Human Rights

[VampyreLord]

Now you might expect a communist to say this, but I think that the current obsession with human rights is out of control:

(London) Celia Katzinger and Sue Wilkinson are taking the British government to court to have their Canadian marriage recognized in the UK.

Both women are university professors and were living in British Columbia when they married in 2003, shortly after same-sex marriage became legal in the Canadian province. When they returned to Britain they applied to have their marriage registered but were refused. British heterosexual couples who marry abroad are automatically considered to be married in the UK. Their attorney will argue in the High Court next week that by not recognizing the couple's marriage the government is discriminating against the women and violating their human rights.

Katzinger and Wilkinson were told they could have their relationship registered under Britain's civil partnership law. Although it offers the same rights and responsibilities as marriage "it is not marriage," Katzinger says. "There is no difference in formal, legal or financial terms between marriage and a civil partnership so we are not disadvantaged in that sense," said Wilkinson. "It is the principle that matters."
The case will center on whether British law breaches the European law by treating gay couples different to heterosexuals.

If they win it would not open same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian couples in the UK. The case is strictly limited to British same-sex couples who live abroad, marry, and then return to Britain.

This is utterly ridiculous. The word "marriage" actually means a union of a man and a woman. I don't see why they can't be happy with a civil partnership, which is (as they have admitted) exactly the same except it is not called a marriage.

It's like saying refusing to call a black person "white" is racist!

Another example:

A FUGITIVE who refused to come down from a roof yesterday was sent food and cigarettes by police concerned for his "human rights".

The suspected car thief had evaded officers after a high-speed chase, provoking a stand-off.

As 50 police laid siege, he began bombarding them with bricks and tiles. Instead of forcing the suspect down, officers sent up a Kentucky Fried Chicken meal and a packet of cigarettes. They also took him a can of Pepsi but the 27-year-old sent it back, demanding a two-litre bottle.

Amazingly, it was revealed last night, as the fugitive remained on the roof of a three-storey house, that he carried out an almost identical stunt last year.

Yesterday as the extraordinary scenes unfolded in Midland Road, Gloucester. A police spokesman said: "Although he’s on the roof being a nuisance, we still have to look after his well-being and human rights."

However, experts in human rights law dismissed this as a "ludicrous and even deliberate" misunderstanding of the law.

The police here feel shackled by "human rights".

And of course, there's America's world famous "compensation culture". Lawsuits left right and centre, all in the name of "human rights".

There are also issues of just what rights we have. For example, I think we are all agreed that you do not have the right to murder, but we are divided when we question wether a woman has the right to have an abortion.

Do we have the right to go on holiday whenever we want? Each commercial airplane produces hundreds of tonnes of C02, poisoning the world we all have to share.

I would like to hear your opinions on what human rights you think we have, and to whom they apply to (for example, does an embryo have the right to life).

[Draffut]

Now you might expect a communist to say this, but I think that the current obsession with human rights is out of control:
This is utterly ridiculous. The word "marriage" actually means a union of a man and a woman. I don't see why they can't be happy with a civil partnership, which is (as they have admitted) exactly the same except it is not called a marriage.
It's like saying refusing to call a black person "white" is racist!

Happy you brought this up VL. Me and my boss were just arguing this yesterday. I am of the personal opinion that the goverment should not be able to prevent people from getting married. But if a church refuses to wed a couple (for whatever reason) that is that church's choice. But the Goverment has to respect whatever choice the Church makes on the subject and make it legal. Civil Unions are for those couples who the church refuses to marry, as an alternate way for them to be wed.

As for what you said about the subject, if there is no difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, why would the goverment refuse to marry them? It's no differnet, then their shouldn't be a problem.

Another example:
The police here feel shackled by "human rights".

Agreed, this is rediculous.

And of course, there's America's world famous "compensation culture". Lawsuits left right and centre, all in the name of "human rights".
There are also issues of just what rights we have. For example, I think we are all agreed that you do not have the right to murder, but we are divided when we question wether a woman has the right to have an abortion.

Well, that depends on if you concider a fetus, a child, which i do not. So it is not murder as far as i am concerned.

Do we have the right to go on holiday whenever we want? Each commercial airplane produces hundreds of tonnes of C02, poisoning the world we all have to share.

I think so. there are efforts being made to clear the atmosphere, and my job is to put thousands of planes into the air. (Air Force)

I would like to hear your opinions on what human rights you think we have, and to whom they apply to (for example, does an embryo have the right to life).

Children have limited rights, like they cannot drink, drive, ect. In the same way, an embryo has very, very limited rights. and most of which are under the jurisdiction of it's mother.

Atleast that's my take.

[M-50]

First of all I want to say that yes we do have human rights. The most basic of which include food, shelter, water and shelter.
Second they should apply to everyone although as you probably know that is not always the case. I do think that embryo's are life but I do not think that the should be given human rights because they are not technically humans and they can not think for themsleves unless proven otherwise.

Do we have the right to go on holiday whenever we want? Each commercial airplane produces hundreds of tonnes of C02, poisoning the world we all have to share.
Of course we have the right to go on holiday whenever we want. Like Draffut said measures are being taken to help [prevent the amount of CO2 deposited in the air. For example they are trying to build a plane that flies at Mach 5. This is a jet plane like the concorde and should not deposit CO2.

A FUGITIVE who refused to come down from a roof yesterday was sent food and cigarettes by police concerned for his "human rights".

The suspected car thief had evaded officers after a high-speed chase, provoking a stand-off.

As 50 police laid siege, he began bombarding them with bricks and tiles. Instead of forcing the suspect down, officers sent up a Kentucky Fried Chicken meal and a packet of cigarettes. They also took him a can of Pepsi but the 27-year-old sent it back, demanding a two-litre bottle.

Amazingly, it was revealed last night, as the fugitive remained on the roof of a three-storey house, that he carried out an almost identical stunt last year.

Yesterday as the extraordinary scenes unfolded in Midland Road, Gloucester. A police spokesman said: "Although he’s on the roof being a nuisance, we still have to look after his well-being and human rights."

However, experts in human rights law dismissed this as a "ludicrous and even deliberate" misunderstanding of the law.
I think that this guy just wasted the taxpayers money and should ahve had that treatment given to him just because he called upon his human rights. By giving him his food they wasted time, money and effort of policemen that could have been doing something good like stopping drug dealers from selling cocain to children. If this took place in America I would have understood it because he would have probably sued the police department, but in England where he would not have had a case why bow down to him? They should have jsut climbed up on the roof and arrested him.

[QUOYE=VampyreLord]but we are divided when we question wether a woman has the right to have an abortion.[/QUOTE]

A woman should have the right to an abortion. In Louisiana they declared that no abortions can happen even if the embryo is the result of a rape. I think that that is just stupid. Why should a woman who has been raped be forced to carry around the result of the rape for nine months and give birth to it for the woman to probably send it to the orphanage? If a woman needs an abortion then let her have it as long as the parents of the child have both given consent.

[VampyreLord]

Happy you brought this up VL. Me and my boss were just arguing this yesterday.

Here in the Red Army, we aim to please :D.

I am of the personal opinion that the goverment should not be able to prevent people from getting married. But if a church refuses to wed a couple (for whatever reason) that is that church's choice. But the Goverment has to respect whatever choice the Church makes on the subject and make it legal. Civil Unions are for those couples who the church refuses to marry, as an alternate way for them to be wed.
As for what you said about the subject, if there is no difference between Civil Unions and Marriage, why would the goverment refuse to marry them? It's no differnet, then their shouldn't be a problem.

I think that same sex couples do have the right to live together in a legal union (a gay marriage if you like the term). However, the word "marriage" actually means a union betweeb a man and a woman, so technically there is no such thing as "gay marriage". I just think it is stupid that these women think that the fact that their union is called a "civil partnership" rather than a "marriage" is a breach of their human rights...since when do you have the right to be called whatever you wish?

Well, that depends on if you concider a fetus, a child, which i do not. So it is not murder as far as i am concerned.

You are entitled to your opinion, that is one of your human rights. I would disagree with you here, but that is for a different thread.

I think so. there are efforts being made to clear the atmosphere, and my job is to put thousands of planes into the air. (Air Force)

I'm afraid really the only way of preventing global warming (other than covering the entire earth's surface with trees) is to cut down on carbon emmissions. So until we have nuclear powered airplanes, I would personally feel that you do not have the right to get on a plane whenever you want because you are infringing someone else's right to live on land, rather than under a sea of recently melted glaciers...

Children have limited rights, like they cannot drink, drive, ect. In the same way, an embryo has very, very limited rights. and most of which are under the jurisdiction of it's mother.
Atleast that's my take.

Fair enough, but what about other rights? The embryo was just an example. I mean, for example, what about the right to own property, or the right to have cosmetic surgery, or the right to eat meat?

[M-50]

I'm afraid really the only way of preventing global warming (other than covering the entire earth's surface with trees) is to cut down on carbon emmissions. So until we have nuclear powered airplanes, I would personally feel that you do not have the right to get on a plane whenever you want because you are infringing someone else's right to live on land, rather than under a sea of recently melted glaciers...
Fair enough, but what about other rights? The embryo was just an example. I mean, for example, what about the right to own property, or the right to have cosmetic surgery, or the right to eat meat?

I agree with you about cutting carbon emissions but what we should do is not let multi-national companies make factories in LEDC's and then not pay for the carbom produced. I think that they should also pay for the amount of carbom produced but only factories invested in by MEDC's only.

Yes we do have the right to own property, and to have cosmetic surgery and to eat meat. We have all these rights. If you do not have the right to own your property then (no offence) you are a communist.
If you do not have the right to cosmetic surgery then why invent it?
If you do not have the right to meat then why make omnivores?

[VampyreLord]

I agree with you about cutting carbon emissions but what we should do is not let multi-national companies make factories in LEDC's and then not pay for the carbom produced. I think that they should also pay for the amount of carbom produced but only factories invested in by MEDC's only.
Yes we do have the right to own property, and to have cosmetic surgery and to eat meat. We have all these rights. If you do not have the right to own your property then (no offence) you are a communist.
If you do not have the right to cosmetic surgery then why invent it?
If you do not have the right to meat then why make omnivores?

As a matter of fact, I am a communist...

I personally do not feel comfortable with eating meat, because it leads to horrid exploitation of animals. If they were treated fairly, then I would not be opposed to eating meat. We are after all omnivores. However, it was once said "if slaugherhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian". You may not be aware of just how badly animals suffer.

By the way, you do strike me as a curiously unique Hindu. Pro Choice, and eating meat! Hardly traditional Hinduism...

"if we do not have the right to cosmetic surgery, then why invent it" - Well, it's not that simple...I could answer "If dropping nuclear bombs is wrong, then why invent them?". Personally I don't think much of cosmetic surgery, it's usually pointless self mutilation and a waste of much needed resources (one person in four in the world is underfed). I feel that if anyone truly respected themselves, they would not resort to plastic surgery.

[Draffut]

Here in the Red Army, we aim to please :D.
I think that same sex couples do have the right to live together in a legal union (a gay marriage if you like the term). However, the word "marriage" actually means a union betweeb a man and a woman, so technically there is no such thing as "gay marriage". I just think it is stupid that these women think that the fact that their union is called a "civil partnership" rather than a "marriage" is a breach of their human rights...since when do you have the right to be called whatever you wish?

The exact referance to "Marriage" is different depending on what religion you look it up under. Which is why, i belive if you can get a church (or whatever house of prayer you have) to marry you, then you are married. The goverment should have no real say in it. It's not the goverment's buisness.

I'm afraid really the only way of preventing global warming (other than covering the entire earth's surface with trees) is to cut down on carbon emmissions. So until we have nuclear powered airplanes, I would personally feel that you do not have the right to get on a plane whenever you want because you are infringing someone else's right to live on land, rather than under a sea of recently melted glaciers...

Actually, large strives have been taken to prevent the "global warming" and there is alot of evidence to lead us to belive that this is just a natural cycle of our atmosphere. I am curious how much all this land has been consumed, and we are preventing people from livign on. Which i also find funny since you dont belive in people owning hte land anyhow.

Fair enough, but what about other rights? The embryo was just an example. I mean, for example, what about the right to own property, or the right to have cosmetic surgery, or the right to eat meat?

Kinda hard to argue on such a generic basis. Outside of that which causes excessive and direct harm to others, I am for most forms of Human Rights. for adults atleast.

As a matter of fact, I am a communist...

I personally do not feel comfortable with eating meat, because it leads to horrid exploitation of animals. If they were treated fairly, then I would not be opposed to eating meat. We are after all omnivores. However, it was once said "if slaugherhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian". You may not be aware of just how badly animals suffer.

I am aware, thoguh i may have yet to witness it first hand for myself. But i am how i was made, and will not adjust my lifestyle for it. not only will i not make myself suffer to help an animal, (you would be hard pressed to find a person i would suffer for) I know even if i did, would be a drop in the bucket, and cause no real benefit at all. I amfor cutting down on how much fatty foods we consume, but that is more becuase of obese Americans.

"if we do not have the right to cosmetic surgery, then why invent it" - Well, it's not that simple...I could answer "If dropping nuclear bombs is wrong, then why invent them?". Personally I don't think much of cosmetic surgery, it's usually pointless self mutilation and a waste of much needed resources (one person in four in the world is underfed). I feel that if anyone truly respected themselves, they would not resort to plastic surgery

But i can tell you, most of those 1/4 is not in 1st world countries, the places the plastic sergery is used. The chance of the money finding it's way over to 3rd world nations in Africa or Asia is slim to none.

If i was an idealist VL, I would belive that we could be Communist, and we wouldn't need "human rights". But unfortuantely not everyone thinks the same, or even close. and peopel are inherently corrupt beyond that. Communism is organized chaos, which corrupt people cannot co-exist in whithout all the major flaws comming to the fore-front.

[Insight]

1: the enviroment. yes you are right the issue of global warming is contravertial i believe we are doing it but i respect that other people disagree.
however why should we have to be physically and visibly destroying the planet before we do anything to protect it. human actions are polluting the world wiping out species and destroying ecosystems. fossil fuel emmisions are causing acid rain which is bad enough without global warming. we should look after the enviroment because it is the right thing to do morally not because we have to or for personal gain.
2:what do you mean your for most forms of human right, for adults at least.
does this mean you think young people and children don't deserve rights. in britain people aged 16 are allowed to leave home get married and pay taxes yet they can't vote and have a lower minimun wage. human right should be the same for all humans that's why there called human rights.
3:I am aware, thoguh i may have yet to witness it first hand for myself. But i am how i was made, and will not adjust my lifestyle for it. not only will i not make myself suffer to help an animal, (you would be hard pressed to find a person i would suffer for) I know even if i did, would be a drop in the bucket, and cause no real benefit at all.
you not suffereing for an animal or for people i think is terrible we should all try and help each other and if that means suffereing then if it is for the greater good we should all willingly do it. yes there is a limit but that isn't before you've even started.
4:i do agree that people who have cosmetic surgery are very selfish. if you really have a deep emotional problem with your body or a disfigurement then fine but those who get boob implants or nose jobs are just selfish. 1.5billion people a year live of less than a dollar a day and yet these people spend thousands on there own vanity.
finally the only answer i can come up with for all these problems with humanity is that we are all very stupid. some1 once said that humans are the planets only failed species and he/she was right.

[saycheese]

this reminds me of the word terrorism. words or phrases are often manipulated and used in different ways to archive something. human rights are in theory. there are alot of countries which accepted humans rights, but only a few countries has translated the full human rights into their laws. you can sign on to human rights, u dont have to practice it, or only parts of it.

[Delta]

Dunno is this warrents it's own thread, but I figure this is as good as a place to post this (http://www.acluva.org/docket/elmasri.html) as any.

Basicly that web page is a summary of a court case where a man, a German citizen with suspected terrorist ties, was abducted by agents of the US on foreign soil, then interrogated and tortured. Later it was found out that, whoops, they got the wrong guy. Now when the guy tries to sue for the hell he went through, he gets his case thrown out because it might expose "state secrects". Now how the hell can anyone justify giving our government, or anyone for that matter, the right to pick up anyone off the streets, anywhere in the world, to detain them for long periods of time then not be held in the least bit responsible for it? How does the fact that someone has that power make anyone feel safer?

[M-50]

As a matter of fact, I am a communist...

I personally do not feel comfortable with eating meat, because it leads to horrid exploitation of animals. If they were treated fairly, then I would not be opposed to eating meat. We are after all omnivores. However, it was once said "if slaugherhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian". You may not be aware of just how badly animals suffer.

By the way, you do strike me as a curiously unique Hindu. Pro Choice, and eating meat! Hardly traditional Hinduism...

"if we do not have the right to cosmetic surgery, then why invent it" - Well, it's not that simple...I could answer "If dropping nuclear bombs is wrong, then why invent them?". Personally I don't think much of cosmetic surgery, it's usually pointless self mutilation and a waste of much needed resources (one person in four in the world is underfed). I feel that if anyone truly respected themselves, they would not resort to plastic surgery.

How are the animals exploited? Are you talking about the battery cage grown animals? If you are then I can understand how you can say that, but for ones that are ''free-range'', they are not exploited. The battery ones are because they are fed untill they are fat and all this time their movement is limited so the energy loss is kept to a minimum. That is only because there is an increasing need for food and while there is supposedly enough for everyone, the meat demand is increasing while production is not increasing at the same rate. Therefore they use selective breeding to produce animals that give lots of meat, produce a lot of milk and so on and breed them for slaughter.


Cosmetic Surgery in my opinion is only for people who are more interested in vanity and who are unblanced and care more about their looks than anything.
And I do not think that it is a waste of resources because they are using the patients own body to improve the patients body. They take some fat from the ass and thigh area and pump it into the breasts, (for women only.)

[VampyreLord]

@ Delta: That is utterly appaling. I despise the American government, particularly since they are simply arresting people for having (gasp) Muslim-sounding names, and locking them away in places like Guantanamo bay, denying them the right to a proper trial. Now THAT is human rights violation. The Bush administration can go to hell.

@ rohil: Fair enough.

[Delta]

That is utterly appaling. I despise the American government, particularly since they are simply arresting people for having (gasp) Muslim-sounding names, and locking them away in places like Guantanamo bay, denying them the right to a proper trial. Now THAT is human rights violation. The Bush administration can go to hell.

The worst part is the people who justify it with "but they're doing it to protect us from the terrorists!" Scary how people are willing to throw away their freedoms for the illusion of security.

[M-50]

I agree that what the American govt has done is wrong, but if they are terrorists then fair enough. They should be given human rights if they are going to kill! Although I think that before they are treated the way they are they should be put on trial and at least try to find out if they really are terrorists. Although if the CIA, FBI, NRO, NSA or another intelligence agency has evidence that the inmates are terrorists then I do not mind because they are just going to kill people when they come out.
Like Delta I believe, I think that people who use the excuse ''We are protecting you from terrorists'' for anything that is not remotely connected to terrorists are power hungry. Just like Bush was when he started the Iraq war in my opinion. If Saddam actually had any of the stuff that Bush said he had then the war could be justified.

[Insight]

The worst part is the people who justify it with "but they're doing it to protect us from the terrorists!" Scary how people are willing to throw away their freedoms for the illusion of security.

that is because most people in the western world take there freedoms for granted. it is always hard to put yourself in the shoes of those who don't have freedom and are fighting and dieing for it.
people only care about there freedom when some1 tries to take it away but otherwise we dom't realise how lucky we are to have so much freedom.

[M-50]

Exactly Delta, in the west we take soooo much for granted. Like water, food, shelter. I am not saying that what they are doing is right but they should try and get their freedom by not killing innocent civillians. They should try to kill the person/persons oppressing them.

[chipp zanuff]

Human rights is really a big word, nowadays people are defining it like they want and according to their interests. Wrong things aren't human right, odd habits aren't human rights and everything against the religion, against the laws, and against the traditions isn't human rights.
They are many people around the world don't have any rights, like people in Africa, they are dying of hunger everyday, they just want food, people who are in Abu Ghraib and Joantonamo are treated like animals and until now they didn't have any equitable judgment, people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were killed just because they are muslims, many children in poor countries are working in hard works, many poor countries are suffering from nuclear waste which come from developed countries.
Palestinian are killed 'cause they're fighting for their country, in most of European countries, muslim women are not allowed to wear their scarf, all those people don't have any rights, this is the serious problem.
The world in a mere's nest and western people still think about gays and lesbians right, animal rights and plant rights, I'm not saying that they don't have rights, but we should think about the serious problems

[Tokoyami]

Human rights is really a big word, nowadays people are defining it like they want and according to their interests. Wrong things aren't human right, odd habits aren't human rights and everything against the religion, against the laws, and against the traditions isn't human rights.
They are many people around the world don't have any rights, like people in Africa, they are dying of hunger everyday, they just want food, people who are in Abu Ghraib and Joantonamo are treated like animals and until now they didn't have any equitable judgment, people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were killed just because they are muslims, many children in poor countries are working in hard works, many poor countries are suffering from nuclear waste which come from developed countries.
Palestinian are killed 'cause they're fighting for their country, in most of European countries, muslim women are not allowed to wear their scarf, all those people don't have any rights, this is the serious problem.
The world in a mere's nest and western people still think about gays and lesbians right, animal rights and plant rights, I'm not saying that they don't have rights, but we should think about the serious problems

i get what u sayin. And i somewhat agree. I beleive that humans have the right to express themselves, i beleive humans are born with the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think the rights the constitution and the bill of rights and core democratic values express are ones all people should have. But i think people are beginning to become unable to distinguish between a right and a privelage. Smoking is privalege, protesting is a right, in the U.S. anyways.

My opinion.

[chipp zanuff]

Some times when I hear about the human rights, I feel angry, especially if the talker is also infringing the human rights

[VampyreLord]

Chipp, I agree about Guantanamo Bay (it's monstrous), and about Africans starving to death, but you have also said something rather silly "In most European countries, muslim women aren't allowed to wear their scarf" - complete and utter rubbish. Seriously, you should research these things before making such massive generalisations.

[SlayerOfMuffins]

"The police here feel shackled by "human rights"."
Lol on 'Have I got News For You?'
"He was said to eat the KFC, hurl tiles and abuse at people and then have a nap. It took the police two hours to realise that he wasn't a builder."

[KT Samurai]

This is utterly ridiculous. The word "marriage" actually means a union of a man and a woman. I don't see why they can't be happy with a civil partnership, which is (as they have admitted) exactly the same except it is not called a marriage.

Haha! Maybe in the old days, buddy. Marriage now is just a finanacial partnership. A civil, non-legally binding partnership is nothin' like marriage where there's a great deal of financial security. In a world that revolves around money marriage can be a very imporant thing, if only for the assurance that you might gain somethin' by sharing your life with someone then havin' it go sour.

By the way, anyone who calls marriage a "sacred institution" hasn't looked at some goddamn statistics (http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vanif/00005_en.htm) lately.

Let gays marry. Why the hell not? All you'd be doing is changing an ancient definition of an action that is nothing like it used to be anyway. They may be gay, but they're still human (note: I make this point mostly because I know some idiot could come along and rant that if gays can marry what's to stop us from marrying our pets. Gays are people. Pets are not).

[Cassie]

In the current day and age, human rights are often abused. It's important for the general public to know where the line is, and stop the abuse. Such an issue is so boring for rational people to deal with, since it's irrational things that are being done bring out this issue.

As a whole tho, if you wanna do something, fight for it. It's like fighting for the right to live. There's no such thing that says people should give you food just because you have the right to life, if you cant make money and buy food yourself, then you're useless to the society, and should just die. Bottom line, human rights are just something to protect the weak. It's good until those who cheat the system and break it.

[Shaehl]

Do we have the right to receive cosmetic surgery? No. That is, no one is entitled to it.

We do, however, have the right to seek it (and other such things) through our own means (i.e. paying for it) should we desire to.

Could that money be spent on something more important, more valuable or more worthy? Sure, but there is no way in hell I am going to let someone else make the decision of where and how I should spend it, for me.

It's my money, earned through my efforts. I should be able to do with it what I want as long as it doesn't intentionally bring harm to someone else.

Yes, there are people starving in Africa while I sit here in my recliner playing computer, but frankly, I don't care. I don't know them, they don't know me, I don't want to know them. I am not obligated to spend the fruits of my labor on anyone else but myself if I don't want to. I didn't do that work so I could feed African's, I did it so I maintain or improve the quality of my own life.

Besides, what does giving them money or food do anyway? I could send them a million dollars worth of food and for a time, they might be content. But then, tomorrow, Africa would be starving again and I would be down a million dollars. An exercise in futility.

Perhaps, if someone asked me to spend a million dollars on a project to clean up whatever third world country's piss poor government, and I actually had a million dollars spare, and I didn't have anything else planned, I just might consider it. It might actually accomplish something. But then again, I'm pretty fond of yachts, so if I had a million dollars, I don't think charity would be the likely recipient of that money. You never know.

Until then, I'm getting a facelift (not really).

[M-50]

In the UK they are thinking of replacing the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights because of all the people that are taking advantage of it like the person who got food on the roof. This act will mean that only certain people can calim 'human rights violations' and not everybody. For example I hope that the people excluded are people who are being arrested, unless the police has beaten the person up.

[KT Samurai]

In the UK they are thinking of replacing the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights because of all the people that are taking advantage of it like the person who got food on the roof. This act will mean that only certain people can calim 'human rights violations' and not everybody. For example I hope that the people excluded are people who are being arrested, unless the police has beaten the person up.

...huh?

Taking advantage of their human rights? Excuse me? I think everyone should take advantage of their human rights. What you read before about policemen wining and dining a criminal was a buncha cops who never thought that starving that retard out of the tree was a good idea. They aren't denying him the ability to eat and stepping on his right to live -- if he turned himself in he would have received three square meals a day! That article wasn't about human rights, it was about stupid cops.

So only certain people will be able to claim human rights violations, huh? That sounds dandy and not contridictory at all. I can totally get behind something that nonsensical.

[M-50]

Actually the article was about the criminal who had fled on top of the roof and then claimed 'human rights' thus enabling him to get food and drink free of charge all at the taxpayers expense. And the cops could not take him down until his 'human rights' needs were satisfied therefore wasting more of the taxpayers money and the time of the police who could have been doing something better like catching drug dealers or stopping paedophiles.

[Lex]

Here's one I heard about. I'm sure you guys are all aware of what Cyborgs are right? I went onto a site that said that a Cyborg is someone or something that has gotten something that wasn't theirs inserted into their body. Now most people would think, okay, metal arm and so forth. They were actually talking about blood and organs! I'm sitting with a plate in my jaw after having it broken, does that make me a cyborg? You get what I'm going at. I later went to another site where they said that Cyborgs should have no human rights...someone tell me what the hell is that! Does that mean I have no human rights because I broke my jaw?
Humans are strange.

[M-50]

Here's one I heard about. I'm sure you guys are all aware of what Cyborgs are right? I went onto a site that said that a Cyborg is someone or something that has gotten something that wasn't theirs inserted into their body. Now most people would think, okay, metal arm and so forth. They were actually talking about blood and organs! I'm sitting with a plate in my jaw after having it broken, does that make me a cyborg? You get what I'm going at. I later went to another site where they said that Cyborgs should have no human rights...someone tell me what the hell is that! Does that mean I have no human rights because I broke my jaw?
Humans are strange.
I agree with you but I think that the people who wrote that piece saying that cyborgs should not have any human rights think that cyborgs are half-human half-machine. Not a person with doner organs or a plate in their jaw.
But those people are right in one way saying that no cyborgs should have human rights because if they are AI cyborgs then they do not need human rights, they need their own version. Also if the AI/cyborg is in 'complete control' and is not misused then they will not need any version of human rights or cyborg rights.

[KT Samurai]

Actually the article was about the criminal who had fled on top of the roof and then claimed 'human rights' thus enabling him to get food and drink free of charge all at the taxpayers expense. And the cops could not take him down until his 'human rights' needs were satisfied therefore wasting more of the taxpayers money and the time of the police who could have been doing something better like catching drug dealers or stopping paedophiles.

Tree, roof, doesn't matter. I stand by my arguement that he could have been starved out of it and everyone would have been happy. Unless he's got a hostage he shoulda been taken down pretty damn quick anyway.

[M-50]

Tree, roof, doesn't matter. I stand by my arguement that he could have been starved out of it and everyone would have been happy. Unless he's got a hostage he shoulda been taken down pretty damn quick anyway.
If he could have been starved it would have been his fault as he fled from the police on to the roof. And to add insult to what the police did for him after he slept, he woke up and started chucking bricks at the police. The police should not have listened to what he was saying and should have just gone up and brought him down.

[VampyreLord]

Haha! Maybe in the old days, buddy. Marriage now is just a finanacial partnership. A civil, non-legally binding partnership is nothin' like marriage where there's a great deal of financial security. In a world that revolves around money marriage can be a very imporant thing, if only for the assurance that you might gain somethin' by sharing your life with someone then havin' it go sour.
By the way, anyone who calls marriage a "sacred institution" hasn't looked at some goddamn statistics (http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vanif/00005_en.htm) lately.
Let gays marry. Why the hell not? All you'd be doing is changing an ancient definition of an action that is nothing like it used to be anyway. They may be gay, but they're still human (note: I make this point mostly because I know some idiot could come along and rant that if gays can marry what's to stop us from marrying our pets. Gays are people. Pets are not).

Of course gays should be allowed to marry. However, they should NOT be allowed to waste the government's time and money because their legal union is called a "civil partnership" rather than a "marriage"...I mean, how is that a breach of their human rights?

[KT Samurai]

If he could have been starved it would have been his fault as he fled from the police on to the roof. And to add insult to what the police did for him after he slept, he woke up and started chucking bricks at the police. The police should not have listened to what he was saying and should have just gone up and brought him down.

Word.

Of course gays should be allowed to marry. However, they should NOT be allowed to waste the government's time and money because their legal union is called a "civil partnership" rather than a "marriage"...I mean, how is that a breach of their human rights?

It ain't. The ability to get married ain't covered by your typical definition of human rights. Consult the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights) if you're not familiar. I suppose passin' it off as discrimination might work though.

Waste of time and money? I'm bettin' you wouldn't feel that way if you were denied somethin' and you wanted it bad. To me this is progress, a step forward in the human species' collective thought process. Once we realize that there's nothin' wrong with gays (among other groups) and that treatin' 'em different is friggin' backwards thinking then we'll be better for it.

Waste of time and money? I see it as an envitability. It's gotta be done, jan.

[VampyreLord]

It ain't. The ability to get married ain't covered by your typical definition of human rights. Consult the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights) if you're not familiar. I suppose passin' it off as discrimination might work though.

Waste of time and money? I'm bettin' you wouldn't feel that way if you were denied somethin' and you wanted it bad. To me this is progress, a step forward in the human species' collective thought process. Once we realize that there's nothin' wrong with gays (among other groups) and that treatin' 'em different is friggin' backwards thinking then we'll be better for it.

Waste of time and money? I see it as an envitability. It's gotta be done, jan.

The fact that remains is that a civil partnership is exactly the same, the couple trying to sue the government even admit it! "It's all about the principle" they say - in other words, it's a matter of pride. They want to sue the government because they are arrogant and greedy and don't care that money they take from the government (if they win the case) would be spent on education and healthcare for the British people, paid for by the British people. Why should the British populace pay so a Canadian couple can call their civil partnership a marriage?

[M-50]

would be spent on education and healthcare for the British people, paid for by the British people. Why should the British populace pay so a Canadian couple can call their civil partnership a marriage?
They should not pay for it. Why can they not settle for it to be called a marrige? It is, like you say, exactly the same.

[KT Samurai]

The fact that remains is that a civil partnership is exactly the same, the couple trying to sue the government even admit it! "It's all about the principle" they say - in other words, it's a matter of pride. They want to sue the government because they are arrogant and greedy and don't care that money they take from the government (if they win the case) would be spent on education and healthcare for the British people, paid for by the British people. Why should the British populace pay so a Canadian couple can call their civil partnership a marriage?

Like I said, not doin' so is friggin' backwards, old world thinking. Why the hell can't they stay married? What's the big deal? Society won't crumble if you let a couple of gays stay officially "married."

Also, I doubt it's about pride or arrogance. Y'ever consider they got married 'cuz they love each other and want to make a point of it? I ***** about old world thinking, but saying your married sure says a lot more than saying you're bound by a civil partnership. The latter makes it sound like you bought a car together or somethin'.

One last thing. You should consider the ramifications of somethin' stupid like segregation, which is exactly what seperating marriage and civil partnership is doin'. By accepting that they aren't married and are simply a legal partnership they're effectively bein' told they're different and that it's not okay. Focusing on the differences is what lead to this garbage in the first place. Segreation ain't cool, it breeds hate and doesn't let people move on with their lives. Like I said, this would be a step forward, even if it is an isolated case.

[VampyreLord]

Like I said, not doin' so is friggin' backwards, old world thinking. Why the hell can't they stay married? What's the big deal? Society won't crumble if you let a couple of gays stay officially "married."

Also, I doubt it's about pride or arrogance. Y'ever consider they got married 'cuz they love each other and want to make a point of it? I ***** about old world thinking, but saying your married sure says a lot more than saying you're bound by a civil partnership. The latter makes it sound like you bought a car together or somethin'.

One last thing. You should consider the ramifications of somethin' stupid like segregation, which is exactly what seperating marriage and civil partnership is doin'. By accepting that they aren't married and are simply a legal partnership they're effectively bein' told they're different and that it's not okay. Focusing on the differences is what lead to this garbage in the first place. Segreation ain't cool, it breeds hate and doesn't let people move on with their lives. Like I said, this would be a step forward, even if it is an isolated case.

I don't care why they got married, the government is not saying that their "marriage" does not exist, it is merely describing it as a "civil partnership" rather than a "marriage". It is arrogant of them to think they have the right to waste a government's time and money over such a petty issue.

I couldn't care less if the government decided to call "civil partnerships" "marriage". What I would care about is if they had to waste money on lawyers because these women say their human rights are being violated. If this matters to this couple so much rather than a law suit they should join a gay rights movement or something and let the organisation sort it out, rather than making the government and the British people pay unneccessarily.

I still think it's crazy to say that calling a "gay marriage" a "civil partnership" is a human rights violation...

[KT Samurai]

I don't care why they got married, the government is not saying that their "marriage" does not exist, it is merely describing it as a "civil partnership" rather than a "marriage". It is arrogant of them to think they have the right to waste a government's time and money over such a petty issue.
I couldn't care less if the government decided to call "civil partnerships" "marriage". What I would care about is if they had to waste money on lawyers because these women say their human rights are being violated. If this matters to this couple so much rather than a law suit they should join a gay rights movement or something and let the organisation sort it out, rather than making the government and the British people pay unneccessarily.
I still think it's crazy to say that calling a "gay marriage" a "civil partnership" is a human rights violation...
You missed my whole point on segregation, or you ignored it, which leads me to believe you don't mind it. Let's see some comments on my point of discrimination. All you've done lately is repeat what you said in your opening post, which I've already read. Does segregation like this bother you, if nothing else?

[VampyreLord]

Of course segregation bothers me. But I don't see what that has to do with it. I really don't see how separating civil partnership and marriage is segregation, or a breach of human rights. Care to explain?

[KT Samurai]

Of course segregation bothers me. But I don't see what that has to do with it. I really don't see how separating civil partnership and marriage is segregation, or a breach of human rights. Care to explain?
You don't see how seperating groups of people to ensure that a difference is known is segregation? Fine. Here's a visual aid.
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4899/segregation2jz.gif
This doesn't breach human rights unless it's approched in a particular way, namely the method these ladies are apparently using. This is a form of discimination, and it just might hold up in court.

[akin_t]

You don't see how seperating groups of people to ensure that a difference is known is segregation? Fine. Here's a visual aid.
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4899/segregation2jz.gif
This doesn't breach human rights unless it's approched in a particular way, namely the method these ladies are apparently using. This is a form of discimination, and it just might hold up in court.

Well it's been a while since I last debated on here .. but here goes.

I'm with Vampyre on this one, this is a semantics argument ... by getting a Civil Union or whatever it is the courts have decided to deem it, gay couples still get all the benefits that straight people get.

Why then do they fight for thier partnership to be termed "marriage", because to put it bluntly ... it's not.

Is it segregation? Well that depends on how you look at it ... The use of the term "Civil Union" in place of the word "Marriage" is in no way whatsoever discriminatory to anybody.

The fact remains straight people and gay people are different, we can't pretend to not see the obvious, if people today are open about they're sexual orientation then they should be fine with the term used to describe their legal union as a couple.

[KT Samurai]

I'm with Vampyre on this one, this is a semantics argument ... by getting a Civil Union or whatever it is the courts have decided to deem it, gay couples still get all the benefits that straight people get.
Why then do they fight for thier partnership to be termed "marriage", because to put it bluntly ... it's not.
Based on an old-assed definition of a word that no longer has any character anyway. Divorce rates are higher than ever. Us straight people messed up marriage on our own. What makes us so great that we can't share it with "them?"
Is it segregation? Well that depends on how you look at it ... The use of the term "Civil Union" in place of the word "Marriage" is in no way whatsoever discriminatory to anybody.
It's seperating two groups of people, the fact that a difference has to be made in the first place is discriminatory.

"Why can't I get married?"
"Because you're a fag. But don't worry! A civil partnership is same thing."

Why not just call it marriage and do away with the semantics altogether? If there's no real difference why make them different at all? That doesn't make any bloody sense.

[KT Samurai]

I just had a very, very interesting conversation with a friend of mine on this matter. It might even change my mind a few things. Carry on. I'll reply when prompted to or when I figure this out, whichever comes first.

[akin_t]

Based on an old-assed definition of a word that no longer has any character anyway. Divorce rates are higher than ever. Us straight people messed up marriage on our own. What makes us so great that we can't share it with "them?"

Well you see, divorce rates, sanctity of marriage or any other argument that you might want to throw has nothing whatsoever to do with this current argument ... you're just influencing the agenda.

I am not trying to separate homosexuals from heterosexuals on the basis of marriage, I am saying that if it's simply the legal benefits that gay people want, why then do they waste time and effort in fighting over such a trivial issue. I mean, for the love of cake their quarrel is simply over the term used by the state to recognize their partnership ... if anything they're just pushing it at this point.

Rabid advocaters of gay rights say ...

But all they want is the same legal benefits that the straight couples get

It turns out they apparently want more ...

Well this couple, cannot eat their cake and have it, permitting civil unions is one philanthropic act society has granted them ... In my opinion they're only pushing their luck by quarreling over an issue such as this ... if anything, they'll only lose sympathy that they once had.

It's seperating two groups of people, the fact that a difference has to be made in the first place is discriminatory.

Well perhaps we should abolish male and female bathrooms then? Unisex rest rooms FTW? With your description of discriminatory this would fit the bill perfectly ... and as it stands, I doubt anyone would dare agree.

"Why can't I get married?"
"Because you're a fag. But don't worry! A civil partnership is same thing."

How about "Because marriage is the union of a man and woman"?

Why not just call it marriage and do away with the semantics altogether? If there's no real difference why make them different at all? That doesn't make any bloody sense.

I agree, but the same question can be used against your point ...

If there's no real difference why bother with what name the courts have decided to term it? That doesn't make any bloody sense

**On a lighter note, try to refrain from double posting if you feel you left something out you can always edit a previous post :)

[VampyreLord]

KT, I hope you aren't planning on using a "slippery slope" argument next or something...this is not segregation or discrimination. Am I proposing that homosexuals should be forced to live separately from heterosexuals? Of course I'm not. I'm simply using different terminology to describe different things...in fact it could be argued that the term "gay marriage" is just as "discriminatory" as the term "civil partnership". If the government instead called it "gay marriage" they would probably be campaigning to have the "gay" bit removed.

You have still failed to explain why calling a gay marriage a "civil partnership" is a human rights violation, which is the purpose of this thread.

[M-50]

Well perhaps we should abolish male and female bathrooms then? Unisex rest rooms FTW? With your description of discriminatory this would fit the bill perfectly ... and as it stands, I doubt anyone would dare agree.
I know that this does not have anything really to do with this debate but they already have unisex bathrooms in France. I went there and they had a bathroom for women with children and another bathroom for men and women.

Why then do they fight for thier partnership to be termed "marriage", because to put it bluntly ... it's not.
Actually it is. Marrige is the bonding of two persons in holy matrimoney (don't know if that is the correct spelling.) And that is exactly what they are doing. They are pronounced ''Husband and husband'', or ''Wife and wife'' by a priest or another religious leader.

[akin_t]

Actually it is. Marrige is the bonding of two persons in holy matrimoney (don't know if that is the correct spelling.) And that is exactly what they are doing. They are pronounced ''Husband and husband'', or ''Wife and wife'' by a priest or another religious leader.

I guess I should drop the semantics and get straight to the point ...

"How is the term Civil Partnership a violation of human rights?"

To put it bluntly ... it's not, you can't put this in the same category as slavery, you can't put this in the same category as speech oppression.

Perhaps we should start out by looking up the definition of human rights.

[KT Samurai]

I had a long and interesting chat with a friend o' mine the other night and they made a few great points that I've come to agree with. After a lot of thought, I've changed my mind on a few things, and they affect what I've been shoutin' in this thread.

First I'll have to address my grand standing on segregation. While I still believe that this is a possibility I've also come to realize that it is unavoidable. There are major differences involved here that can never change and, as much as I may hate it, there's nothin' we can do about it.

Second I have to go over my new angle on marriage and what it means. First, there's the religious context (i.e. the wedding and junk). This is a wholly religious occasion that gives props to whatever god the particular couple believe in and ask for his support in their wedding. It is ceremonious and merely symbolic in nature. The actual legal process comes later and your partnership is signed entirely seperately.

Yes, seriously, I didn't know this. I realized they were two different aspects but I did not realize just how different they were. You can get married without all the cakes and the presents and the vows. It's just not as "fun." This also brings me to my third and final point.

Banning gays from getting married is the result of the church seeping into the state, something that certainly should not be going on. Marriage is merely a contract of mutual benefit, with marriage being tacked on as almost a requirement (which ultimately lead to my ignorance on the matter). In the West, the marriage (and religious) part is completely part of the process and is exactly why gays still cannot get married in a lot of places. Because the government still associates marriage with religion (in God we trust) it's difficult for politicians to wrap their minds around the reasoning behind gays wanting to get married.

So really all that needs to go on is a signing of a contract (civil partnership) and a ceremony completely independant of religion and you're "married." Not letting gays get married isn't a breach of human rights at all, it's simply the advocates for any given religion saying, "We don't take kindly to your kind gettin' mawr-reed!" Those advocates just tend to be in positions of power and influence.

I still think discrimination is possible here (and still a big factor with anything involving gays) but keeping gays out of the chapel is work of a force that freely and proudly discriminates anyway. Religious folks have their beliefs set in stone and typically want nothing to do with homosexuals. I'd say let them have their holy crap and come up with another means of celebrating your contract of togetherness.

Yeah, pretty much a 180. But my friend has very effective means of sharing her opinion. I suppose this is what one would call "enlightenment," minus the church-pushing.

Edit: I hate how after previewing your work the goddamn forum removes all your paragraph breaks. Someone should really fix that.

[chipp zanuff]

Chipp, I agree about Guantanamo Bay (it's monstrous), and about Africans starving to death, but you have also said something rather silly "In most European countries, muslim women aren't allowed to wear their scarf" - complete and utter rubbish. Seriously, you should research these things before making such massive generalisations.

It is really weird; you're living in UK and did not hear about a resolution which the House of Lords approved that allow any school to expel any student wears scarf.
Also in France which is secular country, forbade wearing scarf in 2004 although they said in 1989 that wearing religious clothes did not affected the Secularism.

[VampyreLord]

It is really weird; you're living in UK and did not heard about a resolution which the House of Lords approved that allow any school to expel any student wears scarf.
Also in France which is secular country, forbade wearing scarf in 2004 although they said in 1989 that wearing religious clothes did not affected the Secularism.

France banned wearing religious symbols in schools only. Christians aren't allowed crucifixes either, for example, it's not an attack on Islam.

Over here in the UK a teacher was sacked for punishing a Muslim girl for refusing to remove her headscarf. I have never heard of that law you mentioned, and I don't believe it. Perhaps you could find some evidence for me? Thanks.

So that's France, (in schools only), and if you are correct about the UK (which I highly doubt), that's 2 countries. Hardly "most of Europe", is it.

[Jack Van Burace]

Yeah, I mean, went I been 2 France I was almost kicked out of a store because I sit on the floor. C'mon, that was a huge department store and they had no benches to sit. Bastards! Cocky and foolish as always. And now they take my team out of worldcup... I prefer London much better. Remember ppl sitting on the sidewalk and nobody even caring. France (safe for rare exceptions) was very lame (even tho I have french ancestors too). They are too 'standardized' and 'pattern like'(sry cuz I don' know any english word better for these expressions).

[chipp zanuff]

France banned wearing religious symbols in schools only. Christians aren't allowed crucifixes either, for example, it's not an attack on Islam.
Over here in the UK a teacher was sacked for punishing a Muslim girl for refusing to remove her headscarf. I have never heard of that law you mentioned, and I don't believe it. Perhaps you could find some evidence for me? Thanks.
So that's France, (in schools only), and if you are correct about the UK (which I highly doubt), that's 2 countries. Hardly "most of Europe", is it.

That's also in Netherlands and Belgium, about France, I know that they do not mean it just for Islam .but I want to say that Muslims in euro countries don't have many rights like all minorities, if we will talk about Muslims right all over the world we won't end our discussion .

I'll try to find any evidence in English.

[wildflower]

I personally do not feel comfortable with eating meat, because it leads to horrid exploitation of animals. If they were treated fairly, then I would not be opposed to eating meat. We are after all omnivores. However, it was once said "if slaugherhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian". You may not be aware of just how badly animals suffer.


That would be Paul McCartney. :toocool: Good guy. Anyway ... so why be a vegetarian? I hate the idea of animal exploitation but surely it is better for a chicken to lead a long, happy life and then be killed quickly than never live at all? Battery farms are horrific. Absolutely. But I don't think eating a happy, well-fed, well looked-after chicken should give us any moral dilemmas. Wouldn't you choose one happy life ending in murder (and not being aware of it) over no life at all? :winking56

[Angel_shikigami]

The whole "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" is only religous. People think it's wrong because it's different and aganst their morals. And haveing an abortion isn't murder beause it hasn't even began to live. It's still a part of the mother, like if she wanted to cut off her arm, it be no different.

[dragoneyes001]

these are your basic human rights:

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

[chiking1]

According to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights',
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Therefore, homosexuals should have the right to marry. Also, abortion should be illegal because:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
There are probably more, but I'm too lazy to read the whole thing. Seeing as though we don't follow some of the 'rights', shows that they are just put there for people to read. It's kind of like 'Animal Farm' where the pigs (representing the corrupt leaders of Russia), changed 'All animals are equal' to 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' which is like our situation right now.

[dragoneyes001]

According to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights',

Therefore, homosexuals should have the right to marry. Also, abortion should be illegal because:

There are probably more, but I'm too lazy to read the whole thing. Seeing as though we don't follow some of the 'rights', shows that they are just put there for people to read. It's kind of like 'Animal Farm' where the pigs (representing the corrupt leaders of Russia), changed 'All animals are equal' to 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' which is like our situation right now.


the time at which the UN conciders a human human is post bearth so abortions would have no limitations acording to the listed rights.

[VampyreLord]

That's the problem with human rights, it's up to interpretation and semantics to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Personally I think it's a joke that the Supreme Court in the US chooses to ignore the 9th amendment ("No person shall be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment").

So what about the death penalty? That's a breach of the 9th amendment. Or the torture those Guantanamo bay detainees are subjected to?

[wildflower]

Abortion should be illegal because:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Exactly. Everyone should have a right to liberty and security of person. So what about babies, before they are born, that have no chance of ever having a good life? What if it is certain they will only have a life of pain, or what if the mother cannot possibly support the child, so it will have an unhappy life? Surely if everyone has a right to a happy life it is immoral to give birth to a child you know cannot have one. If all they will ever know is pain or misery, it is better for them never to see daylgiht, surely, before it becomes murder.

[dragoneyes001]

Exactly. Everyone should have a right to liberty and security of person. So what about babies, before they are born, that have no chance of ever having a good life? What if it is certain they will only have a life of pain, or what if the mother cannot possibly support the child, so it will have an unhappy life? Surely if everyone has a right to a happy life it is immoral to give birth to a child you know cannot have one. If all they will ever know is pain or misery, it is better for them never to see daylgiht, surely, before it becomes murder.


the term baby is quite well defined as being post bearth so they are not yet part of the human race till born.

a pregnant mother qualifies for additional protection because she's pregnant. she has the right to carry it to term what it does not state is that her rights are going to be superceeded by forcing her to carry to term.

[M-50]

What can you count as a baby? 1 cell? 2 cells? 100 cells? 10000000 cells? What? If you have a limit as to what a baby is then you can decide whether or not abortion is illegal against human rights.

[mooks]

That's the problem with human rights, it's up to interpretation and semantics to decide what is acceptable and what isn't. Personally I think it's a joke that the Supreme Court in the US chooses to ignore the 9th amendment ("No person shall be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment").

So what about the death penalty? That's a breach of the 9th amendment. Or the torture those Guantanamo bay detainees are subjected to?


There are two countries in the world that have not signed the universal decleration of human rights...

The USA... God knows why, one reason i have heard is 'american security' whatever that means and i'm guessing it has to do with foreign policy.

Sudan... because it doesn't have a government, there's no one to sign anything.