Um... most people's opinions about women's issues are made by people in the industrialized world AND only apply to the industrialized world.
Sometimes it seems as if 95% of the arguments we have about reproductive rights come from such narrow ignorance of what pregnancy and birth are really like that it tempts one to forbid people from having opinions.
Really, if we're talking about reproductive rights given to American (for instance) citizens in America living under the conditions prevalent in America, what difference do the conditions surrounding childbirth in Africa have to do with anything?
we're talking about reproductive rights given to American (for instance) citizens in America living under the conditions prevalent in America, what difference do the conditions surrounding childbirth in Africa have to do with anything?
To answer your question... rights aren't "given", privileges are. So, if reproduction is a privilege, then you're right, it's a non-issue. However, if reproductivity then the point in the article is valid. The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights are both founded on the concept that simply *being* a human means you have certain inalienable, unseparable rights. Now, those rights can be opressed or denied, but they still exist and are yours. One of the great things, in my opinion, about being a citizen of the USA is that we are entitled to enjoy those rights and expect them to flourish. The DofHR is merely an extension of that idea over the globe... freedom to enjoy the best of your natural endowments = good; oppression of your positive human features = bad.
Second, thanks to nearly 6 centuries of colonial oppression and 4 centuries of enslavement, the Western world - again, in my opinion - owes the entire continent of Africa and its people a whole helluva lot more than we've been doing to right our wrongs therein.
we're talking about reproductive rights given to American (for instance) citizens in America living under the conditions prevalent in America, what difference do the conditions surrounding childbirth in Africa have to do with anything?
To answer your question... rights aren't "given", privileges are. So, if reproduction is a privilege, then you're right, it's a non-issue. However, if reproductivity then the point in the article is valid. The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Human Rights are both founded on the concept that simply *being* a human means you have certain inalienable, unseparable rights. Now, those rights can be opressed or denied, but they still exist and are yours. One of the great things, in my opinion, about being a citizen of the USA is that we are entitled to enjoy those rights and expect them to flourish.
Well, first off, the Declaration of Independence is not an actual legal document. Maybe you're thinking of the Constitution, which does give citizens many rights. But if it were amended, we would wake up tomorrow with a different set of rights than those we have right now. So, it's nothing more than a happy fantasy to pretend that rights aren't given by someone in power.
Second, thanks to nearly 6 centuries of colonial oppression and 4 centuries of enslavement, the Western world - again, in my opinion - owes the entire continent of Africa and its people a whole helluva lot more than we've been doing to right our wrongs therein.
No, actually I *was* thinking of the Declaration which, well, gosh there... IS actually a legal document as it not only cemented our dissolution with England (1776, July 4... our nation's birthday, right?), but it also stated what rights each and every person (heck, not simply just Americans) possessed by the simple fact that they are *people*. Any basic student of social science *knows* that rights aren't given - we have them, end of story. How just or unjust a government or ruling body is is determined by how well they, first, recognize those rights and, second, supports their prosperity.
The Constitution is merely instructions for how to run the government of the United States with its Amendments merely, for the most part, stating things that the government can not do.
My second point, was hardly a non sequitur to this discussion. The West played (and plays) the major role in devastating much of Africa, ergo it bears the responsibility of healing it. Perhaps you meant "quid pro quo". Latin, different language, easy to mess the words up. I understand.
Clidna said:
And to those jumping on the "1 in 16 chance of dying in childbirth", do we really need to argue points about rates, and what word should be used, etc? I think the point is that childbearing women in Africa have a 1 in 16 chance of dying at some point in their reproductive years from childbirth. As compared to our developed regions (which includes Canada, USA, Japan, Australia & New Zealand), 1 in 2,800.
The only reason to discuss the numbers is so that we're all on the same page, because when I read the original article, and the commentary, what I inferred (and assumed others would as well) from the numbers was a situation such as this: If we were to take a sample of 16 women, all pregnant at the same time, due on the same day, etc., then one of the sixteen women would die as a result of childbirth.
When, in actuality, it more like if we were to watch those 16 women for twenty years, one of them would die in childbirth during that time.
Of course, that's still a horrible number, particularly when compared to developed nations; my goal wasn't to downplay the tragedy, but to clearly state the data. To do otherwise would be to knowingly misrepresent the information.
LordHAlmighty said:
No, actually I *was* thinking of the Declaration which, well, gosh there... IS actually a legal document as it not only cemented our dissolution with England (1776, July 4... our nation's birthday, right?), but it also stated what rights each and every person (heck, not simply just Americans) possessed by the simple fact that they are *people*.
I think apesamongus meant that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in the sense that it has no legal authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves, and cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom.
Surprisingly, there seems to be little information on the subject, but I did manage to find one or two things, such as this lesson plan from the Constitutional Rights Foundation, near the end of which you will find
The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority. It is not part of the basic law of the United States like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.[/qoute]
That is, it has none of the characteristics of a legal document, and is more of a moral justification for our severing ties with Great Britain, and a statement of the ideals of the new nation.
Not to mention that "cemented" is a bit strong a word in relation to its effect on our independence, as the United States wasn't formally recognized by Great Britain until the Treaty of Paris of 1783. The Declaration was just that--a declaration.
Where's Subrosa when you need him to settle something about law?
England's recognition of US independence is moot... it's like your ex saying s/he "recognizes" you're no longer dating 7 years after the fact. The DofI not only dissolved our union, but would unite 13 fairly disparate colonies who had little in common with one another against percieved tyrany as well as set the tone and spirit for the body of laws that would later be the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights.
Globalism (in the positive sense of world unity) is what makes it applicable (as well as the Declaration of Human Rights) to the situation described in the article.
While the DofI may not have the same legally binding force as, say, Article I of the Constitution - it is the defining concept behind what America is, as well as what nearly every people who ever sought independence and freedom from those who would oppress their naturally endowed rights would use as a guiding post.
LordHAlmighty said:
Second, thanks to nearly 6 centuries of colonial oppression and 4 centuries of enslavement, the Western world - again, in my opinion - owes the entire continent of Africa and its people a whole helluva lot more than we've been doing to right our wrongs therein.
I don't know if it's a non-sequitur...but it's immaterial. The U.S. should do what's right, because it's right...not out of some sense of misplaced historical guilt and repayment. Every culture (including the anglo-saxons - hence saxons) has been trounced, had their shit stolen, been raped pillaged ETC. And every culture (at one time or another - including the Native Americans and Africans) has done it to another.
Meaningless. Human rights for human rights sake? Reasonable.
Immaterial? Couldn't disagree more... we should do it because it's right and we should do it because of our involvment in one of the great wrongs of the past thousand years. The argument that cultural oppression is a hand-me-down that every dominant people have had a hand in since the dawn of time and therefore is excusable, permissable, or in some form or another okay is what's immaterial. Cycles of abuse do not get broken until those who are doing the abuse first stop it, then work to right the wrongs they have caused.
Without that action, human rights will never have any true defenders - just documentarians who will remember that at some point, some people thought guaranteeing certain rights for all members of the species was a nifty idea.
Human rights, in a sense, exist and are valid simply because of all the human *wrongs* that have been perpetuated throughout history.
LordHAlmighty said:
England's recognition of US independence is moot... it's like your ex saying s/he "recognizes" you're no longer dating 7 years after the fact. The DofI not only dissolved our union, but would unite 13 fairly disparate colonies who had little in common with one another against percieved tyrany as well as set the tone and spirit for the body of laws that would later be the Constitution, and more specifically the Bill of Rights.
The argument was that our independence wasn't "cemented" until we had fought for it and had it recognized. Until then it wasn't certain that we could actually become an independent nation, despite our intent to do so as outlined in the Declaration. Declaring yourself a free people, and actually being a free people, are very different things.
Globalism (in the positive sense of world unity) is what makes it applicable (as well as the Declaration of Human Rights) to the situation described in the article.
While the DofI may not have the same legally binding force as, say, Article I of the Constitution - it is the defining concept behind what America is, as well as what nearly every people who ever sought independence and freedom from those who would oppress their naturally endowed rights would use as a guiding post.
I don't disagree that the Declaration one of the defining concepts behind what America is. In my own words,
...a statement of the ideals of the new nation.
But we were discussing whether the Declaration is legally binding.
Declaring yourself a free people, and actually being a free people, are very different things.
Actually, no. The liberties laid out in the DofR, among other landmark documents, are freedoms all people have de facto. We are free by our very nature. Whether or not people in positions of strength and or authority choose to use either to oppress those freedoms is what determines the extent of how they can be practiced. Just because someone oppresses someone else doesn't mean that the victim doesn't have freedoms; they're simply being forcefully, violently coerced into not exercising those freedoms.
Perhaps you meant to say that being a truly free people and having the ability to actually enjoy those freedoms to the extent that such documents as the DofI and the DofHR express are very different things. To that I would agree.
The DofI was simply stating what was self-evident to many early Americans immediately prior to 1776.
LordHAlmighty said:
Immaterial? Couldn't disagree more... we should do it because it's right and we should do it because of our involvment in one of the great wrongs of the past thousand years. The argument that cultural oppression is a hand-me-down that every dominant people have had a hand in since the dawn of time and therefore is excusable, permissable, or in some form or another okay is what's immaterial. Cycles of abuse do not get broken until those who are doing the abuse first stop it, then work to right the wrongs they have caused.
Without that action, human rights will never have any true defenders - just documentarians who will remember that at some point, some people thought guaranteeing certain rights for all members of the species was a nifty idea.
Human rights, in a sense, exist and are valid simply because of all the human *wrongs* that have been perpetuated throughout history.
The historical fact neither excuses it nor makes it right, and I agree that human rights must have a defender. However, paying blood money to assuage guilt for a people never in the least instance wronged by me neither defends human rights nor changes the wrongs that were committed by those preceding me.
Should we only offer help to those our culture has wronged, and ignore the rest? Should help be offered to all, but offer a disproportionate portion to those against whom our ancestors offended? If that's the case, the entire world has a lot of back-payments to make.
Help should be offered because help is needed.
Repayment for the trail of tears, or a century of slavery cannot legitimately be made - and discussion of it is ridiculous almost to insult. Regardless, most American guilt is shallow, insincere, and useless. When an American's guilt causes him or her to sign his or her paid-for house over to a Native American, I'll step down. Until that time, discussions of "repayment" and "guilt" are pandering to a false remorse.
And, just to be technical - if we did wish to attempt an impossible repayment for slavery - the monies should be vested in American minorities and not sent to Africa. The children of the offended live here.
I think your intent is admirable, and honorable, however.
...oppression is a hand-me-down that every dominant people have had a hand in ...
I do have to drop a line here, because I can't help myself. This statement borders dangerously on a cop-out. I'm assuming when you say "dominant", we're not falling into the mythology that only great hordes of technologically superior conquerors invaded and devastated innocent, naive, sub-cultures?
Africans of one tribe regularly warred with, and enslaved the others. Many of the slaves "captured" in Africa were actually sold to traders by competing African villages, who took the enslaved by guile and raid. While many of the Native American tribes were democratic and highly peaceful, others lived by raiding and enslaving other villages (not counting coup - but destructive war.)
Let the culture which is guilt-free from the violent oppression of another cast the first stone. Otherwise, help is offered to those who need it the most - as of the present.
LordHAlmighty
Citrus Heights, CA
July 2007
AUG 13, 2007 06:59 AM