Daily Kos

View Story | 620 comments

  •  Other people's rights are important too (4.00 / 14)

    It matters not whether I am for or against abortion, personally.  Just as it doesn't matter what I think about tax break for wingnut churches, or whether people of different colors should have access to the same drinking fountain.  Fundamental equal rights are not subject to my approval or disapproval.

    Gay marriage should not be voted on, because depriving gays of the same rights as responsibilities in marriage as straights is fundamentally unequal.  Abortion should not be banned, because whatever my personal religious views about when "life" begins, I don't have the right to limit your rights because of my religion.

    We must never compromise fundamental human rights, especially when they are at threat to groups we do not belong to.  Your rights are just as important as mine.  That's what makes them universal.

    Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

    by Dallasdoc on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:44:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, that's why I say "equality" (4.00 / 3)

      is a better value here to preserve than "privacy".

      It really is about what you write, abortion, gay marriage, these are not our collective choices, they are individual choices that are not just a matter of "privacy" but a matter of equal citizens making choices the majorities in this country don't have to get permission for.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heave anymore."--Prine
      Blue House Diaries

      by Cathy on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 11:51:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I favor "freedom" or "liberty" (4.00 / 10)

        These are universal concepts, and the idea of not being told how you can or cannot live your life is as fundamental a value as Americans have.  "Privacy" seems a very narrow construction of this broad value, and "equality," while honorable, is too prone to being hijacked by the right-wing liars into debates about welfare queens and "the undeserving."

        Equality, in other words, is tactically disadvantaged because it is susceptible to sneaky appeals to racism.  Liberty or freedom, OTOH, is harder to argue against.

        Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

        by Dallasdoc on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:20:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Individual freedom? Individual liberty? (4.00 / 2)

          That's still better than privacy and I did suspect that equality has a connotation.  I don't want to be too afraid of connotations, though, some can be boldly defended, equality from Democrats should be a staple.

          "But your flag decal won't get you into heave anymore."--Prine
          Blue House Diaries

          by Cathy on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 12:25:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sovreignty (none / 1)

            To me, it's the same situation as the integrity of national borders.  You don't cross into Mexico to stop something that's legal there, that you don't care for.  Every human being has sovreignty over her own body.

            Rubus Eradicandus Est.

            by Randomfactor on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 01:45:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  sovereignty (none / 1)

              To me, it's the same situation as the integrity of national borders.

              yeah  well  we know what the Bush    regime thinks of  that principle.

              hell Bush doesn't  even  know what sovereignty means!

              by renato on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:37:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I've been thinking this same thing (none / 1)

          since I first read the "abortion is necessary to protect our right to privacy" argument. I can't see the logic in that argument at all. Privacy and abortion are related issues--they both flow from the same core value: liberty. THAT is the core value that sacrosant doctor/patient relationship (choice, contraceptives, medical marijuana,), family planning, no regulation of morality, opposition to Patriot Act, a right to die, consumer privacy and religious freedom all fall under. Placing them all under the umbrella of privacy seems a bit cart-before-horse to me.

          Like minds think each other great.

          by Heresiarch514 on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 08:05:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Defining "Fundamental Equal Rights" ... (none / 0)

      To try to open / broaden the discussion -- there is a real problem in that the term "Fundamental equal rights" (FER) means different things to different people.  The question becomes how to define "FER" in as broadly acknowledged / likely to stand the test of time (along with adapting to changing times) kind of way.

      ---

      My gut thought is that there is probably 90% (+) agreement about how to define FER between those posting in this thread.  But, we could start major flame wars and arguments in that last five percent.  And, we are a (not fully but) relatively homogenous group politically with - what seem to be -- many shared ethical / political values.

      I would love to understand "universal" human rights but am confused by what is "universal" (in specific cultures or worldwide?  Today or timeless?  Etc ...) and am concerned about the 'details' ...

      For your details in terms of examples, we probably are 99+% in agreement.  ... It is a travesty that there is not an easy way for homosexual couples to have the same legal standing that hetereosexual couples can so easily get via saying "I do" ... since teenagedom, I've been a member of NOW and NARAL (as a man) believing that women should have the power to make the decisions about their lives and their bodies ... and so on ... On the other hand, re "marriage" -- would it have been an acceptable 'compromise' to you if there were a legal separation between "legal union" that dealt with legal rights (such as fiscal issues, insurance, children, life/death decisions ...) with "marriage" reserve for religious definition (e.g., separation of church and state)?

      The clock keeps ticking ... Osama bin Forgotten

      by besieged by bush on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:00:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A very thoughtful response (4.00 / 4)

        The question of what rights are fundamental or universal has been given centuries of attention.  The US Constitution, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights... these are all attempts to answer that question.  

        The Constitution is what determines the question in our country.  And the Constitution gives the clear presumption to be in favor of individual rights, unless a compelling social interest is engaged in abridging them.  

        It is difficult to imagine any compelling social interest in banning abortion or gay marriage without appeal to religious beliefs.  This appeal is impermissible in our Constitutional framework.  Any other argument I've heard on these questions amounts to a camouflage of a religious bias.

        Marriage is a civil matter.  If it were not, it wouldn't have the myriad legal ramifications it does.  Any sort of civil unions that would substitute for marriage would have to carry all the ramifications of marriage for equality to be satisfied.  You can rename civil marriage, or you can rename religious marriage (as some have done with "covenant marriage"), but what's in the law is what counts.

        Hanoi didn't break John McCain, but Washington did.

        by Dallasdoc on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 02:48:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And, yours as well ... (none / 0)

          DallasDoc ... very much like your thoughts that you place into this ... with one problem area ...

          Remember -- trying to avoid flame (not necessarily from you) -- that I am a LONG time NARAL supporter, strongly believe that women should have the right to choose, majority of my protest marches have been related to choice issues, and that I will not accept my daughters growing up in a society that will not enable them to have that choice -- but I think that I have to take issue with part of your comment:

          "It is difficult to imagine any compelling social interest in banning abortion or gay marriage without appeal to religious beliefs.  This appeal is impermissible in our Constitutional framework.  Any other argument I've heard on these questions amounts to a camouflage of a religious bias."

          The questions re choice that do not -- necessarily -- get into "religion" have to do with many of the 'limitation' questions and proposals.  Sadly, too many of those involved in pushing for limits are really driven by veiled efforts to stop choice, but are the following basically religious or other questions:

          •  Is there a medical point in terms of fetus survival / viability (outside the womb) where it becomes legitimate for a society to place 'fetus' rights on the table?  If "abortion" were truly unlimited, then there would be no legitimacy to any form of restriction on abortion based on trimesters.  (By the way, again, not arguing that medically necessary / appropriate 'late-term' abortions should be stopped / outlawed.)

          •  Is there no role for societal oversight / involvement in minors' medical decisions?

          While I (and others) on this might believe in quite expansive definition of 'choice' on these and other issues, these are not necessarily "religion" based issues.  Second, for example, is a legitimate issue of what is the extent of parental and/or minors' rights in the society.  While "religion" might play a role in this, as well, defining minors' rights (whether to alcohol, tobacco, going to school, etc ..) are part of a fundamental defining of societal issues that go well beyond religion.

          And, as your note suggests, my poorly articulated concept of 'civil union' does split hairs but ... so what.  Grant "victory" to those who have religious issues re "marriage" to retain ownership of the term while dealing practically with the basic core legal issues of "rights" granted by the state under the term marriage. ...

          The clock keeps ticking ... Osama bin Forgotten

          by besieged by bush on Tue Jun 14, 2005 at 09:18:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

View Story | 620 comments