not they want to, when men are primary custodians of their children.

There is nothing unfair.
 
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,842
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Men choose when they impregnate a woman.
Women then choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.
Men cannot, perforce, dictate this choice without violating women's right to bodily sovereignty.
That is basic human physiology.
Whining about how it's not fair is about as silly as women whining about how it's not fair that they have periods and have to spend extra money on pads and tampons , which men do not have to spend.
Cry to heaven, complain to the manufacturer.
There is no one here on earth that can alter the human condition, no matter how "unfair".
Men and women have different physiological roles in reproduction and in the perpetuation of the species. The fact that they have different rights reflects that.

If it makes you feel any better, men also have the right to bodily sovereignty; a male has every bit as much right to end a pregnancy as a female does, if a male ever manages to conceive a pregnancy.
That such a right will never be needed does not change the fact that it exists.

And women are also forced to pay child support, whether or not they want to, when men are primary custodians of their children.

There is nothing unfair.

As I said, refusal to acknowledge the double-standard does not mean the double-standard doesn't exist. It simply means you refuse to acknowledge it. If anything is "Sillytown," that's it.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wow, big thanks to all of you (in time sequence of messages): Geo Patric, 1069, Harshaw; thank you very much for all in depth analyses. They sure provide good education. I guess my point is: Different people have different versions of human right and civil right. When these different versions are in conflict, how to smooth out the conflict, or even, in a civilized society, how to allow which one version to silence the other version? What we see today is that too many times our society allows human right or civil right that lacks rigid definition (as shown by all these analyses) to silence, or sanction, the law, not the other way around. Human rights can be so selectively chosen to win or to lose. If a human right can silence or sanction the law, of course, it can override the other version of human right. The one side winning of some particular version of human right or civil right matches what Harshaw said: "...if you look at most of the literature, the lists of "human rights" tend to be rights TO HAVE something, rather than rights to act. They tend to be less about liberty than they are about stuff."
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As I said, refusal to acknowledge the double-standard does not mean the double-standard doesn't exist. It simply means you refuse to acknowledge it. If anything is "Sillytown," that's it.

It's not a double standard because men who are custodians of children can also exact child support payments from the mothers.

The law favors the suitable guardians, not the suitable genders.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's not a double standard because men who are custodians of children can also exact child support payments from the mothers.

The law favors the suitable guardians, not the suitable genders.


Yes, I did point this out (along with the fact that males- if pregnant- would also have every right to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term).
This did not seem to budge him one iota from his "it's not fair" position.
I fail to see what's not fair or where the double standard is, other than the fact that biology dictates women are the ones who carry pregnancies within their bodies, rather than men (and if that's "unfair", it seems more unfair to women than to men, but hey: who's whining? :shrug:).

Physiologically, men and women are different.
The law cannot correct this or make it "fair".
The law can only offer equal rights and protections to all citizens.
 

crebigsol

Active member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
486
Reaction score
34
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Men choose when they impregnate a woman.
Women then choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.
Men cannot, perforce, dictate this choice without violating women's right to bodily sovereignty.

There is only one purpose for intercourse designated by Mother Nature: reproduction. The sexual pleasure attached to intercourse is only a bait for commitment to fully escort the reproduction. Unfortunate to the females, most of the time, before entering human society, they are the one to be obliged to see the reproduction well accomplished. After entering the human society, males are required to commit to well escort the reproduction, too. Well, if there is responsibility, there is right supposed to exist, and vise versa. So, strictly speaking, in human society, if Mother Nature is respected, the activity of intercourse is an unwritten contract committed by one man and one woman. As much as a woman can decide if the fetus is desirable or not, a man's consent to keep or abort the fetus should be fully consulted, too. On the other hand, if a man wants to walk away after he learns he has produced an unwanted life, the society should pull him back, even put him in jail if necessary, to make him fully responsible to the complete care of the new generation he brought to the world.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is only one purpose for intercourse designated by Mother Nature: reproduction.


I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because your first sentence here is so far off the mark that it indicates to me that reading the rest would be a waste of time.
Drink Coke, play again.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,818
Reaction score
85,376
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No right should cost another person anything when exercised.
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No right should cost another person anything when exercised.

with the exception of self-defense...but that, of course, means the other person was already overstepping.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No right should cost another person anything when exercised.

Frequently, rights come into conflict.
The abortion issue is a prime example.
The fetus potentially infringes on the woman's right to sovereignty over her own body, specifically her reproductive system.
By evicting it from her body, however, the woman infringes upon the fetus's right to "life", ie to inhabit her body and subsist by extracting her bodily resources.
If one believes a fetus is a person, and if one believes people have any such "right".

To me, there's no moral quandary whatsoever; the body belongs solely to its original inhabitant.
She shares it only as she sees fit, when she sees fit, with whom she sees fit.
But others clearly don't perceive it that way.
 
Last edited:

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To me, there's no moral quandary whatsoever; the body belongs solely to its original inhabitant.
She shares it only as she sees fit, when she sees fit, with whom she sees fit.
But others clearly don't perceive it that way.

When do you believe personal sovereignty begins for an individual? Immediately after birth, immediately after a child becomes self-aware, immediately after leaving the parents home, or at some other moment?
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When do you believe personal sovereignty begins for an individual? Immediately after birth, immediately after a child becomes self-aware, immediately after leaving the parents home, or at some other moment?

When a human becomes a sovereign entity, ie is no longer either attached to or inside of another human being, no longer dependent upon another human being's bodily resources for survival.
Although helpless and dependent on others, an infant can be cared for by any competent adult; its biological mother is not forced to have anything to do with it, if she doesn't want to. She can give it away. It in no way infringes upon her rights, once born.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,818
Reaction score
85,376
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Frequently, rights come into conflict.
The abortion issue is a prime example.
The fetus potentially infringes on the woman's right to sovereignty over her own body, specifically her reproductive system.
By evicting it from her body, however, the woman infringes upon the fetus's right to "life", ie to inhabit her body and subsist by extracting her bodily resources.
If one believes a fetus is a person, and if one believes people have any such "right".

To me, there's no moral quandary whatsoever; the body belongs solely to its original inhabitant.
She shares it only as she sees fit, when she sees fit, with whom she sees fit.
But others clearly don't perceive it that way.

I don't believe a fetus is a human being (yet) with a just claim to civil or human rights of the same level as someone who is. Therefore I support the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy prior to independent viability
 
Top Bottom