Don’t Call Me Disabled Just Because I Am Single

in Culture/Philosophy/Politics by
   

I am a healthy 42-year-old caucasian male. However, if the World Health Organization’s proposed rules are passed, I will be “disabled”. Forget that less than a year ago, I completed an Ironman. Even though I am able to swim 2.4 miles, ride my bike 112 miles, and run a marathon, I am soon going to be “disabled”.

meuser  Don't Call me Disabled Just Because I am Single meuser

The World Health Organization (WHO) wants to classify me as disabled because I have chosen, at this time, to not have a sexual partner. The WHO is proposing a new definition of disability to include those who have an inability to find a suitable sexual partner or the lack of sexual relationships which could achieve conception.

The World Health Organization Definition of Infertility

The WHO’s current definition of infertility is “a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse”.

The WHO is an agency of the United Nations. It was established in 1948. The WHO is tasked with international public health. The stated purpose of this proposed change in the definition of disability is to modify the policies on who can receive IVF treatment.

Incongruity of World Health Organization’s Proposed Definition Change

The WHO defines disability as “an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions”. Impairment is defined as “a problem in body function or structure”. Limitation is defined as “a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action”. Restriction is defined as “a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations”.

According to the WHO’s own definition of disability, there is no way that they should be changing the definition of disability to include those do not have a suitable sexual partner. The fact that I am single does not automatically mean that I have a disability. Whether one is single or has a sexual partner does not change one’s reproductive organs or their ability to produce human life.

It is absurd to think that the second an individual finds a sexual partner, their reproductive organs develop. Reproductive abilities develop and fade with age, not with relationship status.

What the WHO is trying to do is akin to saying that if your car is sitting in your driveway not being used, it must be “disabled”. Think about it, there are plenty of cars on automobile lots that have not yet found a driver, that does not mean that these cars are “disabled”. There are new cars and there are old cars, there are cars that are driven very little and there are cars that are driven a lot. However, just because a car does not have a driver, does not make it is “disabled”. A car is “disabled” when it has mechanical issues that prevent it from serving its purpose of driving on the roads.

A human is disabled if they do not have reproductive organs. A human is disabled if they have reproductive organs and they have been unable to conceive for a prolonged period of time. A human is not disabled if they have reproductive abilities and they do not use them.

Lessons in Liberty

As a Liberty Conservative, I believe in limited government. I believe that we are a self-governing people. I believe that a government that governs least governs best.

The individuals behind this proposed WHO definitional change are not liberty minded individuals. They are big government individuals who believe that Government should be involved in every aspect of our lives.

My definition of justice for all is that government generally stays out of the affairs of its citizens so long as its citizens are not violating each other’s right to life, liberty, and property. Their definition of justice for all is that the government must pass extensive regulations in order to level the playing field.

My definition of good government is a government that creates a uniform set of laws so that all can compete according to their own ability. Their definition of government is a set of laws and regulations that give special consideration to those whom the government deems worthy.

Most of us love sports. We hate it when we see umpires or referees giving special consideration to a star player. We think that the rules should be administered equally. It does not matter if you are the best wide receiver or the worst wide receiver, pass interference should be called the same.

The liberty loving conservatives believe that the rules should be the same for all people, while big government proponents believe that the rules change according to your classification. Since the rules change based upon classifications, we are experiencing crony capitalism where the rich are getting richer off of special favors from the government. We are watching the poor getting poorer because the government has created a class of eternal dependents.

The World Health Organization’s Big Government Agenda Revealed

The WHO is trying to pick the winners and the losers by changing their definition of disability to create a special class of people who are now able to obtain IVF. What they are trying to do would be akin to the NFL saying that just because you are not playing quarterback, as long as you think you would like to play quarterback, you are entitled to the pay of a quarterback. That is ridiculous.

By changing their definition of disability, they are now naming a large group of individuals as disabled who clearly are not disabled. I am not disabled, I am simply a single man who has not found a woman that I am willing to give and she is willing to receive all my strength.

Some may call me old fashioned and some may call me a prude – but please don’t call me disabled. We all have our strengths and we all have our weaknesses. I may not be able to play quarterback in the NFL, but there are people in the NFL who could never articulate the principles of liberty.

I may not be able to throw a football, weld a rivet, or play the first violin. That does not make me disabled. I can’t do those things because I don’t practice those things. I have chosen to use my talents in other areas. That is what liberty is all about, the ability to make choices according to my own talents, abilities, and propensities in order to succeed in this world. I don’t need my government making special rules for me and I don’t need them telling me I am disabled just because of the choices I have made.

  • This is how people are destroyed make a victim out of them. First comes defining a new victim then find an opprssor then find a way for the victim to steal from an oppressor.

    • christianpundit

      You might want to see the links I put in a post above. I personally never cared if I had any kids or not, but a lot of women want one, but are unable to have one, because they never find a “Mr. Right.” I don’t see the harm in allowing these women easier access to IVF, it it helps them have children. I don’t think a woman wanting help in having kids is a “victim” status thing – have no idea where you’re getting that from. Not everyone who is childless is childless due to choice, though some people may be.

  • christianpundit

    Some women who want to have children cannot not due to CHOICE but due to CIRCUMSTANCE, which I don’t think your editorial takes into account (didn’t have time to read it word for word, only skimmed). A lot of women want to marry and have a child, but “Mr. Right” never comes into their lives. I can see how designating such women as “infertile” can help them achieve their dreams of motherhood, if that is what they want. Please see: Why Being a Childless Woman is Rarely a Simple Case of Choice or Infertility – Childless by Circumstance by J. Day
    and My Secret Grief. Over 35, Single and Childless by Melanie Notkin