somanymike

Hi as a law student I salute your effort but a mere reading of your list of rights troubles me to no end sir. In order for you to understant my point, I will tell you that most of what you got here is already a human right. Human rights international pacts from all over the globe allready give most of this to you. The actual problem is that: is hard to find a correct system to actually demand this rights with effectiveness, not only configuring, because is it not weird in the constitucional law to observe paper constitution that by establishing the most overpowered way to protect its population rights only manage to lower the level of protection they actually have. (YeS !! IT DOeS HAPPeN!) Second a simple declaration of right with a total lack of content and strict dogmatic about the sheer limits of each of this rights will do nothing but direct us to a path in wich each judge will decide in each case what right is being broken or wich right should be prefered over the other if they ever clash (easy examply your right number 8 and 9, they will clash, simple because we are diferent, example if a men has the exact same protection than a women,a man will be chosen everytime because they do not get pregant neither you have to worry about sexual harrasment in the workplace (most of the time), so in the end you are not providing the same oportunities for all. And finally, and this is for your list is that law is a precise discipline*, wich word you chosee IS IMPORTANT: "the right to have A children", that means you only get to have one, if you have another then... do you go to jail? do you have to kill your children? or maybe the child is not protected by the law since it is a second child. I can already see me reading a case in wich a father asked a national jury to force her ex-girlfriend to abort their child since he already has a son. See scary stuff happens in a single miss used word. Anyway good luck, nice try, live happy *Can you feel the irony of this when I cannot even use words properly (hope you forgive me, this is my second language).

Hi I´m just a simple lawyer but consider this wildly proposition: What if billions years from now another species evolves so much that they match us in congnitive abilities (even asking to be refer as humans and having the consequential rights), should we banish all non-useful life from earth, wouldnt it be a shame to deny them from ever existing? Now on a more concise opinion: Reducing bio diversity its denying the infinite amount of opportunites that universe has to offer. Its like sending all kids who didnt had good grades in their childhood to the farms and saying that there is no need to educate them any further. But I wonder, how many einstein would we be costing to humankind. Forgive my lack of proper grammar, I beg of you. PS: ([joke] What if having children with those "new" humans would make us inmortals [/joke]) PS2: Sry for resucitating this threath, please mods do not hate me, but this was in the first page of my google search so many may yet see this discussion.