NationStates Jolt Archive

The Right to Life
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Sanctavia
Description: Whatever the differing religious persuasions of the member nations of the UN are, there must be at least some basic recognition that each man is not a tyrannt over his fellow man, and does not possess a moral power to make the decision of life or death for his neighbor.

This resolution seeks to strengthen the work already accomplished by many member nations in the field of banning murder. This resolution seeks to give a more specific meaning to the right to life of individuals.

Resolution:
All member nations of the UN shall enact laws protecting the right of the individual, citizen or non-citizen, to life. At no time shall it be legal to deprive a person of their life against their own will except as a just sentence for a crime (which determination is to be left to the individual nation), and self-defense whether on the individual level or in the prosecution of a just war.

Human life shall thereby be protected from conception to natural death.

Approvals: 1 (Sanctavia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 146 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Feb 16 2004

The Grand Duchy of Sanctavia has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

This bill is highly deserving of approval. Please throw your support behind it, this is a critical step for the advancement of human rights.

We oppose this proposal on the grounds that human life begins at birth, not conception.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

If a baby in the womb isn't human, what do you think it is?

As well, our nation must refruse support, as we believe (as do many religions) that life begins at birth,not at conception.

We do oppose murder and war,needless to say, but a woman does have the right to choose whether to carry a pregnency to term or not.

Forcing the woman to do so is legislating morality. We will not support such.

If a baby in the womb isn't human, what do you think it is?

There are four operative words in this response: "What do you think". Since the exact moment of transformation from host-parasite cellular body to human being cannot be PROVEN by any known medical, technical, scientific, ethical, or moral means; it remains entirely a matter of opinion.

As such, we refuse to allow the Frisbeeterian government to become embroiled in this moral argument. The author has attempted to slip an abortion plank quietly into this document, and even within our nation there is great disagreement on this topic. This issue does not belong in the UN, and as Delegate we refuse to Approve this proposal.

Hi, I'm John Marat, the answer is no and never, but hey, thanks for sharing! ^_^

Yes, this underhand attempt to ban abortion under the guise of a perfectly uncontroversial proposal is, well, underhand, and something we will be vigorously opposing. That said, there's a fair chance many will fall for it, given the current trend of simply clicking yes to any vaguely attractive title.

Human life begins when the foetus has complex brain capacity over and above that of most animals (it doesn't necessarily have to be using that brain, it just has to be complex to a human-comparable level. Since we can't know this point for sure, saying first or second trimester is the best solution we have). A ball of stem cells is not a human being, and as many point out, if you're going to say "oh but it has the potential to become one", then you may as well say that every sperm has the potential to become a human. In which case we're really in trouble, because even if ejaculation is reserved for the purposes of conceiving a child, several million sperm die each time and only one makes it to the egg. And if a man never ejaculates, eventually the sperm are broken down so that the material can be re-used in the body, which would also be murder, or at least allowing death by negligence.

If a baby in the womb isn't human, what do you think it is?
Until about 6 months' gestation, it's a parasite - it can't live outside the mother.

I notice you refer to "right to life" and yet allow this to be taken away in certain cases - why is this? Either life is sacred, or it isn't. Incidentally, the way the proposal is worded still allows for abortion - a pregnant woman could well use the "self defense" argument, based on the 'parasite' definition used above.

What this proposal shows up nicely by its inherent contradictions is that the "abortion issue" isn't about right to life, it's about the control of women's bodies.

SC

I am not making an argument from potentiality. I agree that it would be under handed if I were trying to include the protection of a potential life in a ban on murder. There is no contest there. However, the life of the baby at conception is not potential, but actual, and actually human.

Looking at the example of a baby just born (which I should hope that we can all agree is human life) and the baby a minute before birth still in the womb, there is not substantial (having to do with substance, not just significant) change which takes place, thus what it human life after birth, it human life the minute before birth. It is true that the baby in the womb has a much greater level of dependence upon the mother, and is much more capable of surviving on its own after birth (well obviously) but that is an issue of dependency and not one of substantial change.

The question is at what point does the life become human life? When is there a change in the very nature, substance, and essential of the person? There simply isn't a substantial change at anytime. Frankly substances do not change in any situation that I am aware of. A Dog cannot ever change its substance, it can only begin to exist and cease to exist. A dog can never become a "non-dog" and still live. Living things are not capable of substantial change. Thus while you may argue that a group of cells don't resemble physically or in immediate ability what we normally associate with when we say human, that group of living cells is nevertheless still human, not potentially, but actually. As such, it should be protected just as anyother human life, if not more so because it has no chance of protecting itself.

I notice you refer to "right to life" and yet allow this to be taken away in certain cases - why is this? Either life is sacred, or it isn't. Incidentally, the way the proposal is worded still allows for abortion - a pregnant woman could well use the "self defense" argument, based on the 'parasite' definition used above.

Actually, since a child is never, in and of themselves, a direct threat to a mothers life, no, that argument could not be applied, though if you really wanted, I suppose my proposal is open enough to allow for such laws. Of course the presense of the child can pose a threat to a women's life, but that threat is not originating from some act of the child. Self-defense takes place when one party is an agressor, which wouldn't be occuring in this case.

Why do I allow for exceptions in regards the death penalty, self-denfense, and war? While recognizing that people have a right to life, some nations are able to argue that a person's actions are capable of giving moral license to protect oneself from them. Thus while I am not encouraging any of these things in the wording of my proposal, I leave it to the individual states to decide.

My proposal is focused on recognizing such a right to life, and prohibiting it un-justified privation.

I appreciate your position on this emotive topic but I'm afraid we cannot support your proposal because we remain a 'pro-choice' nation. This resolution is worded in such a way that it leaves no possibility to maintain this position. We respect your beliefs but please also respect ours - for more detailed discussion I refer you to one of the numerous abortion threads that have appeared in the forum in the past, one quite recently.

We cannot and will not accept this proposal, I'm afraid.

Best wishes
Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health & Medical Affairs

For your information, Sanctavia, I consider the statement below to be well worth a read. It's not the clearest in presentation but it's plenty of food for thought.

From Roman Inquisition:

"urrrfff. there's a lot that can be said on either side. so, random thought: is an unborn baby under state jurisdiction at all? here's the thing. the state exists to guarantee the life of its citizens [in *normal* circumstances, i mean-- maybe this gets suspended for criminals, soldiers in battle, etc. depending on state law]. now-- the state can guarantee my life because it provides the framework within which i live. i have obligations to the state, and the state has obligations to me, but ultimately i exist *in* the state. directly. i'm there. the state can let me live by letting me work my ass off to earn my own money, or the state can use me as slave labour and provide me with just enough food and water to live. the point is that the state *directly* affects me. there's no buffer. the state can guarantee my life against my would-be killers because it provides the framework for my alternatives.

with an unborn baby it's different. consider, for instance, the case of a child that has already been born, but happens to live in a f----up home where one day its mother just... drowns it in the bathtub. this is a crime. why? because you've taken a life? no. because the state can support this life independently of the mother. the state has institutions, orphanages, foster homes, counselling, concerned relatives, child-support laws, all sorts of things, by which it can guarantee this child's life. the mother is just a default option-- there exist others (albeit for extreme circumstances, but they exist). thus the state can say, "yes, i guarantee the life of this child, because i can keep this child alive." but with an unborn baby, the only way the state can get at the child is through the mother. there are no other options. the state cannot guarantee the child's life unless the mother complies-- or unless the state sets up hi-tech "redemption clinics" where unwanted embryos can get sucked out of the mother and raised in test tubes or something. fundamentally the child doesn't exist in the state-- it exists in the mother. so, while the mother exists in the state-- and you can make up all sorts of rules governing her behaviour-- saying that she should not kill her child is just like saying that she should not, say, smoke weed or whatever-- you *can* make laws like that, and you *can* enforce them, but they're laws on behaviour, *not* a guarantee for a life. because this life is still beyond the reach of the state. it can't be touched, except through the mother."

We do oppose murder and war,needless to say, but a woman does have the right to choose whether to carry a pregnency to term or not.

Forcing the woman to do so is legislating morality. We will not support such.

Respect to Edo for the above.



What this proposal shows up nicely by its inherent contradictions is that the "abortion issue" isn't about right to life, it's about the control of women's bodies

I withold my support from this proposal, not becuse of my views about abortion but simply because this proposal has too wide a scope by attempting to legislate abortion in the same sentace as it does murder. There is a simple difference between abortion and murder, (even if you assume both involve loss of life) abortion is performed in hospital with the full consent of all involved minds. I say minds because there is huge amount of evidence that shows that newborns develop the capacity for consciousness well after birth (in stages between birth and about 8 months(Read Piajet if you want to know more I can refer you to some interesting stuff) This is dragging in a multitude of other complex philosophical and psychological issues I know, but this simple distiction should at least be enough that the two things deserve separate legislation.

Ecopoeia, I am certainly willing to consider differing positions. I do strongly disagree that murder is criminal because the state can support the life on its own. Most law in western civilization in this area is a direct result of the laws passed by Constantine replacing the laws of thepagan Roman Empire with gave supreme power of life our death over children to the Paterfamilias, the Father.

These laws are based on the natural law, that all humans have a right to live on the basis of their human nature. These laws have always been supported as long as a society has had some commitment to Christianity, but still stand as true regardless of religion.

I think we are kind of on the right track but first you need to define life in order to assure that people have the right to it.

I guess that we have a fundamental difference of opinion that is unlikely to be resolved (how many times do I write this?). I'm content to agree to disagree, especially given how reasonably you put across your views.

Best wishes

Ecopoeia, my best wishes to you as well.


I withold my support from this proposal, not becuse of my views about abortion but simply because this proposal has too wide a scope by attempting to legislate abortion in the same sentace as it does murder. There is a simple difference between abortion and murder, (even if you assume both involve loss of life) abortion is performed in hospital with the full consent of all involved minds. I say minds because there is huge amount of evidence that shows that newborns develop the capacity for consciousness well after birth (in stages between birth and about 8 months(Read Piajet if you want to know more I can refer you to some interesting stuff) This is dragging in a multitude of other complex philosophical and psychological issues I know, but this simple distiction should at least be enough that the two things deserve separate legislation.

I am afraid that I don't see the logic behind that objection. Allow me for a moment to take the argument to its logical conclusion. According to you, a baby one day after birth as not developed consciousness yet, and hence the will of the parents is the final decision in what happens to it. Thus, something is ok because all parties agree on it (the child excluded because they don't get an opinion). By your reasoning then, the parents, because they agree, could take their child and slowing roast its flesh over an open flame, burning him to death in the course of 12 hours in great pain, and then eat him, and this would be fine and dandy because the child didn't object.

Do you still hold this position?

It sounds like a good proposal, I hope that it passes.

This proposal would make abortion illegal, therefore I will not support it.
Although (if a woman) I would not have an abortion myself, I feel it is wrong to remove the choice for people to have abortions.

If the proposal was altered to say life will be protected from birth, instead of from conception, I would approve it, as nations who believe that abortions should be illegal can still make laws to enforce these views. As the proposal stands, it forces all nations, wether they agree with abortions or not, to make them illegal.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador