 | | Around we go again...
|
|
(...) 'Dissenting Judge Ann Bradley said the sentence violated the "basic human right" to have children.' Wasn't aware of such a right. Who's got her email address, maybe she could present her reasons for that viewpoint here and settle (1) a (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Around we go again...
|
|
(...) I am, if we share an understanding of what "basic" means. Even if we do not, there is this : Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 16. (I expect Duane will contest both. ;/) However, the paranoid in me tells me that this is the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Around we go again...
|
|
(...) For the benifit of other readers: (URL) 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Around we go again...
|
|
(...) When one read this again it looks rather quaint: "have the right to marry and to found a family". Although I am sure/hope it is not intended today, but it implies that marriage should come before having children. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Around we go again...
|
|
(...) I had typed out a whole paragraph arguing exactly that point, but thought it was vague enough that I let it be. Besides, I didn't want to prove your statement about me above to be true. :-) (...) -Duane (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Around we go again...
|
|
(...) Well? Is there a contrary view? Scott A (23 years ago, 12-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
