NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: The study of Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be banned. Adult stem cell research has been proben over the last twenty plus years to be quite effective. While on the other hand embryonic stem cell research has had no real effects. Some of the problems from embryonic stem cell tests include cancerous tumors in test clients. There are quite a number of cases of restoration of mobility, feeling and even partial paralysis reversal with the use of adult stem cell therapy.
Embryos are living entities. There is currently no scientific evidence that proves embryos do not feel pain. While there is evidence that suggests that the nervous system does not develop during the first few weeks, it comes far short of proving this. Thus, embryonic stem cell research should be banned untill it is proven, without fail, that these living beings are recieving no undue harm that ALL other life enjoys.

Please support this proposal to be taken to the floor for a vote.

Possibly illegal under resolution #2 (Scientific Freedom), will be illegal under resolution #82 (Stem Cell Research Funding).

Description: The people of Genius have long stood for Scientific freedom. By ensuring that peaceful and responsible scientists can research by their own accord, and in any nation they please, technology will move forward, and trade will increase.
This is not an illegal proposal. This fits within the guidelines of this proposal. Embryonic stem cell research has not been proven to be "peaceful and responsible". The proposal if passed as a referendum holds the right to be repealed once there is scientific evidence that this is not a breach of the inherrant rights of a living entity.

I don't see the point in trying to prove that embryos are humans, since adults are humans, too, and you're not complaining about that.

And besides that, you can't feel without a nervous system, it's as simple as that.

When enacted I will propose, or give support, to repeal prop 82 and to replace it with a specific definition of PROVEN adult stem cell research. This is not an attempt to ban all stem cell research, just embryonic untill peaceful and responsible scientist can disprove the proposed.

that, and the fact that there is a Stem Cell Reseach Topic that states, "Don't Start A New One" and I doubt even people who agree with you, want you to represent them

I don't see the point in trying to prove that embryos are humans, since adults are humans, too, and you're not complaining about that.

And besides that, you can't feel without a nervous system, it's as simple as that.

Myotis! That is wildly different!

We're talking about harvesting stem cells from human embryos - thus destroying them.

And we're talking about harvesting stem cells from adults - not destroying them - and it's consensual.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

You are free to try and repeal it.

That will be the (counts) 82nd attempt to repeal. Only one has worked so far.

The Kingsland,

Unfortunately, Vastiva is correct. I hadn't even considered it being illegal but of course it is.

I do not see how it is violating the Stem Cell Research Funding resolution by Nykibo, because the resolution only allows for funding and does not actually make embryonic stem cell research legal. So really it'd just become void.

However, it is violating the Scientific Freedom resolution.

There is not much we can do but repeal it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

that, and the fact that there is a Stem Cell Reseach Topic that states, "Don't Start A New One" and I doubt even people who agree with you, want you to represent them
This is a particular proposal, and does not fall under the broad generalization of "Stem Cell Research". If people do not want to support this, then the proposal will fail. Since you obviously do not support this, I think it quite peculiar that you fell you can speak for the opposing viewpoints side.
Regards

The Armed Republic of Aliste would like to issue the following statement:

The Armed Republic of Aliste is against embryonic stem cell research - but is absolutely for adult stem cell research.

We feel that this proposal, that of 'Ban Embryonic Stem Cell Research' is exactly the kind of proposal we would like to support. Thus - we have approved the proposal.

Regarding the legallity, The Armed Republic of Aliste will allow the U.N. moderators to determine it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

cloning is beneficial to all

The Kingsland,

Unfortunately, Vastiva is correct. I hadn't even considered it being illegal but of course it is.

I do not see how it is violating the Stem Cell Research Funding resolution by Nykibo, because the resolution only allows for funding and does not actually make embryonic stem cell research legal. So really it'd just become void.

However, it is violating the Scientific Freedom resolution.

There is not much we can do but repeal it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The combination of #2 and #82 would make it illegal to illegalize such research.

You might want to attempt to pass a proposal stating that embryos are humans, and due all rights of humans as such.

You might want to attempt to pass a proposal stating that embryos are humans, and due all rights of humans as such.

Vastiva, this may not be such a bad idea!

Perhaps a proposal defining the embryo as a human life, something that both science and religion agrees upon.

I think this is an excellent idea, it will give us something to work with when we request to repeal any resolution in favor of embryonic stem cell research.

Thanks!

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Vastiva,

You seem to know a lot about how proposals work, and whether they are legal or illegal. And even thought you annoy the hell out of me :headbang: - I'd like to know what you think about this proposal.

-------------------------------------------------------

Life Begins At Fertilization

For quite some time it has been debated when human life begins. Religion has long insisted life begins at fertilization. Surprisingly, science agrees that indeed life begins at fertilization. Fertilization being defined as the union of male and female gametes.

It can still be debated whether or not the human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a 'person' as there are several different definitions and many people have their own idea of what exactly defines a person.

This resolution does not define the human embryo as a person and will not discourage future resolutions wishing to define the human embryo as a person or not.

This resolution does however, define a human life as being created when the male and female gametes unite.

-------------------------------------------------------

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Aliste,

Look at the argument between Anti Pharisaism, Pithica, and Garve_n_idle in the General forum thread on abortion. (The one with over one thousand replies if there are several to choose from, just search for comments by AP)

You will like what you see. However, if you do use my idea I would like to be considered a co-author.

Anti Pharisaism,

Would it be possible for you to simply give me a brief run-down of what exactly your idea is?

At the moment my idea is simply to put through a resolution defining life as beginning when the male and female gametes unite.

This will not have any impact of Scientific Freedom, Abortions Rights, or any other resolution.

But what it will do is give us something to work with, something to cite when we are trying to put through repeals of the resolutions.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Vastiva,

You seem to know a lot about how proposals work, and whether they are legal or illegal. And even thought you annoy the hell out of me :headbang: - I'd like to know what you think about this proposal.

-------------------------------------------------------

Life Begins At Fertilization

For quite some time it has been debated when human life begins. Religion has long insisted life begins at fertilization. Surprisingly, science agrees that indeed life begins at fertilization. Fertilization being defined as the union of male and female gametes.

It can still be debated whether or not the human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a 'person' as there are several different definitions and many people have their own idea of what exactly defines a person.

This resolution does not define the human embryo as a person and will not discourage future resolutions wishing to define the human embryo as a person or not.

This resolution does however, define a human life as being created when the male and female gametes unite.

-------------------------------------------------------

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

As written, a miscarriage is murder if "human life" is the definitional point. As in Vastiva, it is "individual human".

So the question becomes - what does this proposal do? As I read it - nothing.

As written, a miscarriage is murder if "human life" is the definitional point. As in Vastiva, it is "individual human".

So the question becomes - what does this proposal do? As I read it - nothing.

Well, the proposal isn't mean to do anything other than define human life as being created when the male and female gametes unite.

How would I be able to imporve the proposal, Vastiva?

As it stands, the proposition doesn't do anything - it says "human life begins here". Ok. You also state it is not a "person".

In other words, your proposal does not call for anything to be done, or not to be done. Its semantics, nothing else.

Propositions should have some sort of effect.

Vastiva,

You seem to know a lot about how proposals work, and whether they are legal or illegal. And even thought you annoy the hell out of me :headbang: - I'd like to know what you think about this proposal.

-------------------------------------------------------

Life Begins At Fertilization

For quite some time it has been debated when human life begins. Religion has long insisted life begins at fertilization. Surprisingly, science agrees that indeed life begins at fertilization. Fertilization being defined as the union of male and female gametes.


I request a source of this information.

I request a source of this information.

Ask and you shall recieve.

http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=67

Ask and you shall recieve.

http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=67


The website itself says that that view is wrong. And besides, I meant something from say, an actual scientist, not a college student.

Life Cycle: those stages of growth and development that lead to a fully functioning organism, as dictated by genetics, to which all of the qualifications for life can be affirmatively applied.

Alive: meeting the qualifications for life during a life cycle.

Classification of a being: dependant upon genetic coding.

Human Being: an organism whose life cycle is controlled by the homo sapien genetic code.

Murder: the unlawful killing of another human being.

Person: Sentient human being capable of thought (to be simple).

etc...

The website itself says that that view is wrong. And besides, I meant something from say, an actual scientist, not a college student.

Take it or leave it. I'm not going to try and convince you that life begins at conception. There are many other, more rational people - who acknowledge life begins at conception.

Take it or leave it. I'm not going to try and convince you that life begins at conception. There are many other, more rational people - who acknowledge life begins at conception.

Agree.

However, whether that life has rights or is owed a duty of care is the difficult question.

However, whether that life has rights or is owed a duty of care is the difficult question.

Agreed. That's where the debate rages. But there should be some sort of resolution that defines life as beginning at fertilization.

The website itself says that that view is wrong.

You might want to reread the article.

As it stands, the proposition doesn't do anything - it says "human life begins here". Ok. You also state it is not a "person".

In other words, your proposal does not call for anything to be done, or not to be done. Its semantics, nothing else.

Propositions should have some sort of effect.

This, from the NS that defined marriage :)

Defining a conceptus as a living human being is not without residual effects. Human Rights and such.

However, if it does not do anything, it should be revised for substance. Otherwise you are just saying, I think this. To which others say, I think that also, or, you're an idiot.

Vastiva still disagrees.

We believe "life" is a continuous process. It is not "created" by conception any more then it is "stopped" by the demise of one individual. We see no experimental point at which one can say precisely "at this particular moment, this life began".

We can, however, state categorically where we consider "this mass of cells is now considered a legal entity".

So we are now confused as to what the member from Aliste is defending. Life in any form? That would make our immune systems illegal. Life which could potentially be a human? That would make a miscarriage a form of murder.

Lacking precision in what is being "defended" and what is therefore being legislated, we must disagree with the proposal as such, as it is meaningless and as such a waste of the UN's time as written.

Take it or leave it. I'm not going to try and convince you that life begins at conception. There are many other, more rational people - who acknowledge life begins at conception.


rational people? The guy says in the opening paragraph that that view is in fact wrong. I believe any rational person would notice that.

EDIT: What the crap? The website you have now is a different one that I looked at before.

And who else believes life begins at conception? I'll tell you who, religious zealots. Just because one (out of hundreds, might I add) religion states birth begins at conception suddenly everyone should believe it.

Originally Posted by Vastiva
As it stands, the proposition doesn't do anything - it says "human life begins here". Ok. You also state it is not a "person".

In other words, your proposal does not call for anything to be done, or not to be done. Its semantics, nothing else.

Propositions should have some sort of effect.

This, from the NS that defined marriage :)

Defining a conceptus as a living human being is not without residual effects. Human Rights and such.

However, if it does not do anything, it should be revised for substance. Otherwise you are just saying, I think this. To which others say, I think that also, or, you're an idiot.

The Definition of Marriage created a condition which (a) defined "marriage" as a civil event; (b) defined that it may not be discriminated against, save with the age of the entities involved; (c) reaffirmed the right of nations to expand their own definition as they saw fit.

These would require law changes in some nations, and as such, the legislation "did something".

This particular piece is an opinion, and gives no rights nor takes any away.
As such, it is meaningless.

We of the United Socialist States of PIcaRDMPCia do not see Stem Cell research as immoral in any way. One is not truly alive until they are born; until then, they are simply undeveloped fetuses. In general, the process clones the fetuses anyway, leaving the original intact and safe. This research is capable of curing so many diseases that to ban it now, now that it has finally been approved, would set back all nations in the world. We will never support this proposal.
-The President of the United Socialist States of PIcaRDMPCia.

So we are now confused as to what the member from Aliste is defending. Life in any form? That would make our immune systems illegal. Life which could potentially be a human? That would make a miscarriage a form of murder.

Vastiva, the proposal specifically talks about human life. Why is it you time and time again try to twist everything?

rational people? The guy says in the opening paragraph that that view is in fact wrong. I believe any rational person would notice that.

Myotis, a quote from the article: "According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted). From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to the environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct life has begun to live inside her."

Ok, Aliste - my answer is "so what?". You define human life as beginning at conception, but it is not a person and has no rights.

Therefore, the proposal does nothing.

Example: Your proposal passes. A Vastivan has an abortion - lets up the stakes and make it a partial birth abortion twenty seconds after final labor has begun.

According to your defintion a "human life without rights" has been removed from being by a "person with rights". This is no different then what is going on now, and as such, doesn't do anything.

Can you see what I'm saying?

Vastiva still disagrees.

We believe "life" is a continuous process. It is not "created" by conception any more then it is "stopped" by the demise of one individual. We see no experimental point at which one can say precisely "at this particular moment, this life began".

We can, however, state categorically where we consider "this mass of cells is now considered a legal entity".

So we are now confused as to what the member from Aliste is defending. Life in any form? That would make our immune systems illegal. Life which could potentially be a human? That would make a miscarriage a form of murder.

Lacking precision in what is being "defended" and what is therefore being legislated, we must disagree with the proposal as such, as it is meaningless and as such a waste of the UN's time as written.

Disagree in part, agree in part.

Disagree because Biological science has spent a great deal of time studying this concept, and has some pretty good guidelines to go by.

Agree that individual nations can decide when legal rights or a duty of care should be applied.

Immune systems would not be illegal. Nor would miscarriages. As such events can be beyond the control of the individual bringing a pregnancy to term.

What could be illegal is intentionally or negligently harming a fetus.

Ok, Aliste - my answer is "so what?". You define human life as beginning at conception, but it is not a person and has no rights.

Therefore, the proposal does nothing.

Example: Your proposal passes. A Vastivan has an abortion - lets up the stakes and make it a partial birth abortion twenty seconds after final labor has begun.

According to your defintion a "human life without rights" has been removed from being by a "person with rights". This is no different then what is going on now, and as such, doesn't do anything.

Can you see what I'm saying?

Well Vastiva,

It's more strategic than anything else. Because this resolution will define life as beginning at conception - it will give us a platform to repeal other resolutions. It will give us something to cite.

Really, that is the only purpose - so all U.N. member nations recognize life begins at conception.

Vastiva,

Should I have the resolution define the preborn child in the third trimester as a person with legal rights?

What do you think would make this proposal better?

Alright, you want to go and change the site on me? Fine, I'll deal.


Myotis, a quote from the article: "According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted). From this moment, the being is highly organized,
No proof of this given.

has the ability to acquire materials and energy,
From food, that's about it.

has the ability to respond to the environment,
Totally, since it's just missing all it's organs, skeletons, and oh yeah, it's brain.

has the ability to adapt,
No proof of this.


and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).
That has absolutely nothing to do with the embryo itself. It's saying that just because my cells are dividing right now, I'm reproducing, which just isn't true, because they are doing just that-dividing, not giving birth.


And since the website itself states that a living organism must be able to do all of those things and an embryo can only do one, I guess it isn't a human life, huh?

Alright, you want to go and change the site on me? Fine, I'll deal.

Myotis, I put the wrong site and immediately changed the site back to the correct one.

I changed it fast enough apparently as you even quoted the correct website in your post.

Proof is given in the article that life begins at conception.

You are arguing science my friend, heh. It's an uphill battle - one that cannot be won.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The Definition of Marriage created a condition which (a) defined "marriage" as a civil event; (b) defined that it may not be discriminated against, save with the age of the entities involved; (c) reaffirmed the right of nations to expand their own definition as they saw fit.

These would require law changes in some nations, and as such, the legislation "did something".

This particular piece is an opinion, and gives no rights nor takes any away.
As such, it is meaningless.

It defined a term in another resolution as a civil joining, the rest was dicta covered by other resolutions. It did not create a system of marriage in UN Member Nations. It is void if a nation has no such civil system.

Now, if aliste gets a resolution that defines when a human is alive, it extends the scope of the human rights resolution, which nations must abide by. No loopholes.

Take it or leave it. I'm not going to try and convince you that life begins at conception. There are many other, more rational people - who acknowledge life begins at conception.

This is a ministry site, not a scientific one. As such, its arguement and conclusions are entirely meaningless insofar as Vastiva is concerned.

Well Vastiva,

It's more strategic than anything else. Because this resolution will define life as beginning at conception - it will give us a platform to repeal other resolutions. It will give us something to cite.

Really, that is the only purpose - so all U.N. member nations recognize life begins at conception.

You are making a common mistake - attempting to create bridging documentation.

Put it all in one document.

Myotis, I put the wrong site and immediately changed the site back to the correct one.

Funny how you put a wrong site name and yet it just happened to be one about the very subject.

I changed it fast enough apparently as you even quoted the correct website in your post.

Hmm, I know this may be foreign to you, but I have a habit of checking sources when they are given to me before I post. Enough time to edit something, yes?

Proof is given in the article that life begins at conception.
Alright, say it.

You are arguing science my friend, heh. It's an uphill battle - one that cannot be won.

And yet you haven't commented on what I rebuttled in the quote about science. Hmmm.....

Vastiva,

Should I have the resolution define the preborn child in the third trimester as a person with legal rights?

What do you think would make this proposal better?

"Better"? Our opinion is that you leave the topic, leave others their choice of "sinning or not" as they see fit, and legislate nothing at all, leaving it entirely to national soverignty.

If you want to make the proposal more "solid", then sure, go for it, add all of that material. Though that would make late-term miscarriages murder in some circumstances, such as a mother who smokes...

It defined a term in another resolution as a civil joining, the rest was dicta covered by other resolutions. It did not create a system of marriage in UN Member Nations. It is void if a nation has no such civil system.

Now, if aliste gets a resolution that defines when a human is alive, it extends the scope of the human rights resolution, which nations must abide by. No loopholes.

If a human is alive but defined as having no rights, then they have no rights, and nothing happens. Huge loophole. The attempt to absolutely protect a mass of cells is - in our opinion - completely short sighted and without merit.

And I am rather surprised, AP, as you are the one who brought up the original loophole that DoM closed - that the right could be stated as "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex", and that "gay marriage" could be defined as "happy marriage".

Don't dodge when you're the source, it does make you look rather silly.

Yes, if there is no civil system, it does nothing. So be it. It does affect those with a civil system, and the world is made better as a result. We'll accept that.

Funny how you put a wrong site name and yet it just happened to be one about the very subject.

Yeah, funny. There's this thing called 'Google' and what it does is you put in some terms for it to search for and then it finds web sites with such subject matter.

Pretty cool idea really. :)

Hmm, I know this may be foreign to you, but I have a habit of checking sources when they are given to me before I post. Enough time to edit something, yes?

Yup, my plan worked perfectly. I switched the website on you so as to try and make you look stupid. Blast! You've seen right through the plan! :rolleyes:

Alright, say it.

It is in the article and in the paragraph I posted. I am not going to go out of my way and keep explaining this to you.

And yet you haven't commented on what I rebuttled in the quote about science. Hmmm.....

Your rebuttle was less than satisfying. It was - how do I put this, really - really - lame. Heh.

Here let me point out a little of your rebuttle...

Your response to, "has the ability to acquire materials and energy," ... "From food, that's about it."

Lmao! Oh, oh, need I say more? (cracking up)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

a quote from the article: "According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at conception, when a sperm unites with an oocyte (life created through cloning excepted). From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to the environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct life has begun to live inside her."

We'll preface this with "We're playing Devils Advocate here".

Is a woman's finger "human life"?
Is a cancer cell - which is DNA identical to the host body - "human life"?

Is a fetus a "distinct human life, separate from the host"? If so, why? And more to the point - how can you tell?

Answers to all, please.

can someone list the arguments for embryonic stem cell research and (someone else, if they want to) the arguments against it? I think it will help everyone in deciding the best choice for a resolution. I may not agree with banning this form of stem cell research, but if I get the facts straight, me and many others will vote to help you pass the resolution or turn it down.

* as a side question, Why are only adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells being mentioned? I think each side can bring a better arguement with "the cord" method.

We'll preface this with "We're playing Devils Advocate here".

Is a woman's finger "human life"?
Is a cancer cell - which is DNA identical to the host body - "human life"?

Is a fetus a "distinct human life, separate from the host"? If so, why? And more to the point - how can you tell?

Answers to all, please.

Vastiva human cells make up that woman's human finger. But all of the human cells together make up the actual human entity.

Also Vastiva, question for you - why is it you suggested to me to propose such an idea and now it's as if you're saying it's completely a bad idea?

Yeah, funny. There's this thing called 'Google' and what it does is you put in some terms for it to search for and then it finds web sites with such subject matter.

Pretty cool idea really. :)

If you say so.



Yup, my plan worked perfectly. I switched the website on you so as to try and make you look stupid. Blast! You've seen right through the plan! :rolleyes:
Hmm, mind pointing out where I said "YOU ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME YOU EVIL, EVIL PERSON!"? All I said was that you could have edited it while I was looking at it and I didn't notice. Glad you read into things like that.



It is in the article and in the paragraph I posted. I am not going to go out of my way and keep explaining this to you.
Sounds like a fancy way of saying you don't know how to explain it at all, but hey, I'll take your word for it and look at the article.



Your rebuttle was less than satisfying. It was - how do I put this, really - really - lame. Heh.

Here let me point out a little of your rebuttle...

Your response to, "has the ability to acquire materials and energy," ... "From food, that's about it."

Lmao! Oh, oh, need I say more? (cracking up)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Alright, you got me, the one point in which I was trying to find a better way to say "This is the only thing that has any sort of actual value and I'm sorry you can't see this.", I'm not good wording things like that. Forgive me.

Myotis,

Rereading my post I realize I came off as a little rude. Sorry about that.

But I just get so frustrated when people such as yourself keep insisting that life does not begin at conception.

Or rather not insisting, but keep questioning whether human life begins at conception.

There is nothing wrong with asking a lot of questions, it should be encouraged even - but you've brought it to a point where it's almost antagonizing.

If a human is alive but defined as having no rights, then they have no rights, and nothing happens. Huge loophole. The attempt to absolutely protect a mass of cells is - in our opinion - completely short sighted and without merit.

And I am rather surprised, AP, as you are the one who brought up the original loophole that DoM closed - that the right could be stated as "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex", and that "gay marriage" could be defined as "happy marriage".

Don't dodge when you're the source, it does make you look rather silly.

Yes, if there is no civil system, it does nothing. So be it. It does affect those with a civil system, and the world is made better as a result. We'll accept that.

UN Human rights apply to all humans of UN member nations. If aliste does as AP outlined then there is no loophole. Discriminating amongst humans is not allowed under the human rights resolution. So, if a fetus is independant of its mother or not is mute, the UN would give it rights, which Vastiva could not infringe upon.

Now, if I am not mistaken, the UN acknolwedges all beings as humans, or only recognizes humans. So, equating other species to humans endows them with all the rights pertaining to humans for purposes of true equality. But I do not really care about this.

Myotis,

Rereading my post I realize I came off as a little rude. Sorry about that.

But I just get so frustrated when people such as yourself keep insisting that life does not begin at conception.

Or rather not insisting, but keep questioning whether human life begins at conception.

There is nothing wrong with asking a lot of questions, it should be encouraged even - but you've brought it to a point where it's almost antagonizing.


Antagonizing? Well maybe because so far you haven't had any worthwhile proof, yeah, I guess I do sound pretty antagonizing, don't I?

I just read all of that site, and no matter what it says about God and the what-not, it states that in a legal case it was ruled that abortion is not killing an innocent person. And since we are debating legality here, and not what God tells us, well, you know what I'm going to say, don't you?

Vastiva human cells make up that woman's human finger. But all of the human cells together make up the actual human entity.

Also Vastiva, question for you - why is it you suggested to me to propose such an idea and now it's as if you're saying it's completely a bad idea?

Our national opinion remains, what you are attempting to do is ill-advised and ultimately silly.

As a UN Member, I am most happy to help you design a proposal. That I may not agree with it is not relevant, because there is a difference between what I like and do not like, and a level of professional courtesy.

Anti Pharisaism,

So do you believe the proposal is worth while or not? I think it's legal, isn't it?

And it would clearly define conception as when life begins.

Vastiva human cells make up that woman's human finger. But all of the human cells together make up the actual human entity.


So therefore, a zygote is made up of cells, and is merely part of the actual human entity - that is to say, the mother - nothing more.

Myotis,

Rereading my post I realize I came off as a little rude. Sorry about that.

But I just get so frustrated when people such as yourself keep insisting that life does not begin at conception.

Or rather not insisting, but keep questioning whether human life begins at conception.

There is nothing wrong with asking a lot of questions, it should be encouraged even - but you've brought it to a point where it's almost antagonizing.

We shall say again - the question is to determine a point of separateness, where the mass of cells ceases being "parasitically involved with the host human" and begins being "a life on its own".

Our belief remains - conception is not such a point, nor is growth. Independant life begins after our test is passed, not before.

So therefore, a zygote is made up of cells, and is merely part of the actual human entity - that is to say, the mother - nothing more.

So the proposal should define the embryo as a seperate entity?

[OOC: I don't think I like this game. It seems as though there is nothing I can do that is right.]

Anti Pharisaism,

So do you believe the proposal is worth while or not? I think it's legal, isn't it?

And it would clearly define conception as when life begins.

What you spend a lifetime building can be destroyed in a day.
Build anyway.

UN Human rights apply to all humans of UN member nations. If aliste does as AP outlined then there is no loophole. Discriminating amongst humans is not allowed under the human rights resolution. So, if a fetus is independant of its mother or not is mute, the UN would give it rights, which Vastiva could not infringe upon.

Now, if I am not mistaken, the UN acknolwedges all beings as humans, or only recognizes humans. So, equating other species to humans endows them with all the rights pertaining to humans for purposes of true equality. But I do not really care about this.


Life Begins At Fertilization

For quite some time it has been debated when human life begins. Religion has long insisted life begins at fertilization. Surprisingly, science agrees that indeed life begins at fertilization. Fertilization being defined as the union of male and female gametes.

It can still be debated whether or not the human zygote, embryo, or fetus is a 'person' as there are several different definitions and many people have their own idea of what exactly defines a person.

This resolution does not define the human embryo as a person and will not discourage future resolutions wishing to define the human embryo as a person or not.

This resolution does however, define a human life as being created when the male and female gametes unite.


Read it and weep.

Either embryos are "people with rights" or they are "human life with no rights".

If this resolution is to be interpreted as you say, then miscarriage is murder. So is abortion. If this makes abortion illegal, it is therefore an illegal proposal as it contravenes the "Abortion Rights" resolution.

Its that simple.

OOC: I really, really don't think I like this game anymore.

There is nothing I can do that is right. (sigh)

Forget it, just forget it.

So the proposal should define the embryo as a seperate entity?

[OOC: I don't think I like this game. It seems as though there is nothing I can do that is right.]

OOC: *reminds you of your "I shall never give up" speech*

You are doing "right", but you are on an issue where not everyone agrees with you - in fact, you are deeply in the minority. And as yet, you have no arguement that does not state "my religious views should be taken as gospel by everyone" in some form. Taking a ministerial page as "proof" was perhaps the worst move yet, due to page bias.

You're very emotionally tied to this, might I suggest stepping back for a time?

OOC: I really, really don't think I like this game anymore.

There is nothing I can do that is right. (sigh)

Forget it, just forget it.


So you're going to give up because you are losing? You must be a riot at parties.

It's not that you can't do anything right, it's that you are getting way too emotionally tied to your views on a game on the internet. Just..calm down.

You're very emotionally tied to this, might I suggest stepping back for a time?

I think she made it pretty clear thus far that it was not a matter of emotions, but common sense. Seeing as this does not affect her life directly, and seeing as she is not religious...

As for the proposals, Aliste, I daresay this (and everything relating to the murder of unborn children) is worthy to fight for...don't give up...I will stand by you when I can. Because when you look at what you can do in this game other than fight for what you believe, it's all redundant environmental resolutions and building your nation to try to become the world's biggest Pizza Delivery Sector.

So you're going to give up because you are losing? You must be a riot at parties.

It's not that I'm losing, as I've mentioned I've debated in front of 100's of people, as a Young Republican, in one of the most liberal states in the United States of America.

But it seems like you can nit-pick and nit-pick and nit-pick and reduce any resolution to rubble.

It's not that I'm losing, as I've mentioned I've debated in front of 100's of people, as a Young Republican, in one of the most liberal states in the United States of America.

But it seems like you can nit-pick and nit-pick and nit-pick and reduce any resolution to rubble.

That's how you argue online. It's part of the inherent ettiquette and not just limited to this forum. Hell, this one is tame and forgiving in that area. You have to understand that formal debate and Internet debate use entirely different rulebooks.

Also, that is how we weed out resolutions we feel to be a disadvantage and help revise those that need it.

I think she made it pretty clear thus far that it was not a matter of emotions, but common sense. Seeing as this does not affect her life directly, and seeing as she is not religious...

As for the proposals, Aliste, I daresay this (and everything relating to the murder of unborn children) is worthy to fight for...don't give up...I will stand by you when I can. Because when you look at what you can do in this game other than fight for what you believe, it's all redundant environmental resolutions and building your nation to try to become the world's biggest Pizza Delivery Sector.

Thanks Dresophila Prime. But this she is actually a he. Heh.

Does the name of my country seem like a girl's name? I thought so too. It may have something to do with it being - in part - a girl's name. Heh.

I couldn't think of a nation name so I combined my name with the name of a friend of mine who is a girl.

It's not that I'm losing, as I've mentioned I've debated in front of 100's of people, as a Young Republican, in one of the most liberal states in the United States of America.

But it seems like you can nit-pick and nit-pick and nit-pick and reduce any resolution to rubble.

You've only proposed one resolution. You can't really base your views off of that.

It's not that I'm losing, as I've mentioned I've debated in front of 100's of people, as a Young Republican, in one of the most liberal states in the United States of America.

But it seems like you can nit-pick and nit-pick and nit-pick and reduce any resolution to rubble.

This is the UN - that's what happens here.

How did I know you were a Republican?

And if you debate well - why do you use strawman and ad hominem attacks and consider them "good debate"?

You've only proposed one resolution. You can't really base your views off of that.

Aliste has proposed one and tried, I think, two repeals. All have been seriously shot down.

In other words, you're right.

And if you debate well - why do you use strawman and ad hominem attacks and consider them "good debate"?

I debate well in person, I cite sources - use examples, and rarely resort to personal attacks.

You know what a touchy issue abortion is, right? And how hard it is to get people to change their minds of on the subject?

I've completely convinced people to become Pro-Life after they have watched me debate the issue.

But this is not real life, this is the fast-moving internet and I cannot keep up with the debate - not being in the minority at least with no one on my side and with everyone posting arguments against me.

I'm feeling dizy. I think I have an inner-ear infection.

Let the debate rage on, I'll - try - and think of something. But I don't think I should put much effort into it as I am sure it will be nit-picked to death and will fall apart via Vastiva.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Read it and weep.

Either embryos are "people with rights" or they are "human life with no rights".

If this resolution is to be interpreted as you say, then miscarriage is murder. So is abortion. If this makes abortion illegal, it is therefore an illegal proposal as it contravenes the "Abortion Rights" resolution.

Its that simple.

If aliste does as AP outlined then there is no loophole.

Now, if Aliste does as AP outlined, the Human Right initiative would overide the Abortion rights initiative, or, place restrictions on when that choice exists. No member nations may interfere with a womens choice when the UN establishes that choice as existing.

The abortion rights resolution exists within the scope of the human rights initiative.

[OOC: I'm going to lay down, not feeling well.]

Anti Pharisaism,

Would you be willing to co-author a proposal with me? Maybe something that will restrict abortion rights or something?

Telegram me later if you get the chance, please.

I don't even know why I bother though - I think I'm just going to forget it.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

OOC:

I debate well in person, I cite sources - use examples, and rarely resort to personal attacks.

And you changed your tactics here why?



You know what a touchy issue abortion is, right? And how hard it is to get people to change their minds of on the subject?

I've completely convinced people to become Pro-Life after they have watched me debate the issue.

Ok.



But this is not real life, this is the fast-moving internet and I cannot keep up with the debate - not being in the minority at least with no one on my side and with everyone posting arguments against me.

Might that be a hint that you're so far in the minority as to have little to no support? This is an international game - and few nations are as repressed and backwards as the United States (Prohibition comes to mind).

Personally, I believe in absolute choice - we are here to learn to choose, and part of that learning is in accepting the results of those choices. That includes allowing others do choose as they choose to, not forcing a view down their throats. Particularly when it has no roots in reality, only in fear.

(Now, THAT should be enough material for you to rally some sort of debate out of. Just be rational, direct, cite, etc. And don't sit there and insult me, it not only won't work, it will undermine your credibility and position all the more.)

Oh yes, and you attempted to say I was "spamming" because I had many replies. That is because I take each answer individually and reply. You might consider it, it keeps the attention focused.

I'm feeling dizy. I think I have an inner-ear infection.

Let the debate rage on, I'll - try - and think of something. But I don't think I should put much effort into it as I am sure it will be nit-picked to death and will fall apart via Vastiva.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

As written, yes. Revised, no.

Keep building.

But this is not real life, this is the fast-moving internet and I cannot keep up with the debate - not being in the minority at least with no one on my side and with everyone posting arguments against me.

I remember a joke about arguing over the internet, but I will not say it because it might offend some...but to those who know what i'm talking about...well you obviously know what i'm talking about and might agree, though not to that extreme.

But yeah...how can you explain your ideas when you are restricted to how fast you type, and you have 20 other people posting full-length articles opposing you in the same redundant way?

teacher: the answer is 3
Student: i got 4
t: that's wrong
#2: how about 5
t: NO
#3: how about 3 and a half
t: that's wrong!
#4: what's the answer again?

It's kind of like that...people come in and out proposing the same ideas because they were too lazy to read the entire thread or they think they have enough momentum that adding in bulljunk that has been disproven is acceptable...

Now, if Aliste does as AP outlined, the Human Right initiative would overide the Abortion rights initiative, or, place restrictions on when that choice exists. No member nations may interfere with a womens choice when the UN establishes that choice as existing.

The abortion rights resolution exists within the scope of the human rights initiative.

The proposal would be illegal, no?

I remember a joke about arguing over the internet, but I will not say it because it might offend some...but to those who know what i'm talking about...well you obviously know what i'm talking about and might agree, though not to that extreme.

But yeah...how can you explain your ideas when you are restricted to how fast you type, and you have 20 other people posting full-length articles opposing you in the same redundant way?

teacher: the answer is 3
Student: i got 4
t: that's wrong
#2: how about 5
t: NO
#3: how about 3 and a half
t: that's wrong!
#4: what's the answer again?

It's kind of like that...people come in and out proposing the same ideas because they were too lazy to read the entire thread or they think they have enough momentum that adding in bulljunk that has been disproven is acceptable...

If they're all providing the same arguement, you might want to consider what they are saying. It is either a common misconception that is going to sink your proposal or you are in the wrong with your information.

BTW- It helps, when giving an example, if you post what question was asked. Sometimes even teachers are wrong.

(Now, THAT should be enough material for you to rally some sort of debate out of. Just be rational, direct, cite, etc. And don't sit there and insult me, it not only won't work, it will undermine your credibility and position all the more.)

I have personally attacked you once - after several personal attacks on your part directed towards me.

Whether you realize it or not, sometimes you come off as very snotty, overbearing, and rude. This is not an attack - just on observation.

Oh yes, and you attempted to say I was "spamming" because I had many replies. That is because I take each answer individually and reply. You might consider it, it keeps the attention focused.

I have been an admin and moderator of other forums - and I know that 'double posting' is very often not allowed as there is an edit button. That's all I was getting at.

I have personally attacked you once - after several personal attacks on your part directed towards me.

Try four times (including the last post) that I have counted.

Whether you realize it or not, sometimes you come off as very snotty, overbearing, and rude. This is not an attack - just on observation.

And this is not a personal attack in what way? If you're just observing, you wouldn't use such words as "snotty" in your post.

And this is not a personal attack in what way? If you're just observing, you wouldn't use such words as "snotty" in your post.

So instead of using words like 'snotty' I should just describe how she is acting in a long sentence. "Not very kind, acting kind of stuck up."

Or I can simply say, 'snotty' - hey what do you know? It works.

The proposal would be illegal, no?

Not as I see it. The resolution outlines women will have a choice, it does not illustrate when and how that choice exists.

The UN can apply the Human Rights Initiative to any or all stages of development, and limit when that choice exists/ require justification that allows the choice. Member Nations have no such capabilities.

So instead of using words like 'snotty' I should just describe how she is acting in a long sentence. "Not very kind, acting kind of stuck up."

Or I can simply say, 'snotty' - hey what do you know? It works.

Actually, "acting in a manner that gives the impression you think you are better than everyone else" is, while long, not a full sentence that still gets the meaning across without being a direct attack, thus helping save you a bit of face. As it is, you are committing a personal attack.

Actually, "acting in a manner that gives the impression you think you are better than everyone else" is, while long, not a full sentence that still gets the meaning across without being a direct attack, thus helping save you a bit of face. As it is, you are committing a personal attack.

But it was not intended as a personal attack.

And I was too lazy to write long descriptive sentences with the same meaning as one word.

So whatever, heh. Just drop it. It's not like it ever concerned you anyways.

But it was not intended as a personal attack.

And I was too lazy to write long descriptive sentences with the same meaning as one word.

So whatever, heh. Just drop it. It's not like it ever concerned you anyways.

Intention is in wording. And it does concern me because I have seen you make the same attack multiple times and, frankly, I find no sign of the attacks slowing down and see them being used at times without provocation.