Bonne Erbe of US News and World Report was attempting to discredit Alveda King calling her tacky and other precious names for being pro-life. Classy, huh?
King compared abortion to racism and incurred the wrath of liberal columnists everywhere. But most lib media types try to dress up their views to make themselves seem at least a little mainstream. Not the filter-less Erbe though. But that’s why we like her so much. Every thought that she has she writes down.
But check out Erbe’s logic here:
Sorry, but abortion rights and racism simply are not comparable. Racism is unacceptable and violates a basic human right. Abortion is quite something else again. I support abortion rights but I’m not sure I would go so far as to call it a human rights issue. We way overuse the terms “human right” or “civil right” to the point where everyone claims something they want and don’t have is a civil right. We are at the point where the terms are so overused, they have become meaningless. But to equate abortion with racism is so way out of whack with reality, it says more about the person using the terms interchangeably, than it does about either of those issues.
What?! No seriously, What?!
What, other than a human right, could abortion be about? We’re saying the the unborn are humans and have a right to life. Even if you’re against what we’re saying we’re clearly talking about a human right.
And now that I’m thinking about this I’m wondering what other kinds of rights are there other than human rights? Is there a difference between a right as delineated by the Constitution and “human rights?” How does Erbe make the distinction?
September 1, 2010 at 4:58 am
She says: "Racism is unacceptable and violates a basic human right. Abortion is quite something else again. I support abortion rights but I'm not sure I would go so far as to call it a human rights issue."
Maybe I'm missing something, but my read on this is that she's got the whole racism/abortion analogy confused. It seems to me that she's thinking that the *right to have an abortion* is a civil right (!!) and she's actually refuting that.
I guess I'd have to agree with her that the "right to choose" is not, in fact, a civil right.
September 1, 2010 at 6:49 am
It's the usual callow thinking if one can even call such piffle thought that permeates so much of the mainstream media.
The ripping of a child's life from her/his mother's womb is incomparable with racism…because as basic infanticide, it is much worse. And today mankind suffers from this genocide of its unborn infants that is literally hellish.
September 1, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Re: John
They don't think. They bleet.
Racism is unacceptable [if there is no traditional natural law to appeal to, then why? And why can it be acceptable in some other decade?] and violates a basic human right. Abortion is quite something else again.
Ah, so let me get this straight from the sheep's mouth. Racism is unacceptable and even a hint of it violates human rights. Abortion kills a human person in the womb, but that's just fine and dandy.
I take my first comment back. It was an insult to sheep!
September 1, 2010 at 12:50 pm
"And now that I'm thinking about this I'm wondering what other kinds of rights are there other than human rights? Is there a difference between a right as delineated by the Constitution and 'human rights?' How does Erbe make the distinction?"
One possibility is that rights to Erbe denote positive rights given by the majority. If the majority says cars/dogs/co.s/trees. have rights, they do. Otherwise, the entity/human is on their own or actively denied rights. It's legal positivism (more info in comments at link; WYA).
September 1, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Some Af. Am.s call abortion "womb lynching". To them it is a human rights issue.
September 1, 2010 at 12:59 pm
There are two issues at work here. The first is that the language of the debate hides that fact that a life is involved. The word "abortion" is a sterile word meaning to stop. In most pro-abortionist mindsets, pro-abortion means prevention of an "inconvenience". Even the pro-life language is too fuzzy since to a pro-abortionist pro-life sounds like support for the quiver full society. The proper term should be, prenatal murder. This language makes it clear what the issue is. If a spouse wants to murder his wife in the privacy of his own home, he can't claim that society shouldn't interfere since he's pro-choice.
The next issue, is that that they're right to a certain extent. The right to life isn't a human right for the simple fact that rights don't exist. Go to a lion and tell it, "You can't kill me because I have the right to life". Fall of the cliff and say the same thing. We don't have rights…people we interact with have responsibilities. That's part of what the 10 commandments express. It says "Thou shalt not" not "Thy has the right to". In our libertine society we shun obligations but until we understand that rights do not exist and our only hope is in obligations to each other, this sort of inhumanity will continue to increase.
September 1, 2010 at 1:17 pm
So…killing a human being is not considered a human right? But not allowing homosexuals to "marry" is considered racist? Yeah…That makes sense…
September 1, 2010 at 1:19 pm
@Steven P. Cornett I'd take back the sheep comment too, you know they can clone those now…
September 1, 2010 at 1:50 pm
So if I get a girl pregnant and we decide to abort the baby just because we can, it's okey-dokey. But if I get a girl pregnant and we decide to abort because the mom and I are different races, that implies racism and therefore the act is immoral? Sounds like "pretty much the same, only different".
Gonna go lie down now, I'm so confused.
September 1, 2010 at 3:53 pm
"So…killing a human being is not considered a human right? But not allowing homosexuals to "marry" is considered racist? Yeah…That makes sense…"
We live in moral world that is akin to Alice in Wonderland. As the Cat said, "We are all mad here."
September 1, 2010 at 4:33 pm
on the issue of rights…
Yes, there are other rights than "human rights."
The way I find easiest to think about is natural rights VS ascribed rights. Natural rights are those which which he have been "endowed by our creator," so to speak, such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, etc.
Ascribed rights are those which are not natural and inherent, but given to people by their governments. The right of people over 18 to vote.
What we have with abortion is a government trying to make up ascribed rights contrary to natural rights.
September 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I'm all for abortion rights. Let's abort the government and start all over! But of course…Let's keep the babies (and not just those who are acting the part:)
September 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm
"We way overuse the terms "human right" or "civil right" to the point where everyone claims something they want and don't have is a civil right."
Riiiiight. Like the gay "right to marry". I wonder how Erbe would like to address that one.
September 1, 2010 at 5:05 pm
She also claims that abortion is NOT racist. Erbe claims to be a reporter – obviously she has not looked at the history of Planned Parenthood, but she spouts off her opinion as FACT without FACTCHECKING. Tell Ms. Erbe she should get the documentary Maafa21 and see the proof for herself http://www.maafa21.com
September 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm
If the term human rights is overused, it's only because the homosexual agenda has hijacked the term for something that is always disordered and can never be a right. Funny thing is, I bet Erbe is actually in support of that "right," when in fact it's more important to protect life than a (disordered) lifestyle.
September 1, 2010 at 5:41 pm
why, animal rights, like peta says cows have the right not to be made into hamburger –
Oh what illogic. It is more of having cake after eating it. Killing humans is not as bad as using monkets for reseach which is untenable.
Why they are zygotos not people, bla bla bla
every agenda has rewitten the menaings of common words and we are dupes.
Time to insist on definitions before agreeing – to anything. anna
September 1, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Erbe's got a right to be STUPID.
The "disconnect" in this world is really horrible.
September 2, 2010 at 7:07 am
Just to comment on what Andrew and Anil Wang said.
A right is an obligation of a person towards a right-holder. But obligations can be ignored, and hence rights are
Human rights are rights that people have because they are human. Civil rights are rights that people have because they are members of a society.
For example, a 9 year old Mongolian girl that emigrates to the US does not have the right to run for President (civil right), while she has the right to not be killed by her neighbors (human right).
There are more rights than these, like the rights that a child has (which imply obligations that a parent has to the child because of being a parent). The rights of a parent. The rights of an employee (specified in the employment contract and labor law).
Human rights, filial rights, and paternal rights would be what Andrew calls natural rights. While civil rights, and employee's rights are what Andrew would call ascribed rights.
Sorry…I am studying political philosophy.
September 2, 2010 at 7:09 am
I forgot "But obligations can be ignored, and hence rights are" abridged.
September 6, 2010 at 7:20 am
"But to equate abortion with racism is so way out of whack with reality, it says more about the person using the terms interchangeably, than it does about either of those issues."
This is so infuriatingly dumb. I cannot believe that there is anyone left alive who denies that abortion is a race issue. That African-American babies are disproportionately selected for abortion is a FACT. That African-American women are disproportionately targeted by abortion providers is a FACT.
What using these terms interchangeably tells us about a person is that they read the newspaper now and again…
What an insulting, and yeah, racist comment.