Subject:
|
Re: Around we go again...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:30:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
947 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> >
> > > Court order?
> > >
> > > http://news.excite.com/news/r/010711/08/odd-children-dc
> >
> > From the article:
> >
> > 'Dissenting Judge Ann Bradley said the sentence violated the "basic human
> > right" to have children.'
> >
> > Wasn't aware of such a right.
>
> 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. ;/)
For the benifit of other readers:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 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 marriage and at its
dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of
the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by society and the State.
I smile at the article that I originally linked to, because I do think the
punishment is deserved. However, just because it is deserved doesn't mean
that it's right for the government to limit the number of children a person
can have. I personally believe that two children are enough, but that is
just my personal guideline. I can't force that viewpoint on anyone else, nor
will I get upset if my wife has triplets. I wouldn't be surprised if his
punishment is overturned by another court.
> However, the paranoid in me tells me that this is the answer you expected,
> and perhaps there in a contrary view?
>
> Scott A
-Duane
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
