First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
to be single is now labeled as a disability
21907 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
16129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
It does not seem like I am going to get a check for this. If they are not sending me money, why should I care? It isn'the like WHO has any credibility.
33434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
That is just stupid.
361 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Playstation VR
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
Alright, c'mon. It may have been a while for me, but the WHO didn't have to step in.
3712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Everywhere
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
But can I get money for it
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
An outside world organization, is going to try to shove this idea down our throats. And of course, Obama and other liberals will let it happen. Sure, United Nations, tell America how to run it's country. Obama has done more to surrender more of our national independence than anyone before him, and Hillary is really gonna push hard for it.
14645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
6895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Temple of Yaoiism
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
People really shouldn't go around changing definitions without a consensus from the world first.

I mean let's just change the definition of harassment to include people disagreeing with you, I'm sure the world wouldn't mind.
17 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
That's really stupid
Posted 10/24/16 , edited 10/25/16
Silly humans
36508 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Seireitei, Soul S...
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16
I get the reason why they're doing it, to make IVF procedures more equally available to everyone who might want to have the procedure done, but I'm not sure if I agree with the way they're going about doing it. Being single isn't a disability. I'm sure they could have found another definition or something for it to make it more equal.
22480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16

I get the reason why they're doing it, to make IVF procedures more equally available to everyone who might want to have the procedure done, but I'm not sure if I agree with the way they're going about doing it. Being single isn't a disability. I'm sure they could have found another definition or something for it to make it more equal.


Agreed, WHO tends to worry more about the way their definitions function to make treatments more accessible rather than worry about the average reader's reaction to it. They can be really great for a lot of different things, but I worry of them losing too much credibility in peoples' eyes for stuff like this. This is the biggest stretch I've ever seen them pull by far.
8815 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
2 / girl / friends
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16
If this is to "have the right to have a family", does this mean I also have the right to a husband/wife? Can I get one assigned to me? Not that I want one.

Maybe if they're rich and give me all their money though.
Vahvi 
7882 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 /❓/ ⚤ / Nearby
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16
*boop boop boop*

Yeah, hey boss. Doc says i'm sick; says i'm gonna have to take tomorrow off.
Tay01 
29258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/25/16 , edited 10/25/16
The title of the article is a tad misleading, it is basically saying that not being in a relationship prevents you from producing progeny in the same way that infertility does, and thus to enforce equality people who physically can't produce progeny should extend their rights to people who can't do to social reasons. What the article suggests doing is classifying people who are socially unable along side people who physically under the same disability category . Honestly it just seems simpler to just give equal priority, rather than change classifications.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.