What Are "Rights"?

The word “rights” is often confused with what it truly means. The word is thrown around and given to things the government grants but are not truly “rights”. And just as often, the word is misused to explain what some people in different parts of the world do not have the same “rights” to as their counterparts elsewhere. When an agreement of what the word actually means and how it can be applied to society is reached, only then can we begin to truly debate the correct issues. I will attempt to lay the groundwork for how I believe the word should be used. Every single individual is born with certain rights. What those rights are may be discussed later. For now I shall look at the fundamentals of rights.

First off, rights are not something that can be granted, for if you are naturally born with something, how can it be given? One example of this is the right of free speech. Every single individual is born with the right of free speech. Living in the United States all of my life, this is something that I, as well as others around me, tend to take for granted. Here in the USA, this right is unquestioned. Of course we have free speech. However, when we look at other parts of the world, we tend to think they do not have the same rights. An example of this can be found in China. It is well known that people in China do not have the right to free speech…

Ah, but therein lies the foundation of the problem. People in China DO have the right to free speech… But how can this be? In 1989 countless people were gunned down in the now infamous Tiananmen Square massacre by Chines troops. These people were gunned down because they were demonstrating their right of free speech. It could, of course, be argued that rights are of no value if you are shot dead while using them, and that may or may not be the case. But the simple fact remains, the people of China DO have the right to free speech, those rights are simply not RECOGNIZED.

Now that opens up another can of worms altogether. If everyone has certain rights but those rights are simply not recognized, then why do not more people stand up for those rights? That is indeed a question that haunts me to no end, for there is no greater power than the power of one person standing up for his or her self, taking responsibility for their actions, and recognizing the rights of others.

Back to China, and anywhere else the right of free speech is not recognized. The government that does not recognize the right of free speech in no way takes away those rights, for again, something cannot be taken away that was never given. Governments such as these are of course oppressive and in the end will come tumbling down as the movement will inevitably begin to have individual rights recognized. However, until that day comes, these governments will continue to oppress the right of free speech, but not take it away.

Another example of unrecognized rights can be found in the history of the United States. Before the U.S. Civil War, the rights of African Americans to hold dominion over their own lives were not recognized by the government of the United States. It was widely considered that these people had no rights. They were inferior and therefore their owners could use them in whatever way they pleased. This led to many caring white people, usually from the North, to work tirelessly along side the black leaders of their day to work toward an end to slavery and the right for African Americans to hold dominion over their own lives. When the Civil War ended the rights of the former slaves to hold this dominion were granted by the U.S. Government…

Now again I submit that the usage of the word “granted” is incorrect in this case, for how can you be granted, or given, something that you were naturally born with? It leads me to believe, therefore, that African Americans of the slavery days had these rights all along, they were simply not recognized. The correct terminology that should therefore be used for the post Civil War times is that the U.S. Government finally recognized, and not granted, the rights of this group to hold dominion over their own lives. This, in my opinion, changes things dramatically. As bad as we may now think of slavery and the United States’ endorsement of it, we must now hold it in an even darker, grimmer light.

If, during the time of slavery, African Americans did not actually have the right to hold dominion over their own lives, then we did them no injustice, for we were not taking anything away from them. However, when we view it from the point of view that the right of dominion over one’s own life is something that everyone is born with, the action of slavery becomes the single worst crime humanity has ever committed upon itself. The rights of African Americans were suppressed before the Civil War, not granted after it. This is significant.

My point? (I do tend to ramble…) Simple… “Rights” are something that every human being is born with. If free speech is truly a “right” of humanity, then everyone on the planet has it… it just isn’t recognized by many governments. If the idea of holding dominion over one’s own life is truly a “right”, then African Americans were never “granted” the freedom from slavery… that freedom was just finally “recognized” by our society. By this definition, these two rights discussed were there all along… just not recognized.

So, by this definition, what are our “rights” as individuals? That’s a whole ‘nother ball o’ wax for a whole ‘nother time…

Abortion Debate Rages On

A landmark decision was handed down today by the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of banning certain abortion procedures. The court voted 5-4 to uphold a ban passed by the U.S. Congress on a certain type of so-called partial-birth abortion. In this procedure (and I am over-simplifying here), performed after twelve weeks of the pregnancy has passed, the fetus is partially extracted from the womb, its skull is pierced, killing it, and the rest of the extraction is then carried out. Sounds pretty gruesome to me. The court made the correct decision.

This ruling does not affect the vast majority of abortions. According to information taken from the above referenced article, approximately one million abortions are performed every year, and 90% of those take place within the first twelve weeks. In 2000, the last year data is available for this type of abortion, 2,200 of these dilation and extraction procedures were performed. If those numbers remained fairly constant, we’re talking about 2,200 procedures out of 1 million being affected. Do the math… that equates to 1/5 of one percent, hardly a number that should cause alarm among all of the “abortions for everyone” activists.

Don’t get me wrong… I am staunchly, absolutely, and unequivocally in the “pro-choice” camp. As much is it bothers me personally (there actually are forms of preventative birth control, ya know), I recognize the right of a woman to have absolute dominion over her own body. And it is more complicated than that…

There comes a point when the embryo growing in the woman’s belly takes shape and becomes a little human with fingers and a heart and some actual brain activity. When exactly is that magic point where it is no longer a tadpole (complete with tail) and could be considered a baby with full rights as a separate life? Great question… Now, I’m no doctor… I don’t even play one on TV, but it seems to me that the medical community should come up with some kind of reasonably agreed upon point where, were the fetus outside of the womb, it could survive. Of course I am not talking about surviving completely on its own. Not even a full term baby could do that (they don’t generally have the skills to get a job to help them earn money for food just yet). No, what I mean is that if the baby could survive, like many prematurely born babies (with hospital help) do, outside of the womb, then maybe we should be considering it a little human life even when still inside of the womb. No one would argue that it should be legal to kill a one day old baby. Why should it be any different for a baby still in the belly (again, assuming it can be reasonably called a “baby” at this point)?

Personally, I say we make all late-term abortions illegal (except in extenuating circumstances, of course). By the time the first trimester ends, the woman has had ample opportunity to decide whether or not she wants to have the baby. Remember, 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester. This is a sound and responsible (?) practice.

Now then… a note about the particular article referenced above… One thing I cannot stand is poor journalism. The following is taken directly from this article, written by the Associated Press:

“It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case…”

This is passive-aggressive editorializing. The court didn’t ban this procedure. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create laws that “ban” anything. The United States Congress does have that power. By using the term “ban” the AP article implies that it was the justices of the Supreme Court who made the law, and not Congress. No, the Supreme Court upheld the ban of this procedure, which is something different entirely. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on issues of constitutionality. Agree with this decision or not, the court simply ruled that the ban is indeed constitutional. They did no “banning” themselves.

Poor Journalism

Why do journalists feel the need to sensationalize SO MUCH? Take the following example of a headline (taken from Reuters/Yahoo news at the following site: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070404/us_nm/usa_flag_burning_dc)

Three Yale students arrested for burning U.S. flag

This headline clearly implies that some students from a liberal university were arrested for protesting something by burning the flag at some rally. After clicking on the link to the story the viewer sees a Reuters’ file photo image of a U.S. flag being burned at a protest, another misleading depiction. After reading the story it turns out it was just a case of arson and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of flag burning.

The issue of flag burning is a divisive one in our nation. On one side of the argument there are those who believe the flag is a symbol of our country and that it must not be desecrated in such a way. On the other there are those who believe the very foundation of our freedom rests on the right to free speech and argue that this act falls under those protections. Regardless of which side of the debate one falls, the obvious intent of this headline was to play on those emotions to get the surfer to click on the link and read the story… and I fell for it.

Turns out this story was nothing more than one of three hooligans setting fire to someone else’s piece of property that was hanging from that someone else’s house, thereby endangering the house and those occupants inside. The three hooligans were caught by police and arrested on various charges, including arson. In interviewing the three suspects, the police discovered they were not protesting anything, as the headline implied, and they even acknowledged that it was a “dumb thing to do”. This story’s headline should have read “Three Yale students arrested for arson” and been kept on page seven of the local paper.