Subject:
|
Re: Around we go again...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:35:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
976 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> 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.
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
>
> (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...
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
