NationStates Jolt Archive

After Reading The Universal Bill Of Rights, we noticed that there is no reference to the right to life, so we have submitted the following simple proposal, kept concise to prevent loopholes.
The Right to Life
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Nibbleton
Description:
To Supplement the Universal Bill of Rights, passed by the UN on Friday 6th August, 2003, We propose the following:

Article 1: All humans and sentient inhabitants of NationStates whose nations are UN members have the right to life regardless of sex, race, or culture.
Article 2: All humans and sentient inhabitants of NationStates whose nations are UN members have the right to be made aware of their rights stated in this bill.
Article 3: All humans and sentient inhabitants of NationStates whose nations are UN members have the right to have these rights made a reality by their government.


Approvals: 1 (Nibbleton)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 140 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Jan 23 2004

You left out a few:
Article 1: All humans and sentient inhabitants of NationStates whose nations are UN members have the right to life regardless of sex, race, or culture.
What about sexual orientation? Gays have a right to life too.

Marital status? Are you planning to discriminate against singles or polygamists?

How about Age - this proposal is extremely ageist! Are you not going to explicity allow old people to live forever?

Medical condition? We should include something that bans disease forever. Yeah, that's it - if we all vote for it, we can live FOREVER!

Yippee! Why didn't somebody propose something like this before? Immortality is ours!

People have a right to life, but you better define this proposal better if you want it to pass.

People have a right to life, but you better define this proposal better if you want it to pass.

People have a right to life, but you better define this proposal better if you want it to pass.How do you mean? It says people should have the right to be alive if they wish. How else could it be defined?

People have a right to life, but you better define this proposal better if you want it to pass.How do you mean? It says people should have the right to be alive if they wish. How else could it be defined?

Only non-fanatics have a right to life. All fanatics deserve death. You must change this to make that very clear. It's important!

DEATH to all Fanatics!

You left out a few:
Article 1: All humans and sentient inhabitants of NationStates whose nations are UN members have the right to life regardless of sex, race, or culture.
What about sexual orientation? Gays have a right to life too.

Marital status? Are you planning to discriminate against singles or polygamists?

How about Age - this proposal is extremely ageist! Are you not going to explicity allow old people to live forever?

Medical condition? We should include something that bans disease forever. Yeah, that's it - if we all vote for it, we can live FOREVER!

Yippee! Why didn't somebody propose something like this before? Immortality is ours!
Does nobody recognize sarcasm anymore? Geeze Louise.

Nibbleton, why don't you start by explaining exactly who has " the right to be alive if they wish". Are you proposing to outlaw death? Last time I checked, Life was a 100% fatal disease. Nobody survived it.

Maybe you are talking about the famous Jeffersonian phrase:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Let's debate that one, if you would. This is one of the silliest presumptions ever put on paper. Life is not guaranteed. Far from it. Ask any widow or orphan, every accident victim or dead soldier. You'll find out that their right to life had an expiration date.

Liberty is not guaranteed. Far from it. Ask the prisoners in the former Soviet gulags. Ask the US detainees in Guantanamo, or the Cubans on the other side of the island. You'll find out that liberty has to be fought for, defended, and yet is frequently denied.

The pursuit of happiness is harder to take away. Even the poorest, weakest, and most oppressed person can pursue happiness in some way, assuming they have a mind capable of envisioning it. The same could be said of the pursuit of life or the pursuit of liberty.

There is no fundamental right to life, or people with that right would simply stop dying. If you think otherwise, explain it to me, in short simple phrases please. I just don't see it.

People have a right to life, but you better define this proposal better if you want it to pass.How do you mean? It says people should have the right to be alive if they wish. How else could it be defined?

The right to life means that you have common-law ownership of your life.

It does NOT mean that death is illegal. It does NOT mean that life itself is naturally inalienable. It means that the RIGHT TO LIFE (i.e. the common-law ownership of your life) is a natural, inalienable right.

In other words, the right to life merely implies that nobody else has the legal right to take your life without your permission.

In other words, the right to life merely implies that nobody else has the legal right to take your life without your permission.

That's exactly what I'm trying to imply.

Catholic Europe supports this resolution as the right to life is sacrosanct (sp?).

sacrosanct (sp?).

CE, your spelling skills serve you well. You got it correct.

Oscar Gonzalez
Asst. Manager ico Education
Greenspoint