NON-BELIEVERS: Which Human Rights that currently exist or are under consideration do you oppose?

Answer 1

I support http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 100% :)

Answer 2

Huh?

I don't think I get this concept of opposing human rights.

However, Squirrel-boy has a point, it depends on what people think of as 'rights'. I remember reading an irate letter to an automotive maker, by a man claiming we were turning into Communist Russia because the maker told him he would have to wait a few months to get his highly customized car.

Answer 3

I'm not sure what you mean by 'human rights'. There are many different documents stating different sets of rights, and few of them, if any, match actual morality. I'll assume you mean the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I'll read off from here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 1: Not all humans are born equal in rights. Some people are just plain not as mentally capable as others and there are scenarios where this would have to be taken into consideration. Additionally, not all people are granted the ability to think logically, as demonstrated by the large numbers of insane, religious or otherwise delusional people in the world.

Article 3: Only to begin with! It is quite possible to forfeit these rights through consciously committed attacks on the freedoms of innocent people.

Article 6: There are a few people whose brains are highly damaged and not functioning properly at all, it would not make sense to always consider such people in the same class of entities as other human beings.

Article 8: This article talks about rights and then references laws and constitutions. It is, however, clear that such documents do not always represent real rights, therefore this article is not valid either.

Article 11: While this seems to make sense at first, it is rather flawed. It implies that some people who commit crimes would not commit those crimes if the punishment were greater, that it is okay for a person to accept the tradeoff (benefits of the crime vs punishments). It doesn't fit the basic idea that immoral acts are invalid no matter what the punishment is and that nobody should ever be doing them at all.

Article 12: Restricting attacks upon a person's honor and reputation is an infringement on freedom of speech. There should be no law defending lies told about another person, but neither should there be any law allowing for the punishment of people for lying, especially if the lies are nothing more serious than a personal attack.

Article 13: Again, it is possible to forfeit these rights in certain scenarios. This is mentioned in article 14 but applies to article 13 as well.

Article 15: I'm really not sure what this article says. Nationality in itself seems to be a very arbitrary thing and is not stated to have any particular meaning in this article. I don't entirely disagree with this article, I just think it's rather useless.

Article 16 item 3: There should be no protection of marriage by the government, nor any special privileges accorded to married people by the government. The government should ONLY take the family structure into account if it has to in order to protect someone's rights (for example, if a married person is harming their spouse or a parent is harming their child in some way).

Article 17: This article should specify just what constitutes property and what does not. The ownership of other humans was already mentioned in article 4, but other things (intelligent non-human entities, access to natural resources and, in some cases, certain kinds of weapons or other dangerous objects) should be specified as not being ownable.

Article 18: The one word I object to in this article is 'teaching'. Some kind of provision should be made to cover brainwashing people, most especially young children who are very impressionable and are not nearly as resistant to 'teaching' of religion as adults are.

Article 21 items 1 and 3: This implies the necessity of a republic or democracy form of government, in which all people have equal voting power. History has already shown us that this system does not work. Allowances should be made for the possibility of meritocratic or meritorepublic systems of government.

Article 21 item 2: This should have some kind of provision for people's own choices with regard to public services. For example, someone who consciously chooses to live out on a remote mountain cannot be given as much access to public services as someone who consciously chooses to live in the middle of a city, and attempting to give equal access will only result in terrible inefficiencies. The article should make a provision for this.

Article 23 item 1: I agreed with this up until I read 'and to protection against unemployment'. There should be no such protection, corporations should be able to hire whoever they want as an agreement between them and the person being hired only. There should be no obligation on the part of anyone for unemployed people to be offered work (although certainly it would be a decent, moral thing for the government to set up such a system).

Article 23 item 2: Again, payment should be an agreement between the employer and the employee only and no third party. If they agree on a higher payment than someone else is receiving for a similar job, that should be up to them.

Article 24: Working hours, holidays and pay for holidays should again be an agreement between the employer and the employee only and no third party.

Article 25 item 2: The provision for mothers should be completely removed. It is entirely up to women whether they choose to have sex, whether they choose to use contraceptives and, if they get pregnant, whether they choose to have an abortion. The provision for children should remain, though, as they are not the ones who have control over whether they exist or not. The mother should be required to support the child, except where she is unable to do so or where some other specific agreement has been made.

Article 26 item 1: There should be no requirement for the government to supply 'free' (i.e., tax-funded) education (although certainly it would be a decent, moral thing for the government to set up such a system).

Article 26 item 3: This should be removed. The government should be allowed to prevent brainwashing-type 'education' of children even if the child's parents wish for the child to receive such brainwashing.

Article 27 item 2: This should be completely removed. There should be no such thing as patents or copyrights, or at least no government protection of patents or copyrights.

Answer 4

I'm not opposed to anything that creates equality for all....everyone should have the same rights regardless of age, gender, color, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or nationality. We are all human and the world belongs to us ALL.....no one person or group is better than any other..period.

Answer 5

I oppose people's rights to be ignorant! Well, ok, maybe that was a bit over the top.

I agree that with rights come responsibilities as well.

Answer 6

None.

I am very active in supporting gay marriage.

I am Pro-Choice, however I think that abortion laws should be much more strict.

I can think of no single human right that I would oppose.

I hate to think that there are so many people who are actually opposed to any human rights.

Answer 7

I might say that all criminals caught red-handed deserve a well-earned beating by cannibal cops, and no right to soap on a rope once they make it to the Big House. (Especially for those ahs that key car paint)

Other than that, I'd say all human rights must be enforced.

Answer 8

I can think of no human right that I would oppose.

Answer 9

Did I fail history again ? I always thought that it was the believers that traditionally put up the most oppossition to humans gaining their basic rights, I must have been wrong.

Answer 10

I don't oppose any human right providing that the one who makes use of them realizes that they come with obligations too... like being a civic-conscious citizen.

Answer 11

Oppose? Oppose human rights, what are you talking about?

If you're interested in opposing human rights, go to church and get religon.

*