According to the World Health Org., if you're single, you are disabled. Thoughts?

Question

Yes, according to the World Health Organization now, if you're single, or don't want to have children, you are legally disabled. Let's discuss why this is the stupidest thing you've read in your life.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I can understand why they should be offering IVF to anyone wanting to have a family. Some people are not fortunate enough to find a partner to procreate with. I want kids, but I have been unable to find a guy. If and when I decide to stop looking and have kids before it's too late, I would be grateful to be allowed to have IVF rights as any straight or homosexual person or any other person who is wishing to have this treatment.

I'd make an amazing mom! And I have a lot of love to give. Why should I be denied the right to have children?

There are plenty of people who are blessed with kids who murder them or abuse them. So why should I not be allowed to have kids when I would love and nurture them?

I would like to have the opportunity to have my own kids as well as adopting some. Why should I not have that experience?

Sex too, in some places you can get a hooker to have sex with paid for by the government. I think in Amsterdam. Correct me if I am wrong, but I saw that in a few places and in a documentary. I think sex is important to a person's well being. Now that doesn't mean that a person should be forced to have sex with another person if they don't want to. But if someone is willing to have sex with a person for money that is their prerogative.

I personally think people should be able to get sex if they want it.

btbc92 · Accepted Answer

Bunch of dumb idiots themselves. Its the same way they make it out like believing in God is a mental illness. I don't believe half of the things they say. Man is at its fallen state. It doesn't surprise me anymore. They will have to shell out a lot in social security then.

ObscuredBeyond · Accepted Answer

I agree with the expert shooting it down: "This insane new definition of infertility not only redefines the word top to bottom, it also sidelines its most critical element for the word to make any sense: the biological process!"

I smell a Cloward-Piven scam! Now, anyone who wants to be lazy can say he is feeling a wee bit gay. And just like that, he's now got a disability that means he should be pandered to? And his not even trying to get with a woman means he has lifetime "disability" privilege? The nuts are running the nuthouse!

So what am I to the W. H. O? I found a gal... and then nothing came of it. The baby just didn't happen. Not for lack of trying on my part. Is it that my sperm is deficient, or is it that I'm socially doomed? Or is it some supernatural blessing in disguise, working overtime to spare me from being married to the wrong woman by causing all women near me to implode and become raging douches so that I don't become the proverbial frog in the pot?

And how does the World Health Organization even credibly categorize something like that?

abc3643 · Accepted Answer

You misunderstand.

This is regarding the definition of infertility as defined by the WHO.

According to the old definition, infertility was classified as a disability (which it is) and is the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex.

The new standard suggests that the inability to find a suitable sexual partner could be considered an equal disability.

So, for example, single men and women without medical issues will be classed as 'infertile' if they do not have children but want to become a parent, the World Health Organisation is to announce.

Since the World Health Organisation sets global health standards, the point in its ruling is to put pressure on legal and health systems to enable anyone who is infertile (according to the new definition), to be able to engage in artificial means of reproduction.

If you don't want kids, then you don't want kids but you would not be considered as disabled under the new infertility definition by the WHO.

Cryostatic · Answer

From what I'm reading, the article makes sweeping generalizations that make it out to be a much more idiotic thing than it actually is.

The WHO's adjustment basically just says that for single or gay people (women) who want to have children and are unable to find a suitable partner (or aren't interested in finding one), they will be given the same access and priority to invitro fertilization services as heterosexual couples who require it to concieve. That's it, nothing more.

The rest of the article is just a bunch of "what if" slippery slope bullshit stating that in the eventuality that we're someday able to grow babies in labs from nothing, then every man, woman and child will be able to have babies of their own, which is just base fucking nonsense.

dipta · Answer

As I read it, people who are actively wanting to conceive but, as faith had it, don't even have a partner and/ or do not have intercourse, are considered "disabled" = not able to, for obvious reasons.
Previously, this notion only applied to people not being able to conceive within one year of trying.

I will speculate that being considered "disabled" might be one of the requirements for applying to adoption or artificial insemination.

I didn't read anything about suggesting single people are losers or the like. Maybe it's just me.

Anonymous · Answer

Many people choose to be single and childless for ethical and religious reasons. So, based on WHO, they are categorized as disabled? Or, they are "disabled" if they live in the secular world and cannot find a partner to mate with?

This opinion is stupid. We don't need more people to reproduce. We need less.

meowcow · Answer

Is your news link a legitimate site?

I find it unusual that none of the stories on that site seem to show up on mainstream media like CNN (some are similar, but with very distinct differences that make me think it's more of a tabloid site).

For example, your link shows no reference to the WHO site that makes such a statement. The entire article is heresay, and is re-translated by a reporter.

Another example is that ISIS recently killed 250 women and children a few days ago (mid October 2016). The site you linked says ISIS threw them in a dough kneader... but CNN or Reuters never mentions the dough kneader. In fact, if you search for it, such a story came out months ago on a fake site... and so this Express. co. uk seems to be copying and pasting clips of multiple stories together.

madhatters4 · Answer

Relax my friend. you need to read past the headline my

the point of it is this... in the past the best ways to adopt or qualify for IVF were to prove that you and your spouse were unable to create children on your own. I know this for a fact as single adults have a really REALLY hard time qualifying for adoption and a single woman struggles to qualify for IVF

so the point is to remove what they think is an unfair and unjust system that punishes single people

the point is to try and allow everyone who wants kids to have the opportunity to have kids

JudgmentDay · Answer

Really? Are they serious? Does that mean those that are chronically single will be able to file for disability payments or something then?

Anonymous · Answer

What do you expect when the director-general of the WHO is an incompetent power-mad 69yr old woman who only has 9 months of her final term in office left? The kind of woman who goes to North Korea and states that "North Korea's health system would be the envy of many developing countries because of the abundance of medical staff"? Besides, I think that if you're single due to your inability to get a sexual partner (i. e, if you're actively trying), then that would technically count as a 'disability', and you should be granted some form of aid to alleviate that disability. If this move means that guys like us would get free, state-sponsored access to new hookup apps and public brothels, then I'm all for it.

RegularTK421 · Answer

It's definitely stupid. This reeks of global politics rather than actual solid medical policy. I think anyone should be free to seek treatment for infertility, but it's not an actual disability. A disability is something that hinders your every day tasks, well being, and job opportunities. Blindness and paralysis, are true disabilities. We live in a world where in some countries, 25 percent of children die from typhoid fever. Yet, at the forefront of the U. N's WHO is infertility. If there was a significant global population shortage, I could understand the move. There's a reason why the U. N has a reputation of being incompetent and corrupt.

Scrambledagain · Answer

I think it's interesting. Some men cannot get laid. But what if they want kids? Like that women said though, you still need a female donor so... yeah. I also question the definition of "disability". I would say a male may or may not be socially disabled. Dude may be awesome and still not get laid.

It's ironic though that the people that call it absurd say that it's neglecting the biological process. But evolution says only a minority males will get laid and the others will get lucky. So that theory actually shafts them.

HOAAH · Answer

Are you serious? I think people who are single need to be told that they can be happy without a partner

skeptic002 · Answer

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FLAG THE UNITED NATIONS FLAG the United Nations shot nuclear missiles into GODS firmament you think I'll trust anything they say when they have the same symbols  plus the add of a SERPENT NO!!!   plus thats what the real earth looks like

grace_ · Answer

Um, how in the hell does classifying everyone who isn't in a relationship/can't find a sexual partner now give them the "right to reproduce"? Like since when did we not already have that right?

Red_Arrow · Answer

I will argue that this is not true.

The Express site is a sensational site and it appears to have many articles that are likely to NOT be true. I searched for any other source stating this and found none. I also searched through the WHO site and found nothing resembling this "news". A further clue to the fact that this is not true is a reference in the article about the new law the WHO put out. Who does not makes laws. Period. So I would say this is nothing but sensational FICTION!!!

Saoirse_Nua · Answer

I think that is stretching the logic of the new rules to the extreme, all they are doing is making legal statement.
"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"

vonasaurus · Answer

well, i don't want kids, so i guess i'm disabled lol.
biggest shitload of fuck i've seen in the history of ever.

i am not pregnant and never want to be pregnant; the idea of being a mother fills me with dread and panic. but i'd rather be disabled and not pregnant than not disabled and be stuck with a kid forever.

Pinkbeauty · Answer

from looking at that website and reading it I don't believe that being single means you're disabled I'm single and I was born with a disabled and I choose to be single and I don't want kids because I have 0 tolerance for kids and I don't like because they scream yell and cry to much and they can be loud

Anonymous · Answer

They don't mean that. Newspapers need to sensationalise things. They just say everybody who wants to should have a right to have kids, so if they can't they should be entitled to ivf. People don't like it because they say it's not like somebody with no legs who should have the right to wheelchair, or prosthetics or something.

ClassicRocker · Answer

I didn't see anything about those not wanting to have children being classified as "disabled". Only those that wanted to reproduce, but were unable to find a partner. I mean it's still ridiculous, but a lot of people are going to think they belong to that group when they don't the way you've worded it.

slatyb · Answer

Well it's completely atobsurd to grant people the "right to have a child". Today producing a baby requires a woman to carry it. You can't give one person a right that requires the participation of another.

The right to health care is the same. We should try to make health care available, but we can't conscript people to be doctors and nurses.

Lightspeed-Lemon · Answer

Reproducing is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right. No one owes you a kid. Even for children who already exist and are living in orphanages, you can't just walk in and demand to take one home with you. As if human trafficking, pedophilia, child poverty, and overpopulation weren't bad enough already.

According to the World Health Org., if you're single, you are disabled. Thoughts?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

According to the World Health Org., if you're single, you are disabled. Thoughts?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.