Hi JP

Sorry, I didn’t explain myself clearly.

I think the most important rights are universal – they apply to all human beings in all times and places by virtue of us being persons (this is a rather old-fashioned view nowadays, and many philosophers would disagree). These kinds of rights are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So, women’s right to equality applies always and everywhere, even though in most times and cultures it has not been accepted and/or implemented.

Other rights are social and/or contextual.

Social rights arise because we, as social beings, recognise that there are certain rules of behaviour that benefit us all as individuals and as a society if we all obey them. Some are enforced by law, some by convention. Of the 10 commandments, for example, every society makes “thou shalt not steal” enforceable by law but none makes “honour your father and mother” a legal requirement, though many societies have this as a value.

Contextual rights are a subset of social rights that depend on circumstances. In rich countries like Australia, most people accept that every citizen has a right to education, basic healthcare and a safety net of unemployment benefits and aged pensions. The parameters of these rights are not based on absolute principles and evolve as social values and economic conditions change, but they are grounded in a sense of serving the common good and protecting the vulnerable.

For these kind of rights, some kind of social or political process is needed to work out what is in society’s interests and how best to deliver it.

Most rights, though - whatever their foundation - become accepted, respected, defended and entrenched through social dialogue and what I called the messy processes of legislation and legal review. This is also the only way to resolve matters such as abortion where different rights are incompatible. That Roe v Wade didn’t go through this process in the USA is part of the reason the abortion issue has re-emerged so fiercely, whereas it’s far less controversial in Australia.

Fact is we are dealing with imported US GOP anti-abortion agitprop propagated by parts of the right and RW media.

Fact is the GOP did not make an issue of abortion till Paul Weyrich of the Republican National Committe and Atlas Koch Heritage Foundation in early '80s saw 'pro life' as an issue to coopt Evangelical Christians and Catholics.

Cynical RW faux conservative political strategy that sits next to the faux environemtnal white Christian nationalist Tanton Network influence (see SPA, TAPRI, MB & RW MSM); dec. John 'passive eugenics' Tanton was pro abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and Islamophobic, while his chum Peter Brimelow informed Fox News and reported to Murdoch?

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/if-you-are-business-fox-news-you-are-hook-its-white-nationalism

Fact is, so what?..that’s faux news.

Fact is, all news is partisan, eg your quote from NYT to make a point, which is?

Hello Rhian – You say that “the most important rights are universal – they apply to all human beings in all times and places by virtue of us being persons” and “these kinds of rights are outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

I guess that you know that the UDHR was made up by a small group of people after WW II. These “rights” were then declared to apply universally to all human beings. I say, “made up” because, being a secular document, these is no suggestion that these purported “rights” come from some divine being such as a God who created us. No, these “rights” are the creations of human minds.

That is not to say that you and I and probably almost all people don’t like all, or at least most, of the sentiments contained in the UDHR. However their popularity or otherwise does nothing to change the fact that these “rights” have no intrinsic value, but only the value that anyone chooses to attribute to them. These “rights” do not have any actual special elevated status.

To say that they apply to all human beings in all times and places is simply an unsubstantiated assertion. To add on, “by virtue of us being persons”, does not help, as again that is just a further assertion. In a materialistic/atheistic universe what is so special about human beings that they should have any meaningful claims to certain “rights”?

So a person can say that they want “women’s rights” (or men’s or human rights) to be respected or advanced but all they are really saying is that they have a particular preference for such-and-such to happen. The impression is often given that an appeal to “rights” increases the authority of the appeal but that is not so. Indeed, when we recognise that “rights” have no intrinsic value, any “rights” talk is just an attempt to manipulate people.

In a materialistic/atheistic universe, we have no actual obligations or responsibilities toward each other. We can make up things like the UDHR but we should acknowledge they have no moral weight.