From Lincoln to Lincoln: The way home for a wayward G.O.P

[CountArach]

You seem to misunderstand American culture. Universal or "human" rights are already elaborated or more less in our Dec. of Ind. and our Constitution. We are attached to the state system because people have differing views on what civil rights people are entitled to. Abortion isn't a universal right, people who claim it is are idiots. It is a civil right and the SCOTUS inadvertently admits so with Roe vs. Wade by having to link abortion with privacy of all things in order to ensure it's legality. Reading between the lines, its obvious the decision was based off of pragmatism, and not any real legal backing.

I'm not going to disagree with you on the nature of Roe vs Wade, but I would argue that there is no fundamental difference between universal and civil rights, other than what we deem it is appropriate for our governments to interfere in.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not going to disagree with you on the nature of Roe vs Wade, but I would argue that there is no fundamental difference between universal and civil rights, other than what we deem it is appropriate for our governments to interfere in.

Universal rights are universal, abortion has all sorts of contingencies attached to it in most jurisdictions, like marriage it's a Civil matter, not a moral one.

[Kralizec]

Universal rights are universal, abortion has all sorts of contingencies attached to it in most jurisdictions, like marriage it's a Civil matter, not a moral one.

That's really just an emperical observation. Allthough that does touch upon the question what human rights really are.

Speaking personally, I do support a woman's right to abortion, and human rights are super-duper awesome, but I'd hesitate to include it among them. If human rights, as a secular concept, is to have any meaning it should be restricted to those rights which are self-evidently necessary for a dignified existence. I don't think there are any good reasons to deny early abortions, but I can think of all sorts of dumb stuff governments do that adversely affect people's life that still don't quite qualify as human rights breeches. You could argue, with good reasons, that if a woman is severely distressed and might go suicidal if forced to carry a baby to term. That would mean that denying an abortion could violate her human rights in her situation - but not necessarily for all cases.

Again- I support abortion righs, but I don't think the reasoning behind them is as clear-cut as others. If we're to take the right to due process for example, that's acknowledged in several treaties including the ICCPR, which has been ratified by the vast majority of countries worldwide (China's a notable exception). Of course many countries don't abide by them in practice, but the crucial point is that there are no arguments of reason against it. Dictators know this and at least pretend to abide by them.

@Count Arach: Germany is a federal republic as well. The government of Berlin wants to make college education free or has already done so, don't remember. (which pissed Bavaria off - Bavaria does have college fees, and is also a large net contributor to Germany's financial transfer scheme whereas Berlin is a net receiver. But I digress).
I imagine there are Australian examples as well, being a federal country and all. Do you draw the line at a certain point, or are you opposed to federalism in any form?

[CountArach]

@Count Arach: Germany is a federal republic as well. The government of Berlin wants to make college education free or has already done so, don't remember. (which pissed Bavaria off - Bavaria does have college fees, and is also a large net contributor to Germany's financial transfer scheme whereas Berlin is a net receiver. But I digress).
I imagine there are Australian examples as well, being a federal country and all. Do you draw the line at a certain point, or are you opposed to federalism in any form?

Australia has a state system, yeah, but over time our federal government has been taking more power and funding away from them and centralising it and most people agree that we are better off for it. I read somewhere that Australia would save about $1 billion by removing the states just because we would have less red tape. Generally I oppose federalism in any form except in those cases where there are clear cultural differences, such as in Spain where many different areas are culturally distinct. Bavaria could potentially fit into that as well.