Drug addicts offered cash to stop reproducing

[Tiggs 7,106]

I can send you to the text of UN Declaration of Human Rights from 1948, and there you would not be able to find such human right you mention. Human rights are social by nature, not biological and not personal. Thus, announcing the right to procreate as a "human right" is entirely your personal construct. If you wish to persuade me in the opposite, please provide a valid reference. According to you picking nose is also a human right.

Actually, it's covered in Article 16.

[ExpandMyMind 13,285]

Actually, it's covered in Article 16.

well, there you have it.

[MARAB0D 4]

Actually, it's covered in Article 16.

Where is that, Tiggs?

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.

[Tiggs 7,106]

Where is that, Tiggs?

"to found a family"

[MARAB0D 4]

"to found a family"

The the thread title does not talk about drug addicts being paid for them not to found a family - it says about them being paid for not reproducing! Moreover, further in chapter 25 it clearly separates reproduction from the family, as it announces full rights to the children, born outside the marriage. Declaration is not a Bible, Tiggs, it cannot be interpreted any way someone wants. It only contains those words which it contains, as it is a legal document, defining what the human rights are - if you want to add "procreation" you are free to appeal to UN.

[Tiggs 7,106]

The the thread title does not talk about drug addicts being paid for them not to found a family - it says about them being paid for not reproducing! Moreover, further in chapter 25 it clearly separates reproduction from the family, as it announces full rights to the children, born outside the marriage. Declaration is not a Bible, Tiggs, it cannot be interpreted any way someone wants. It only contains those words which it contains, as it is a legal document, defining what the human rights are - if you want to add "procreation" you are free to appeal to UN.

The founding of a family clearly includes the right to have children, regardless of whether you want it to or not.

That right is also enshrined within European Law.

[MARAB0D 4]

The founding of a family clearly includes the right to have children, regardless of whether you want it to or not.

That right is also enshrined within European Law.

Let us stop on this, Tiggs. I am not interested in private opinions on the contents of the legal documents, there are lawyers to deal with this part. And European law assures marriage rights without even relating them to the genders of the people to marry!

I mean it is your right to see in article 16 (which officially only removes the racial, ethnic and religious limitations to the marriage registration) the right to reproduce, but it does not say so, alas. What the sense would be to discuss your personal disagreement with this fact?

[Tiggs 7,106]

Let us stop on this, Tiggs. I am not interested in private opinions on the contents of the legal documents, there are lawyers to deal with this part. And European law assures marriage rights without even relating them to the genders of the people to marry!

I mean it is your right to see in article 16 (which officially only removes the racial, ethnic and religious limitations to the marriage registration) the right to reproduce, but it does not say so, alas. What the sense would be to discuss your personal disagreement with this fact?

If it were only my opinion, Marabod, why it was cited by the US as the article which ensured reproduction as a human right when protesting China's one child per family act?

That it's not seems to only be your private opinion. Given that you're not an international lawyer, you'll excuse me if I trust their interpretation in preference to yours.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Tiggs

[MARAB0D 4]

Just to clarify - the right to reproduce is PERSONAL, and the right to marry is SOCIAL. Declaration deals with "human rights" in the sense of SOCIAL rights, not personal. People were reproducing for 2 million years before any marriage was invented, these two things are not related at all.

[MARAB0D 4]

If it were only my opinion, Marabod, why it was cited by the US as the article which ensured reproduction as a human right when protesting China's one child per family act?

That it's not seems to only be your private opinion. Given that you're not an international lawyer, you'll excuse me if I trust their interpretation in preference to yours.

I do not know what exactly was the context and who cited it, Tiggs. I know the Declaration contains no words "reproduction" or "procreation" - so if they were implied, it was probably a misinterpretation of Declaration for political purposes. As an American you need to trust your politicians no matter what they say, I agree

[Tiggs 7,106]

I do not know what exactly was the context and who cited it, Tiggs. I know the Declaration contains no words "reproduction" or "procreation" - so if they were implied, it was probably a misinterpretation of Declaration for political purposes. As an American you need to trust your politicians no matter what they say, I agree

I'm not an American.

The phrase "to found a family" is perfectly descriptive enough, without need for any misinterpretation, and if you weren't so set on being argumentative, I'm sure you'd be able to see that, too.

[MARAB0D 4]

I'm not an American.

The phrase "to found a family" is perfectly descriptive enough, without need for any misinterpretation, and if you weren't so set on being argumentative, I'm sure you'd be able to see that, too.

Tiggs, "family" in different legislations is defined differently - but the sense of all definitions is that this is people who have a common household and are responsible for each other. Declaration also saying it, by defining family as an elementary social cell. In most cases husband and wife have a common bank account - but they do not usually share this account with their children, so the children are not owners of the parental household, they only have a right to inherit it... But I have to stop myself on it... It becomes a tiring demagoguery, sorry Tiggs for me saying this. I do not draw any dopamine from the discussion of this issue, I only pointed to the fact that Declaration is not specifying "the right to reproduce" as a separate human right - and this was a response to the assumption of the poster that paying 200 quids to a drug addict for sterilization is a "breach of their human right to procreate". Bye for now, the rest of the thread is entirely yours.

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

It is not specifically mentioned, true, but 'founding a family' can mean either creating children or adopting them. I don't know about the latter, but I'd say the UN definitely meant the former.

Denying people the right to reproduce as if they were subhuman creatures defies all logic.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Pseudo Intellectual

[Kazahel 397]

I think age is not as much relevant as the social status - they must be fully self-sufficient and capable to maintain the children. Returning to the addicts, they are not usually capable to maintain anyone. I mean while the ability to have sex is a biological ability, having children is a social feature, as these children come to the care of the others if the parents fail. Even if the parents are sitting on benefits, this is still someone else's money.

So would you think then if someone is disabled for an example and on benefits, that they should not be allowed to reproduce?

[Alien Being 6]

i don't think crimes committed should play too big part in it, with the exception of the obvious crimes, (murder, rape, paedophelia, etc).

or most 'disabilities' for that matter.

i wasn't suggesting some sort of extreme eugenics system. more just that future parents would have to be financially stable, worked most of their adult life (with obvious exceptions) and other important criteria, including being responsible members of society. all i think we need is better cared for and educated children, not more 'biologically evolved' ones.

But if we let diabled people reproduce and the problems are gentic are you not just increasing the problems for the next generation?

How about the same for criminals?

In my state most of the upper and middle classes would be breeding whilst as many as half of the working class would be banned. The good news is this would only need to continue for 1 or 2 generations then all restrictions on breeding could be lifted as those that are detremental to society would be removed.

[TSS 2,017]

But if we let diabled people reproduce and the problems are gentic are you not just increasing the problems for the next generation?

How about the same for criminals?

In my state most of the upper and middle classes would be breeding whilst as many as half of the working class would be banned. The good news is this would only need to continue for 1 or 2 generations then all restrictions on breeding could be lifted as those that are detremental to society would be removed.

How are you defining upper and middle class? Because if your suggesting that wealth makes you a better and more productive member of society, your wrong.

Are you suggesting upper and middle class people do not commit crimes? Because they certainly do, they just tend to not be the anti social type of crimes.

[Alien Being 6]

How are you defining upper and middle class? Because if your suggesting that wealth makes you a better and more productive member of society, your wrong.

Are you suggesting upper and middle class people do not commit crimes? Because they certainly do, they just tend to not be the anti social type of crimes.

Its like the Titanic. Do you let all the engineers, doctors, scientists and lawyers get in the boats first?

Of course you do because they are more valuable to society than someone off a housing estate who is never going to contribute much and in all likelyhood will drain far more resources out of society than they put in through their crime, anti-social behaviour, drug addications, unemployment and I'm sure many other things too.

We have a huge denial of Social Darwinism going on in society. I think wehen it eventually passes which it may not do for another 50 years yet we will come to realise those at the bottom are there because of their genetics.

[Slorri 2]

Tiggs, "family" in different legislations is defined differently - but the sense of all definitions is that this is people who have a common household and are responsible for each other. Declaration also saying it, by defining family as an elementary social cell. In most cases husband and wife have a common bank account - but they do not usually share this account with their children, so the children are not owners of the parental household, they only have a right to inherit it... But I have to stop myself on it... It becomes a tiring demagoguery, sorry Tiggs for me saying this. I do not draw any dopamine from the discussion of this issue, I only pointed to the fact that Declaration is not specifying "the right to reproduce" as a separate human right - and this was a response to the assumption of the poster that paying 200 quids to a drug addict for sterilization is a "breach of their human right to procreate". Bye for now, the rest of the thread is entirely yours.

Well, I totally agree with you MARABOD.

I raised this issue because of that many people when they can not have children for what ever reason claim that it is a human right to have children. And it is not. It can't be. It depend on for instance your physical body and your age etc.

It is quite different if someone against your will deprives you of your ability to procreate. That could and should be tried by legal terms.

A family could be a pair with an adopted child, if they could not get one of their own, but it can't be a human right for them to have any child. They might well be refused to adopt.

[Tiggs 7,106]

It is quite different if someone against your will deprives you of your ability to procreate. That could and should be tried by legal terms.

Which is what the phrase "to found a family" refers to.

[TSS 2,017]

Its like the Titanic. Do you let all the engineers, doctors, scientists and lawyers get in the boats first?

Of course you do because they are more valuable to society than someone off a housing estate who is never going to contribute much and in all likelyhood will drain far more resources out of society than they put in through their crime, anti-social behaviour, drug addications, unemployment and I'm sure many other things too.

We have a huge denial of Social Darwinism going on in society. I think wehen it eventually passes which it may not do for another 50 years yet we will come to realise those at the bottom are there because of their genetics.

No you don't, you put women, children, the elderly and injured in the boat first. Ironically it would probably be the 'lesser members of society' that would be doing all the donkey work of loading the boats anyway, whilst all your scientists and lawyers are running around screaming like little girls whilst trying to save their own asses

If you think a society functions on intelligence alone then you need to get out and look about - who do you think collects your rubbish, stacks the shelves in the shops, mans the petrol forecourts, cleans your drains, fixes your car, builds your houses, sweeps your roads, empties the high steeet bins, maintains the roads....etc etc....it sure isn't your doctors, scientists and lawyers...

Society and standards of living are maintained by having people from all walks of life, and all levels of intelligence.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Scanner.....

[Alien Being 6]

No you don't, you put women, children, the elderly and injured in the boat first. Ironically it would probably be the 'lesser members of society' that would be doing all the donkey work of loading the boats anyway, whilst all your scientists and lawyers are running around screaming like little girls whilst trying to save their own asses

If you think a society functions on intelligenc alone then you need to get out and look about - who do you think collects your rubbish, stacks the shelves in the shops, mans the petrol forecourts, cleans your drains, fixes your car, builds your houses, sweeps your roads, empties the high steeet bins, maintains the roads....etc etc....it sure isn't your doctors, scientists and lawyers...

Society and standards of living are maintained by having people from all walks of life, and all levels of intelligence.

My comments were that half of the working class should be sterilized and I stand by that.

For every rubbish collector, clearner, mechanic, etc there is another working class person sat in a Council House, claiming benefits, doing drugs, stealing to support their habit and giving out plenty of anti-social behaviour. Why should we let them breed?

As for the Titanic it is was the Middle and Upper classes that got into the boats first which is exactly how it should have been run. I have no sympathy for a woman with child when you know that child will growth up to be a hinderance to society.

[TSS 2,017]

My comments were that half of the working class should be sterilized and I stand by that.

For every rubbish collector, clearner, mechanic, etc there is another working class person sat in a Council House, claiming benefits, doing drugs, stealing to support their habit and giving out plenty of anti-social behaviour. Why should we let them breed?

For every lawyer, banker, scientist, etc....there is another scamming the system, playing it for all it's worth - white collar crime has never been so rife.

As for the Titanic it is was the Middle and Upper classes that got into the boats first which is exactly how it should have been run. I have no sympathy for a woman with child when you know that child will growth up to be a hinderance to society.

You have no idea how a child will turn out just by looking at their situation when growing up - it's those circumstances that might lead them to try and change things in their adult life - maybe working in drug services, or other areas where there are social problems.

You don't know just by looking at a childs standard of living whether they will grow up to be a hindrence on society or not - so stop claiming you can.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Scanner.....

[Whateversmurf 0]

Way the go there, but maybe they should offer help for the addiction as well??

[Alien Being 6]

For every lawyer, banker, scientist, etc....there is another scamming the system, playing it for all it's worth - white collar crime has never been so rife.

You have no idea how a child will turn out just by looking at their situation when growing up - it's those circumstances that might lead them to try and change things in their adult life - maybe working in drug services, or other areas where there are social problems.

You don't know just by looking at a childs standard of living whether they will grow up to be a hindrence on society or not - so stop claiming you can.

Yeah we can we can look at its ancestors.

[Render 624]

i don't think crimes committed should play too big part in it, with the exception of the obvious crimes, (murder, rape, paedophelia, etc).

or most 'disabilities' for that matter.

i wasn't suggesting some sort of extreme eugenics system. more just that future parents would have to be financially stable, worked most of their adult life (with obvious exceptions) and other important criteria, including being responsible members of society. all i think we need is better cared for and educated children, not more 'biologically evolved' ones.

LOL, right. Until you're the one who wants a kid but aren't allowed cuz you failed the exam or whatnot.

Then they should make an exception right? Cuz you thought you were one of the charmed ones. LOL