Universal Declaration of Human Rights (moral, choice, worship, marriage)

[Pah]

Originally Posted by evearael

How long did the UN sit by with the situations in Sudan, Bosnia, Ruwanda, etcetera ad nauseum...?

Yeah, in most cases, a UN response is inadequate and late. The decisions grind very, very slowly.

It is doubtful they would have the military, economic and political clout to actually enforce the declaration, as that clout comes directly from those who don't follow it! Sure, every country may pay it lipservice, but only in as far as it enforces it in any other country but their own.

I'm not sure that a total adoption of the articles or in the member states was ever envisioned. I see it it as more a standard or even an ideal.

[Darkdale]

If you see rights as being abstract, than they can be whatever you want them to be. What do I care what your ideals are? But, if you think that rights are actual things, then they must exist, and must be demonstrated to exist. I'm saying that they are not actual things until they are earned or protected by governments. They can exist in your head though. I won't argue with that. I'm just saying, as abstracts, rights are worthless.

[mr.guy]

I'm saying that they are not actual things until they are earned or protected by governments.

They are no more "actual" things after "earned" by governments and/or individuals.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

They are no more "actual" things after "earned" by governments and/or individuals.

Well, that isn't exactly true. Once a right is protected, then it is a right. Before it is protected it is not. I suppose the question is, what is being protected? Is it a thing before it is protected, is it a thing after? I suppose there needs to be better definitions.

[mr.guy]

Once a right is protected, then it is a right.

A right is not defined by whether it's "protected".