Mod Moved Comments To Chat
added 24 characters in body
Source Link
MichaelK
  • 4.8k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27

Forced sterilisation is mutilation, eugenics is inequality

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHRUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.

Forced sterilisation is mutilation, eugenics is inequality

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHR.

Forced sterilisation is mutilation, eugenics is inequality

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

added 24 characters in body
Source Link
MichaelK
  • 4.8k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27

Forced sterilisation is a mutilation, eugenics is inequality

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHR.

Forced sterilisation is a mutilation

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHR.

Forced sterilisation is mutilation, eugenics is inequality

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHR.

added 1527 characters in body
Source Link
MichaelK
  • 4.8k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27

Forced sterilisation is a mutilation

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHR.

Forced sterilisation is a mutilation

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

Forced sterilisation is a mutilation

The case is a simple one to make:

  • I own my body
  • By owning my body I have an exclusive right to decide what happens to it; I am the sole person that may exert control over it
  • I therefore I have the right to not have my body altered without my consent

So already here I have the case done. But we can continue:

  • Any permanent alteration which diminishes the function of my body is a mutilation

Forced sterilisation is not only an alteration of my body, but an alteration that is irreversible and that diminishes the function of my body. Therefore it is not only a violation of rights, but one that is considered heinous.

I have a right to not have this happen to me. This right is expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3.

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

Also if we look at article 16 of the UDHR:

  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.
  1. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

It is hard(er) to form a family if you have been deprived of the capability to conceive children of your own.

We can take this even further and look at articles 1 and 2 of the UDHR:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

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. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

So when you start talking about "well-motivated eugenics" that "leads to more better persons", you are directly contradicting articles 1 and 2 in that you assume that some persons are "better" than others. Hence the ethical case against eugenics is the very basic principle that everyone is "equal in dignity and rights", "without distinction of any kind". So not only is forced sterilisation a violation of human rights (article 3), you also cannot motivate the application of it without breaking even more rights (article 1 and 2).

So there you have it: consider forced sterilisation and eugenics are a gross and flagrant violation of human rights, because they break the first three articles of the UDHR.

added 53 characters in body
Source Link
MichaelK
  • 4.8k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27
Loading
Source Link
MichaelK
  • 4.8k
  • 1
  • 13
  • 27
Loading