Support the Sanctity of Life Proposal!
Esteemed colleagues,
Greetings from the Republic of Dover. I urge you to support the sanctity of life proposal in the United Nations. This proposal is necessary to make sure that all human life is respected, and that no dictatorships will ruthlessly exterminate unprotected members of their societies.
Any supporter of human rights will join me in fighting for this cause.
Sincerely,
Hon. John Adams
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Dover
OOC
Hope you don't mind if I copy/paste your proposal so people don't have to sort through the massive list of proposals waiting to be approved. ^_^
Sanctity of Life
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Dover
Description: This resolution would require member states to protect all human life, the unborn included. It would not require nations to abolish the death penalty, but leave that issue to their discretion. It would require them to protect the mentally retarded, handicapped, and elderly, and to condemn and oppose members who do not protect human life.
IC
The People's Republic of Kitsylvania would much prefer this resolution if the repeal of the death penalty was mandatory, as we cannot tolerate the outdated practice of putting people to death. Likewise, there is no specification of what measures the resolution intends for the protection of life, especially in the case of the unborn. Would this proposal outlaw abortion as a whole, or would it make exceptions in the case of medical necessity, rape, etc?
Kitsylvanians, in any event, do not support banning the practices of physician-assisted voluntary euthanasia or abortion, as we hold those to be a matter of individual choice; though most Kitsylvanians do not support either practice, they do not feel it is their place to force others into acting contrary to their own consciences.
The Sultanate of Cinchan is very disappointed in Dover for putting forth such an ill-conceived and outdated document. The conduct of a government towards its citizens is the business of that administration, and that administration alone. The idea of banning abortion is a relic of ancient civilization, and should be left to rot.
We hope that all nations will join the Sultan as He gazes into the future, and leave the anti-progress movement behind.
Minister Abe Dhaliwal
-International Affairs Division-
-The Cinchanese Sultanate-
'Sultan Before All'
By establishing such a "feel-good" garbage legislation, you destroy the sanctityof life. By "making all life" precious - blah..blah.. blah.. you devalue it. How is bare existance made precious? I suppose none of those that you "save" will be warehoused in nursing homes, prisons, etc.. What a piece of liberal garbage!
OOC:
What a piece of liberal garbage!
Yes, because we all know liberals are obsessed with banning abortion, birth control, physician assisted suicide, etc
There's nothing wrong with valuing life; that should be something embraced by liberal and conservative alike, not something to "Did too! Did not!" over. Likewise, just because someone belives in allowing choice doesn't mean they don't value life.
on edit: dang BBCode ^^;;
The nation of Vasharoivia is of the belief that this proposition is archaic and exclusive. It should be renamed "the sanctity of human life" if one is to give an accurate name. This proposition does not protect animals, forests, or any other form of life.
Some good suggestions were made. I agree, the proposal should have been named "the sanctity of human life," as environmental and animal-rights issues are not addressed. I think my elaboration was clear enough as to avoid any confusion, though.
This is not a piece of liberal legislation. I consider myself a compassionate centrist. If I was liberal, I would probably be pushing a "sanctity of abortion" measure right now.
To answer the people who actually cared to understand the bill, instead of just posting random diatribes on why their opinion is so much better than everyone else's:
Yes, this bill would outlaw abortion. I believe that abortion is an unhealthy, (it is linked to breast cancer) immoral, and unethical solution to the world's problems. It would ban abortion in any circumstance. If you have any "unwanted" children you feel the urge to dispose of, let it be known that the Republic of Dover will accept, shelter, educate, and place into compassionate, nurturing families any unwanted children.
As a sidenote, the issue of slavery was not mentioned because after combing the docket, I found an anti-slavery bill well on its way to success, as it should be.
Finally, the language used is crucial. It is the same pro-life language used in the real world by real politicians. All the worst dictatorships of this world have come about because of the devaluing of certain segments of the population. Nazi Germany found the elderly, the feeble-minded, and homosexuals, as well as the Jews, worthless members of the society.
If one can expose abortion, racism, ageism, and euthanasia for what they are--a blatant disregard for the established principles of the innate value of every human life, from conception in the mind of God till the grave--then one can succeed in raising a generation of people who will take the initiative to care for their neighbor and not rely on the government to give them handouts, and a generation that will embrace, support, adopt, and mentor its poorer, weaker, and more vulnerable members instead of coldly marking them for extermination or writing them off as someone else's problem.
One person mentioned that "mere existence cannot be called meaningful." This is insane logic, akin to Hitler's. Every human life must be recognized as sacred, simply because we are created in the image of God.
Finally, how could you oppose a bill calling for the sanctity of life based on the fact that it leaves the death penalty out of the plan? Abortion eliminates innocent life, capital punishment ends life that was used to end other life. I am not saying that I support capital punishment. I am merely saying that I cannot justify banning it by my final standard, the Bible. If someone proposes a moratorium for study, I would not be opposed. I cannot call capital punishment wrong, but given the chance, 99 times out of 100 I would choose grace over punishment, provided the individual desires and deserves it.
Well, I'm against abortion and this proposal. Why is it okay for the UN to mess around in sovereign countries when it comes to abortion, but you suddenly discover that sovereignty is a good thing when it comes to the death penalty? Should have gone for banning both, you'd have had a more consistent argument.
The nation of Vasharoivia understands your opinion, Dover. However, in a pluralistic society with regards to religion, race, and many other characteristics, a total ban on abortion is nonsensical. It ignores the uniqueness of every pregnancy, and the innumerable possibilities regarding the mother and the child. The rights of the mother must be considered before the rights of a non-sentient, dependently existing human embryo.
<<If you have any "unwanted" children you feel the urge to dispose of, let it be known that the Republic of Dover will accept, shelter, educate, and place into compassionate, nurturing families any unwanted children.>>
That is very idealistic of you, and we applaud such idealism. However, if you have any practical knowledge of the social care system, you understand that there is nothing idealistic nor universally positive about it. Many of the children who are put into the system are shuffled around from home to home so often that they never even develop effective social skills, which hinders their existence beyond reckoning. (among other shortcomings that I will not take the time to name herein)
In addition, the nation of Vasharoivia is curious as to whether or not you understand that use of the Bible in an argument is a fallacy of circular reasoning?
The nation of Vasharoivia understands your opinion, Dover. However, in a pluralistic society with regards to religion, race, and many other characteristics, a total ban on abortion is nonsensical. It ignores the uniqueness of every pregnancy, and the innumerable possibilities regarding the mother and the child. The rights of the mother must be considered before the rights of a non-sentient, dependently existing human embryo.
<<If you have any "unwanted" children you feel the urge to dispose of, let it be known that the Republic of Dover will accept, shelter, educate, and place into compassionate, nurturing families any unwanted children.>>
That is very idealistic of you, and we applaud such idealism. However, if you have any practical knowledge of the social care system, you understand that there is nothing idealistic nor universally positive about it. Many of the children who are put into the system are shuffled around from home to home so often that they never even develop effective social skills, which hinders their existence beyond reckoning. (among other shortcomings that I will not take the time to name herein)
In addition, the nation of Vasharoivia is curious as to whether or not you understand that use of the Bible in an argument is a fallacy of circular reasoning?
First of all, let me say that the death penalty argument was left to the nations' discretion because the issue of abortion deals with the sanctity of innocent life, whereas the death penalty issue has more to do with individual nations' concepts of justice, and that was just too broad an issue for this bill. I have already mentioned that I do not oppose the death penalty, although I would support a moratorium.
Second of all, in response to the all-too-worn-out argument that children should be exterminated because they wouldn't have happy, meaningful lives, yadda yadda yadda. Here's a story:
One doctor said to another, “I would like your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father has syphilis. The mother has tuberculosis. Of their first four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?” “I would have ended the pregnancy,” the second doctor said.
“Then you would have murdered Beethoven.”
It’s a spine-chilling prospect, isn’t it? Imagine the loss to humanity had Beethoven been aborted. Now think about the millions of children who never make it into this world because of a woman’s so-called “choice.” What about the child’s right to live?
Bottom line: Each life cut short by abortion is a serious loss to humanity because every human life is sacred.
“A fetus is NOT just another part of a woman’s body.” A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body. The unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s. Some of them are male, while their moms are female.
• “An unborn human is NOT just a blob of tissue.” From the moment of conception the unborn is what it is—a unique, LIVING human being. At 6 weeks you can detect a beating heart. At 12 weeks, eyes and hands can be observed.
• “A fetus is NOT just a blueprint or a ‘potential human.’ ” A fetus is a person at a particular stage of development—as is a toddler or an adolescent. The fact is, something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger.
• “Life does NOT begin at birth.” Science has shown us that human life begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinct individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
• “Restricting abortion does NOT step all over a woman’s rights and freedoms.” The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and creates pain for the mother, not to mention others involved. Furthermore, responsible societies must restrict choices that would harm others.
• “The early stages of human life ARE as meaningful as any other stage.” But if we listened to abortionists who based human value on size and intelligence, then we’d also have to dehumanize other members of society: dwarfs, basketball centers, the obese, the mentally handicapped. When we dehumanize the beginning of life, we dehumanize the end of it as well.
• “Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted.” A pregnancy may be “unwanted,” but there is no such thing as an unwanted child. The list of couples wanting to adopt runs into the millions. And if we exclude all human beings who we believe are “unwanted,” then any segment of society is at risk: AIDS victims, the elderly, derelicts, etc.
Finally, believing in the Bible as the ultimate standard is circular because it requires faith -- but so does every other worldview. If you believe that human reason is the ultimate standard for truth, then you have nothing to back up that claim ultimately but human reason. If you believe that truth is relative, then you run the risk of letting someone else define truth in his own way, and interfere with your concept. (A psychotic killer's definition of truth could allow him to cut you to shreds.) If you are of this belief, then you shouldn't even posting because nothing you say would make you right.
All worldviews are circular. But only one has been consistently proven right again and again and again. That is the acknowledgement of the Word of God, the Bible, as the ultimate authority and source of truth. History has, and the future will, continually prove Scriptural principles relevant, valid, and unchangeable.
The Parliament of Tiyribi has debated much about the issues of abortion and the death penalty. Abortion has ben legally banned in Tiyribi and the death penalty legally supported. However, the government of Tiyribi cannto in clear conscience support this propsal. The government of Tiyribi suggests that the "Sanctity of Life" proposal be changed to protect the civil rights and freedoms of born human beings. Separate proposals should be made against abortion. The government of Tiyribi, while supporting the idea that the death penalty should be personal states' opinions, thinks it a slight discrepancy that the death penalty is not abolished while abortion is. Again, Tiyribi would like to repeat that the government has the same stances as that of the government of Dover. However, the government of Tiyribi feels that separate, exact proposals dealing with the numerous different issues presented by the "Sanctity of Life" proposal would be much more effective.
From the Office of Her Grace
Duchess Irleina Ivenaitorkstojakovic
Grand Duchy of Tiyribi
As a nation which allows the enlightened and merciful practice of euthanasia to be practiced upon the request of a terminally ill patient competent to make the decision, and as a nation which has repeatedly stood for the dual principles of national sovereignty and self-determination, and a nation which has disposed of the childish and antiquated notion of "God" and does not consider the 4000 year old rantings of sun-crazed Palestinian nomads to be a viable basis for national policy, the Commonwealth of Tarbonesis wholeheartedly condemns this proposal as nothing more than a backdoor attempt to force Evangelical Christian theocratic values upon the rest of the world.
Q. Trajan Melchiore,
Chairman, National Unity Party of Tarbonesis Committee on Foreign Affairs
Catalanta Bonfante,
Chairman, National Unity Party of Tarbonesis Committee on Human Resources
I find this proposal offensive because it implicitly condemns abortion but the author does not even have the guts to say what the topic at hand is. You can't just say "outlaw abortion" --- you have to pussyfoot around the topic and trick people into some ridiculous notion "sanctity of life."
This also has implications for stem cell research, organ cloning, and innumerable items that are extremely beneficial medically.
One doctor said to another, “I would like your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father has syphilis. The mother has tuberculosis. Of their first four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?” “I would have ended the pregnancy,” the second doctor said.
“Then you would have murdered Beethoven.”
It’s a spine-chilling prospect, isn’t it? Imagine the loss to humanity had Beethoven been aborted. Now think about the millions of children who never make it into this world because of a woman’s so-called “choice.” What about the child’s right to live?
Bottom line: Each life cut short by abortion is a serious loss to humanity because every human life is sacred.
“A fetus is NOT just another part of a woman’s body.” A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body. The unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s. Some of them are male, while their moms are female.
• “An unborn human is NOT just a blob of tissue.” From the moment of conception the unborn is what it is—a unique, LIVING human being. At 6 weeks you can detect a beating heart. At 12 weeks, eyes and hands can be observed.
• “A fetus is NOT just a blueprint or a ‘potential human.’ ” A fetus is a person at a particular stage of development—as is a toddler or an adolescent. The fact is, something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger.
• “Life does NOT begin at birth.” Science has shown us that human life begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinct individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.
• “Restricting abortion does NOT step all over a woman’s rights and freedoms.” The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and creates pain for the mother, not to mention others involved. Furthermore, responsible societies must restrict choices that would harm others.
• “The early stages of human life ARE as meaningful as any other stage.” But if we listened to abortionists who based human value on size and intelligence, then we’d also have to dehumanize other members of society: dwarfs, basketball centers, the obese, the mentally handicapped. When we dehumanize the beginning of life, we dehumanize the end of it as well.
• “Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted.” A pregnancy may be “unwanted,” but there is no such thing as an unwanted child. The list of couples wanting to adopt runs into the millions. And if we exclude all human beings who we believe are “unwanted,” then any segment of society is at risk: AIDS victims, the elderly, derelicts, etc.
Finally, believing in the Bible as the ultimate standard is circular because it requires faith -- but so does every other worldview. If you believe that human reason is the ultimate standard for truth, then you have nothing to back up that claim ultimately but human reason. If you believe that truth is relative, then you run the risk of letting someone else define truth in his own way, and interfere with your concept. (A psychotic killer's definition of truth could allow him to cut you to shreds.) If you are of this belief, then you shouldn't even posting because nothing you say would make you right.
All worldviews are circular. But only one has been consistently proven right again and again and again. That is the acknowledgement of the Word of God, the Bible, as the ultimate authority and source of truth. History has, and the future will, continually prove Scriptural principles relevant, valid, and unchangeable.
Concerning your anecdote about Beethoven, it is completely irrelevant. As is natural with the causation, someone else would have acquired and retained the same place in history. As is consistent with history, every age has its dictators and its geniuses.
There is a clear difference between teenagers, toddlers, and fetuses. Fetuses cannot exist independently outside of the womb. Therefore, the comparison is logically incomparable. As I said before, every situation is unique. For some, abortion must remain an option.
As for uniqueness, at 41 days a human fetus is no different from that of an elephant or a pig. This means, I could show you a fetus of each type, and barring chemical testing you'd have no way to tell the difference.
Life may not begin at birth, but constitutional rights do not apply until birth.
"When we dehumanize the beginning of life, we dehumanize the end of it as well." That is a baseless assumption, and a logical fallacy.
The one-time choice of abortion is never one that is taken lightly. It is the conservative politicians who perpetuate the myth that it is a choice taken lightly.
“Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted.” A pregnancy may be “unwanted,” but there is no such thing as an unwanted child." That too, is your only your opinion. In addition, it is a baseless idealistic assumption. I'm sure if you thought for a millisecond, you could find a life somewhere that you feel to be without value. Also, in many situations, the "value" of the human life is not important in comparison to the needs of the mother, who herself is devalued by comparison to the fetus. This, in my opinion, is a double standard.
**Finally, believing in the <insert your favorite religious text here> as the ultimate standard is circular because it requires faith -- but so does every other worldview. If you believe that human reason is the ultimate standard for truth, then you have nothing to back up that claim ultimately but human reason. If you believe that truth is relative, then you run the risk of letting someone else define truth in his own way, and interfere with your concept. (A psychotic killer's definition of truth could allow him to cut you to shreds.) If you are of this belief, then you shouldn't even posting because nothing you say would make you right.**
Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user. Let people think for themselves and *gasp* they may actually disagree with you! They who let their religion do their thinking for them are contemptible and a disgrace to the human intellect.
<smirk>
Dover, is abortion allowed if going through with the pregnancy would cause the death of the mother _and_ the child? Surely the State won't say that it should allow two people to die, instead of one? Also, if you say that babies are human beings at the moment of conception, explain to me how much different we are in the first week of like from a gorilla.
The Empire of Vasey will leave the UN before implementing such a foolish act. Abortion will never be limited by the state and this could have implications for my scientists work in the field of human cloning.
Severina wishes to protest at the apparent underhand aim of this proposal, which appears to be to ban abortion.
Which nation wants to be seen to reject a &#8220;Right To Life&#8221;, after all surely that&#8217;s what we all want? Those who speak against this proposal risk being seen in a very dark light when headlines appear saying things like &#8220;Severina rejects right to life!&#8221;.
Severina supports a &#8220;Right to life&#8221; however it does not support any movement by the UN to ban abortion. The Government does not accept that &#8220;life&#8221; begins at the moment of conception and as such does not extend any &#8220;Right to life&#8221; to cover a fertilised human egg.
If the anti-abortionists have such a good and moral case let them argue their cause with a direct &#8220;Ban abortion&#8221; or &#8220;Life begins at conception&#8221; proposal rather than trying to obtain a ban through a back door technique.
The Severinian ambassador to the UN.
The Commonwealth of Spough rejects this (new?) twist on the sneak-in-a-ban-on-abortion proposal as an archaic notion more appropriate for pre-civilized times.
Spough finds it sad that you don't feel you can be open about your true intention (ban abortion) and chose to couch it in vague rhetoric.
Instead of trying to slide it in with other, more realistic and pressing issues, you should have created a specific abortion proposal.
Once again, Spough would support a ban on assassination and capital punishment/the death penalty, but not in a proposal phrased such as this.
The Commonwealth of Spough rejects this (new?) twist on the sneak-in-a-ban-on-abortion proposal as an archaic notion more appropriate for pre-civilized times.
Spough finds it sad that you don't feel you can be open about your true intention (ban abortion) and chose to couch it in vague rhetoric.
Instead of trying to slide it in with other, more realistic and pressing issues, you should have created a specific abortion proposal.
Once again, Spough would support a ban on assassination and capital punishment/the death penalty, but not in a proposal phrased such as this.
Looking back, as my proposal appears ready to die tomorrow--buried amidst a plethora of other proposals, I think the UN may be collapsing under its own weight. Well, that and the extremely overloaded servers.
Tiyribi, in retrospect, I think you're right. The war for life must be fought incrementally and specifically. I assumed that nations would be level-headed enough to operate on the assumption that anything not mentioned wasn't intended to be mentioned. Stem cell research was left out of the argument simply because it was so broad.
It is my hope and prayer that there would be a conservative, God-fearing movement in the UN. In response to one user's somewhat belligerent comment, abortion wasn't the only issue on the plate. If you reread the proposal, the handicapped, elderly, mentally retarded, the most vulnerable post-natal demographics, are specifically mentioned.
I will be submitting new proposals that will be more specific--I hope that my fellow pro-life delegates will endorse and support them in the forum.
Vasharoivia wrote:
"Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user. Let people think for themselves and *gasp* they may actually disagree with you! They who let their religion do their thinking for them are contemptible and a disgrace to the human intellect."
I never said that people couldn't think for themselves. I certainly do. I was merely saying that everyone has a framework called a worldview within which they see all choices as right or wrong. Mine is constructed by the Bible. Yours, for example, obviously does not believe that the human being is anything more than a fetus till birth, and so anything that suggests contrariwise, you automatically discredit.
"As for uniqueness, at 41 days a human fetus is no different from that of an elephant or a pig. This means, I could show you a fetus of each type, and barring chemical testing you'd have no way to tell the difference."
The difference is, that the elephant or pig would turn into an elephant or pig, with limited intellect. The human fetus would turn into a human being with spiritual, intellectual, and reasoning capabilities. The elephant and pig are creations of God (yes, an assumption, your assumption that they aren't is baseless as well) but do not have anything more than sentient bodies. The human, on the other hand, has a soul, and a spirit, which can commune with God. He/she is created in the image of God, and as such, is entitled to a dignity, awe, and respect no animal could ever touch.
"'When we dehumanize the beginning of life, we dehumanize the end of it as well.' That is a baseless assumption, and a logical fallacy."
No, it isn't. Your comment that a human fetus is no different from a pig or elephant's is frightening. What separates us from the animals, then, as we get older and more mature? Our intellect? Our reason? These alone do not justify existence. If you say that a human at 41 days is no different from a pig at 41 days, then you can't really argue that a human at 41 years has any more value than a pig at 41 years (provided pigs could live that long). Coming out of the uterus and into the world does not magically transform one into a human being with protection from the Constitution. This is wishful thinking.
As for your claim to the compassionate side of things, liberals more often than not will vehemently oppose the surest way there is to prevent pregnancy--abstinence. It's the best way, but you just plain don't want it, because more often than not, you reject the idea of absolute truth and the idea of a God. I believe in both. I believe that they are both self-evident.
Finally, "Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user." No, but it is something that is purely ridiculous. Letting someone define that a gun cannot kill does not make the gun any less lethal. "Defining truth" (translation: changing it to serve your own needs) is an impossibility because truth defines itself. It is self-evident. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that till they pull the trigger.
I will reiterate my previous comment that I see nothing morally wrong with the death penalty, and that that is why it was not included in this bill. I see nothing wrong with banning it--although I wouldn't want to do that in my own nation.
Abortion was obviously the largest and most pressing issue in this bill, although charges of "pussyfooting around the issue" are unfounded, since the words "abortion would be banned" appear in the description of the proposal. Remedial English courses would be obviously be advised for those who didn't catch that the first time.
The most troubling issue raised was that of national sovereignty. Where does national sovereignty end and the universal right of the human being to life begin? I would have to say that anyone who cops out of the abortion argument with the plea for national sovereignty either is (1) cowardly, avoiding the issue of the individual sovereignity of the unborn infant or (2) malicious, harboring their own imperialistic designs on forcing pro-abortion ideology on everyone. Look for the same people calling for national sovereignty against life to appeal for individual sovereignty of the woman to end her child's life in the future. When that argument is eventually made, which I feel it will be, national sovereignty will be derided and diminished by these supposedly nationalistic crusaders.
Thank you all for reading, debating, and commenting. May God bless you all. May we all know the truth, for it will set us free.
Humbly yours,
Hon. John Adams
Minister, Foreign Affairs
Delegate to the United Nations, Alliance of Protestant Nations
Dover
Looking back, as my proposal appears ready to die tomorrow--buried amidst a plethora of other proposals, I think the UN may be collapsing under its own weight. Well, that and the extremely overloaded servers.
Tiyribi, in retrospect, I think you're right. The war for life must be fought incrementally and specifically. I assumed that nations would be level-headed enough to operate on the assumption that anything not mentioned wasn't intended to be mentioned. Stem cell research was left out of the argument simply because it was so broad.
It is my hope and prayer that there would be a conservative, God-fearing movement in the UN. In response to one user's somewhat belligerent comment, abortion wasn't the only issue on the plate. If you reread the proposal, the handicapped, elderly, mentally retarded, the most vulnerable post-natal demographics, are specifically mentioned.
I will be submitting new proposals that will be more specific--I hope that my fellow pro-life delegates will endorse and support them in the forum.
Vasharoivia wrote:
"Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user. Let people think for themselves and *gasp* they may actually disagree with you! They who let their religion do their thinking for them are contemptible and a disgrace to the human intellect."
I never said that people couldn't think for themselves. I certainly do. I was merely saying that everyone has a framework called a worldview within which they see all choices as right or wrong. Mine is constructed by the Bible. Yours, for example, obviously does not believe that the human being is anything more than a fetus till birth, and so anything that suggests contrariwise, you automatically discredit.
"As for uniqueness, at 41 days a human fetus is no different from that of an elephant or a pig. This means, I could show you a fetus of each type, and barring chemical testing you'd have no way to tell the difference."
The difference is, that the elephant or pig would turn into an elephant or pig, with limited intellect. The human fetus would turn into a human being with spiritual, intellectual, and reasoning capabilities. The elephant and pig are creations of God (yes, an assumption, your assumption that they aren't is baseless as well) but do not have anything more than sentient bodies. The human, on the other hand, has a soul, and a spirit, which can commune with God. He/she is created in the image of God, and as such, is entitled to a dignity, awe, and respect no animal could ever touch.
"'When we dehumanize the beginning of life, we dehumanize the end of it as well.' That is a baseless assumption, and a logical fallacy."
No, it isn't. Your comment that a human fetus is no different from a pig or elephant's is frightening. What separates us from the animals, then, as we get older and more mature? Our intellect? Our reason? These alone do not justify existence. If you say that a human at 41 days is no different from a pig at 41 days, then you can't really argue that a human at 41 years has any more value than a pig at 41 years (provided pigs could live that long). Coming out of the uterus and into the world does not magically transform one into a human being with protection from the Constitution. This is wishful thinking.
As for your claim to the compassionate side of things, liberals more often than not will vehemently oppose the surest way there is to prevent pregnancy--abstinence. It's the best way, but you just plain don't want it, because more often than not, you reject the idea of absolute truth and the idea of a God. I believe in both. I believe that they are both self-evident.
Finally, "Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user." No, but it is something that is purely ridiculous. Letting someone define that a gun cannot kill does not make the gun any less lethal. "Defining truth" (translation: changing it to serve your own needs) is an impossibility because truth defines itself. It is self-evident. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that till they pull the trigger.
I will reiterate my previous comment that I see nothing morally wrong with the death penalty, and that that is why it was not included in this bill. I see nothing wrong with banning it--although I wouldn't want to do that in my own nation.
Abortion was obviously the largest and most pressing issue in this bill, although charges of "pussyfooting around the issue" are unfounded, since the words "abortion would be banned" appear in the description of the proposal. Remedial English courses would be obviously be advised for those who didn't catch that the first time.
The most troubling issue raised was that of national sovereignty. Where does national sovereignty end and the universal right of the human being to life begin? I would have to say that anyone who cops out of the abortion argument with the plea for national sovereignty either is (1) cowardly, avoiding the issue of the individual sovereignity of the unborn infant or (2) malicious, harboring their own imperialistic designs on forcing pro-abortion ideology on everyone. Look for the same people calling for national sovereignty against life to appeal for individual sovereignty of the woman to end her child's life in the future. When that argument is eventually made, which I feel it will be, national sovereignty will be derided and diminished by these supposedly nationalistic crusaders.
Thank you all for reading, debating, and commenting. May God bless you all. May we all know the truth, for it will set us free.
Humbly yours,
Hon. John Adams
Minister, Foreign Affairs
Delegate to the United Nations, Alliance of Protestant Nations
Dover
Looking back, as my proposal appears ready to die tomorrow--buried amidst a plethora of other proposals, I think the UN may be collapsing under its own weight. Well, that and the extremely overloaded servers.
Tiyribi, in retrospect, I think you're right. The war for life must be fought incrementally and specifically. I assumed that nations would be level-headed enough to operate on the assumption that anything not mentioned wasn't intended to be mentioned. Stem cell research was left out of the argument simply because it was so broad.
It is my hope and prayer that there would be a conservative, God-fearing movement in the UN. In response to one user's somewhat belligerent comment, abortion wasn't the only issue on the plate. If you reread the proposal, the handicapped, elderly, mentally retarded, the most vulnerable post-natal demographics, are specifically mentioned.
I will be submitting new proposals that will be more specific--I hope that my fellow pro-life delegates will endorse and support them in the forum.
Vasharoivia wrote:
"Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user. Let people think for themselves and *gasp* they may actually disagree with you! They who let their religion do their thinking for them are contemptible and a disgrace to the human intellect."
I never said that people couldn't think for themselves. I certainly do. I was merely saying that everyone has a framework called a worldview within which they see all choices as right or wrong. Mine is constructed by the Bible. Yours, for example, obviously does not believe that the human being is anything more than a fetus till birth, and so anything that suggests contrariwise, you automatically discredit.
"As for uniqueness, at 41 days a human fetus is no different from that of an elephant or a pig. This means, I could show you a fetus of each type, and barring chemical testing you'd have no way to tell the difference."
The difference is, that the elephant or pig would turn into an elephant or pig, with limited intellect. The human fetus would turn into a human being with spiritual, intellectual, and reasoning capabilities. The elephant and pig are creations of God (yes, an assumption, your assumption that they aren't is baseless as well) but do not have anything more than sentient bodies. The human, on the other hand, has a soul, and a spirit, which can commune with God. He/she is created in the image of God, and as such, is entitled to a dignity, awe, and respect no animal could ever touch.
"'When we dehumanize the beginning of life, we dehumanize the end of it as well.' That is a baseless assumption, and a logical fallacy."
No, it isn't. Your comment that a human fetus is no different from a pig or elephant's is frightening. What separates us from the animals, then, as we get older and more mature? Our intellect? Our reason? These alone do not justify existence. If you say that a human at 41 days is no different from a pig at 41 days, then you can't really argue that a human at 41 years has any more value than a pig at 41 years (provided pigs could live that long). Coming out of the uterus and into the world does not magically transform one into a human being with protection from the Constitution. This is wishful thinking.
As for your claim to the compassionate side of things, liberals more often than not will vehemently oppose the surest way there is to prevent pregnancy--abstinence. It's the best way, but you just plain don't want it, because more often than not, you reject the idea of absolute truth and the idea of a God. I believe in both. I believe that they are both self-evident.
Finally, "Letting someone define truth for themselves is definitely something of which we should be deathly afraid, Mr. Slippery Slope fallacy user." No, but it is something that is purely ridiculous. Letting someone define that a gun cannot kill does not make the gun any less lethal. "Defining truth" (translation: changing it to serve your own needs) is an impossibility because truth defines itself. It is self-evident. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that till they pull the trigger.
I will reiterate my previous comment that I see nothing morally wrong with the death penalty, and that that is why it was not included in this bill. I see nothing wrong with banning it--although I wouldn't want to do that in my own nation.
Abortion was obviously the largest and most pressing issue in this bill, although charges of "pussyfooting around the issue" are unfounded, since the words "abortion would be banned" appear in the description of the proposal. Remedial English courses would be obviously be advised for those who didn't catch that the first time.
The most troubling issue raised was that of national sovereignty. Where does national sovereignty end and the universal right of the human being to life begin? I would have to say that anyone who cops out of the abortion argument with the plea for national sovereignty either is (1) cowardly, avoiding the issue of the individual sovereignity of the unborn infant or (2) malicious, harboring their own imperialistic designs on forcing pro-abortion ideology on everyone. Look for the same people calling for national sovereignty against life to appeal for individual sovereignty of the woman to end her child's life in the future. When that argument is eventually made, which I feel it will be, national sovereignty will be derided and diminished by these supposedly nationalistic crusaders.
Thank you all for reading, debating, and commenting. May God bless you all. May we all know the truth, for it will set us free.
Humbly yours,
Hon. John Adams
Minister, Foreign Affairs
Delegate to the United Nations, Alliance of Protestant Nations
Dover