The Universalism Of Human Rights

Twenty to thirty million legal abortions occur worldwide each year. The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between – (Mother Teresa). Before 1973, individual states were allowed to decide whether abortion would be legal within their borders. The topic of abortion and whether or not it is right or wrong is a constant debate in todays society. Everyone has their own beliefs on the matter, but it should not be a question of what we believe, it should be the question of whether or not this procedure should be considered an illegal act. There are hundreds of woman everyday that have an abortion, and hundreds of innocent lives being slaughtered legally. The fact that this procedure is legal in the U.S, and that people actually see it as their “choice” or “right” to abort the baby, disturbs me immensely. Preforming the procedure of an abortion should be illegal in all states because abortion is murder, the fetuses can feel the pain during the procedure, and abortion can lead to psychological damage.

It is more substantial than ever, to honor through words as well as through actions, that the right of women is to access their complete reproductive health choices with the dignity they deserve. Abortion is an effective individual decision within the health care field, and it’s a choice that should ultimately be appropriate for every woman who might not be physically, mentally, and economically capable enough of bringing a child into the world. “Though women have been endowed with the gift of bearing a life form, an abortion gives them the option whether they want to avail the present or not” (Finer and Joanna). Therefore, abortion should not be prohibited because it’s a reproductive right, and it reduces the numbers of homeless babies, and might reduce the crime rates.

Human rights can be summarized as the activities and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy and only by virtue of their humanity. These conditions are generally guaranteed in the constitution of the land. They are widely felt in the area as they are divided and not limited to political, social economic and cultural rights. Some of the main principles of human rights include the fact that they are inherent, inalienable and indivisible as well. In this relation, human rights can never be taken away from an individual whereby the enjoyment of one right should not infringe the enjoyment of other. They must all be respected and maintained.

Abortion has been a controversial subject for centuries across the globe. Although the fetus may not be scientifically a human being, there is budding humanity within it; and hence trying to terminate fetus must be considered as criminal offense of killing a human being. Not many of the world’s population have realized the effects caused by the abortion and its impacts on the society. Abortion is considered to be immoral crime affecting not only the mother but also the family, the community, and most significantly the fetus.

Reproductive rights are best defined as “having the ability to decide whether and when to have children” (statusofwomendata.org). Carrie Chapman Catt would argue that it is not in fact the government’s business as to whether a mother can have an abortion or not, because it is the mother’s body at the end of the

Pregnancy clinics across America are helping numerous individuals everyday. But, federally funded pregnancy clinics have begun to fight for right to deny abortion information to their patients. Activists rallied against the California law that requires all clinics to inform patients of low cost abortion options, which is being argued as to violate their First Amendment right; freedom of speech. The executive director of the East County Pregnancy Care Clinic, Josh McClure, “I don’t want to put up a sign where you can go for an abortion.” Another statement was released, talking about how making a sign stating those points, would be unconstitutional. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are run by people who are “anti-abortion.” These centers known to give

In 1973, the US Supreme Court declared abortion a nationwide fundamental right through a trial called Roe vs. Wade and protected this right underneath the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically, the right to privacy. A basic human right, especially one outlined by the Supreme Court, must never run at risk or threat chiefly because not everyone agrees with it. Under no circumstances should a pregnancy ever adjudge mandatory. Abortion is a Constitutional right and as a nation we must fight to give the right and freedom of safe abortions to women all around the nation, make birth control and sex education accessible to women, and raise awareness about the topic itself. (LawCornell)

Is the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone set at abortion clinics, in order to protect potential patients from being disturbed, discriminatory against anti-abortion petition groups who seek to freely express their thoughts to those patients and assemble closely outside the clinics? This was the civil liberties question raised in the Supreme Court case of McCullen v. Coakley. Eleanor McCullen challenged attorney general Martha Coakley on the constitutionality of An Act Relative to Public safety that established a 35-foot buffer zone at abortions clinic entrances in Massachusetts to protect patients seeking abortions on the basis that it discriminates specifically against anti-abortion petition groups and it infringes on their freedom of speech as the article In the New York Times “Courts Reject Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinic” by Adam Liptak and John Schwarts suggests.

With the passing of Rowe v. Wade, the government gave women the right to choose between working and advancing in their career or pursuing a family. Since then, the government has imposed restrictions limiting the availability of abortions. In a 1991 case Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court upheld the “gag rule” which limited clinics that received federal funding from giving their patients information about referrals for abortions. “No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body.” (Nancy Sanger)

We Americans cherish our rights. Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Row vs. Wade, a woman's right to have an abortion has become the law of the land. Once a right to do something has been established in this country, it becomes near impossible to take it away. Pro-choice advocates accuse their opponents, pro-life advocates, of wanting to take this right away from women. It is a strong argument, and no doubt true, but if the right to have an abortion is ever taken away in this country, it will come from the pro-choice left, and not from the pro-life right.

Abortion has been a hotly debated topic for years now. Abortion-rights advocates won a major victory in June when the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law requiring doctors to obtain permission to practice at hospitals near their offices and to have abortion clinics adhere to hospital building codes (guttmacher.org). A landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court upon the issue of abortion was Roe v. The right of an abortion is to only the individual and not for the government to get involved in. There ought to be no confliction as to the right

We all live our lives as we please all in accordance to the law, but when it comes to abortion people start to judge and try to regulate how others live and interfere in their personal choices. We live in a country based on freedoms, and women have and should continue to have the freedom to the choice of an abortion. A woman’s right to choose abortion is a fundamental right recognized by the US Supreme Court. The courts also have a category of classes called the ‘near-suspect’ classes, which include gender. Gender deserves protection from possible discrimination at the hands of the majority. Women constitute a majority of American’s and have been discriminated in the past. The Landmark case Roe v. Wade was decided and remains the law of the land. Making laws against abortions don’t stop abortions from happening; they just make it less safe, which in many cases leads to death. Therefore idea of supporting pro-life is contradictory, this is why the nation should be pro-choice. No child should be brought into this world where they are not wanted or are not able to live a normal life. Most people who are against abortion will never even become pregnant, so they should not be making laws against it. Pregnancy is a private and personal matter. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory and unfortunately abortions are being transformed from a right to a privilege for most women.

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights stands as the current gold standard for every individual’s rights. Focusing on culture, one may see that cultural rights are not clearly defined and are oftentimes in conflict with other types of rights. In this paper, I will first discuss the United Nations’ use of ‘cultural’ in its universal human rights in relation to the concept of cultural relativism. Then, using South African and American practices, such as virginity testing and discriminatory criminal justice system respectively, I will describe and analyze practices violate the UN’s universal human rights in addition to the practices’ use for the community or society as a whole. Lastly, I will compare the American Anthropological Association’s rights to culture to the UN’s universal human rights by analyzing the limitations of each.