Everything can't be a disability. Would not having a defined disability be a disability? If I can't find a date does that mean someone owes me something? What a an odd world we live in.
WHO isn't applying the definition of disability that exists in US federal law or state motor vehicle codes (much less doing so with any binding authority), so, basically, no, not at all.
That headline is rather misleading. The key quote is:
"Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems. "
I am quite happy that the WHO is taking that stance to support the human rights of non heterosexual couples.
I feel like the people who are jumping all over the use of the term 'disability' are doing so disingenuously rather than standing up and saying that they believe heterosexual couples are inherently more worthy of having children.
Is there a primary source for this? Which part of the WHO said what, when, and to whom? Right now, even the supposedly-official stuff isn’t even clearly marked in quotation marks. Maybe the WHO is doing something boneheaded, but right now the biggest offenders are the writer/publisher of this article.
I would agree. Reading it felt like a mush of useless quotes and no real substance. All I can find are articles citing this one and when I search WHO, I only get articles about infertility and disabilities, not anything suggesting not finding a partner is the same as infertility.
I'd like to present a hypothesis related to this topic.
We're evolution-wise ready to mate at puberty (11-14 y.o), and that's probably the age when pre-civilization humans were sexually active.
That's been pushed much father today.. and it probably varies from say an average age of 16 to 25 when people are active (varies from culture to culture). Most cultures also look down upon pre-marital sex, and anyone who wishes to give in to the evolutionary signals to have sex earlier is probably following a path frowned upon by most societies.
So my hypothesis is that our current-milieu is at odds with our biology, and (possibly) a source of a lot of issues in the world. Sex is at the core of being human, and when you have religions and cultures frowning down upon all but certain white-listed methods of going about it, at an age much past the biological starting point, we're sowing seeds that can affect the species' longevity.
19 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 31.7 ms ] threadDon't you want nice people have a place to park?!
"Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems. "
I am quite happy that the WHO is taking that stance to support the human rights of non heterosexual couples.
I feel like the people who are jumping all over the use of the term 'disability' are doing so disingenuously rather than standing up and saying that they believe heterosexual couples are inherently more worthy of having children.
Well, it _is_ the Express.
We're evolution-wise ready to mate at puberty (11-14 y.o), and that's probably the age when pre-civilization humans were sexually active.
That's been pushed much father today.. and it probably varies from say an average age of 16 to 25 when people are active (varies from culture to culture). Most cultures also look down upon pre-marital sex, and anyone who wishes to give in to the evolutionary signals to have sex earlier is probably following a path frowned upon by most societies.
So my hypothesis is that our current-milieu is at odds with our biology, and (possibly) a source of a lot of issues in the world. Sex is at the core of being human, and when you have religions and cultures frowning down upon all but certain white-listed methods of going about it, at an age much past the biological starting point, we're sowing seeds that can affect the species' longevity.
Thoughts?