Jump to content

Can the UK afford to house and feed the world,


Recommended Posts

Compulsory sterilisation is a very difficult question.

 

Here's an article on a recent UK case (I've no idea of the outcome.)

 

We all have human rights and Article 12 of the HRA guarantees the right to 'found a family'.

 

If you deny somebody who does not appreciate the concept of 'found a family', somebody who would not understand the rights and responsibilities of founding a family, somebody who would not be able to care for a child, then would you be infringing that person's human rights if you were to prevent him/her from founding a family?

 

A blanket ruling would be unjust. Surely, each case would have to be considered on its individual merits?

 

If 'Watching TV' was a human right (and some may be surprised to find that it is not ;)); if you were the carer for a person who was totally blind and totally deaf, then - were you to decline to provide that person with a TV set - would you be depriving him/her of his human rights?

 

The 'Right to Life' is absolute - with a few limited exclusions. Yet it is permissible for 'the state' to turn off life support systems.

 

If the state can lawfully decide to turn off a life support system, or discontinue medical treatment in the event that such treatment is unlikely to provide any improvement (and cost does almost certainly come into the equation), then should the state also have the right to prevent life from beginning in certain specific cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compulsory sterilisation is a very difficult question.

 

Here's an article on a recent UK case (I've no idea of the outcome.)

 

We all have human rights and Article 12 of the HRA guarantees the right to 'found a family'.

 

If you deny somebody who does not appreciate the concept of 'found a family', somebody who would not understand the rights and responsibilities of founding a family, somebody who would not be able to care for a child, then would you be infringing that person's human rights if you were to prevent him/her from founding a family?

 

A blanket ruling would be unjust. Surely, each case would have to be considered on its individual merits?

 

If 'Watching TV' was a human right (and some may be surprised to find that it is not ;)); if you were the carer for a person who was totally blind and totally deaf, then - were you to decline to provide that person with a TV set - would you be depriving him/her of his human rights?

 

The 'Right to Life' is absolute - with a few limited exclusions. Yet it is permissible for 'the state' to turn off life support systems.

 

If the state can lawfully decide to turn off a life support system, or discontinue medical treatment in the event that such treatment is unlikely to provide any improvement (and cost does almost certainly come into the equation), then should the state also have the right to prevent life from beginning in certain specific cases?

 

How about abortion? It's already legal in several countries. I wond if Halibut and his cronies say it's okay. Wouldn't surpise me if they said it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same on this side of the pond. I thank my lucky stars that due to an accident of fate, I'm not the one holding my sick, starving baby and unable to to anything about it.
I too thank my lucky stars I was to be born where I was, and have a good life. Its all an accident of life, no more. That's why it is such a tragedy when nations lucky enough to have plenty of everything have to stoop to fighting each other to grab more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

course we can, we have a far better life and standard of living than some countries do, a lot of countries do in fact even when we think things are tough

some people just cant see over their high garden walls tho and see how others live, suffer and die

 

If this country carries on letting overseas nationals in at the rate it is then within 'these garden walls' wont be rosy either!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of it was loaned into existence so most of it would disappear along with the wealth and employment it as created.
While that is true that most money has been loaned into existence. Why would it disappear? If you lend me a book, say on the proviso that I get you a copy of a newspaper on the day I return it, then we agree that you no longer want the newspaper, does the book disappear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While that is true that most money has been loaned into existence. Why would it disappear? If you lend me a book, say on the proviso that I get you a copy of a newspaper on the day I return it, then we agree that you no longer want the newspaper, does the book disappear?

 

So you are happy it was loaned into existence but now you think that method of creating money should stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.