Subject:
|
Re: Around we go again...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:28:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
> > '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. ;/)
>
> However, the paranoid in me tells me that this is the answer you expected,
> and perhaps there in a contrary view?
Well? Is there a contrary view?
Scott A
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
