NationStates Jolt Archive

Due to the upcoming NS General Election (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442409&page=1&pp=15), some of the nations from the region "Elite Conservative Circuit" have made a party. So here is the NS Conservative Party Manifesto

Manifesto preface:

On coming up with a manifesto, the party have used traditional values to form a political party of true conservatives, with true conservative views. We have taken “old-fashioned” values and made them work in today’s society. We are a prepared and organised party, and one that is ready to work for the people.

Economical Issues:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes in free trade, and no state intervention with personal or commercial monies. We believe that a person’s money belongs to them, and not to the nation as a whole.

2.The NS Conservative Party believe that taxes should be as low as possible, while providing basic services to those who really need them.

3.The NS Conservative Party believes in private property, and personal belongings. We believe that people should not have to share things that they have worked for unless they wish to, we believe that socialism is morally wrong.

4.The NS Conservative Party believe that companies should be privatised and receive no government funding.



Homeland Issues:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes that abortion is wrong and is a practice that should be banned. We believe that it is murder of an unborn baby that has much potential in life, and that the people that perform the operation, should be treated as criminals.

2.The NS Conservative Party believes that euthanasia is morally wrong, and is murder, a human life is being taken away, and we don’t agree with that.

3.Drugs shall be criminalised. Any person with illegal drugs (ie. not medication) will be prosectuted with a fine.

4. Small firearms shall be available to anybody who is over the age of 18 and does not qualify as unfit for ownership.

5. Stem cell research will be allowed for the benefit of human life, however it shall be banned purely for scientific achievement (eg. cloning)

Foreign Relations:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes that we should embrace other cultures and nations, providing they do not oppress its citizens, whether that be physically, emotionally, or economically.

Crime:

1.Any convicted criminal would face harsh jail sentences and convicted murders would face death by lethal injection.

2.All convicted criminals will be forced to work to provide food for themselves and would have to pay for the prison guards, prisoners refusing to do so will face harsher punishment.

3.All suspects would be innocent until proven guilty by the court system.


Above all the NS Conservative Party would provide freedom for all that deserve it and would cut government spending and waste considerably.

Signed:

Blu-Tac (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=blu-tac)
Pascalini (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=pascalini)
Cristia Elite (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=cristia_elite)
CvCInferno (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=cvcinferno)

is this open to editorial suggestions?

i suppose, its not the best we know, but we threw it together in a day, so there'll be few few minor changes here and there. Buts its basically following the conservative views...

Since I'm frequently mislabelled as a conservative, I would like to take this opportunity to condemn the NS Conservative Party on behalf of my 'group,' the Reason Party.

While we're likely to agree on most economic issues, your social platform is incredibly repulsive to me. Outlawing abortion, for example, will serve only to relegate the procedure to back alleys, where it will be performed with a coathanger rather than with proper medical equipment. People who want to fuck and not end up with kids will continue to do so whether you outlaw abortion or not, just to name one example. Almost every social policy you have listed will cause ten problems for every one it comes close to solving.

The Reason Party urges the NS electorate to avoid the Conservative Party like the plague for that very reason.

But I think people would notice if someone was pregnant then the next day she went into work thin again... then the police would find out and they would be locked up...

I suggest the following edits:

Due to the upcoming NS General Election (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442409&page=1&pp=15), some of the nations from the region "Elite Conservative Circuit" have made a party. So here is the NS Conservative Party Manifesto

Manifesto preface:

On coming up with a manifesto, the party have used traditional values to form a political party of true conservatives, with true conservative views. We have taken “old-fashioned” values and made them work in today’s society. We are a prepared and organised party, and one that is ready to work for the people.

Economical Issues:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes in free trade, and minimal intervention with personal or commercial monies. We believe that a person’s money belongs to them, and not to the nation as a whole.

2.The NS Conservative Party believes that the function of government is to provide for the basic infrastructure required to create an economic environment hospitable to the cultivation of wealth. No more, no less.

3.The NS Conservative Party believes in private property, and personal belongings. We believe that socialism is morally wrong.

Homeland Issues:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes that abortion is wrong and is a practice that should be banned. We believe that it is murder of an unborn baby.

2.The NS Conservative Party believes that euthanasia is morally wrong, and is murder.

3.Drugs shall be criminalised.

4. Small firearms shall be available to anybody who is over the age of 18 and does not qualify as unfit for ownership.


Foreign Relations:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes that every culture and nation has the potential to contribute to our own.

Crime:


1. All suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty under due process of the law.

2. Punishment of crimes should be proportionate to the severity of the crimes committed.

3. The penalty of death shall not be outlawed.


Above all the NS Conservative Party would provide freedom for all that deserve it and would cut government spending and waste considerably.

Signed:

Blu-Tac (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=blu-tac)
Pascalini (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=pascalini)


Still needs some work :P just stick to it. :)

But I think people would notice if someone was pregnant then the next day she went into work thin again... then the police would find out and they would be locked up...

I find it strange agreeing with Melkor, but...

A woman can become aware that she's pregnant long before it actually becomes visible. For that matter, that's the time when abortion is legal. By the time it shows, the foetus has become advanced enough that abortion is no longer legal.

So Melkor's point stands. Women will simply have abortions in dangerous, unsanitary conditions, and the authorities will never know about it anyway.

Anyway, we can keep this for when the electoral campaigning begins, I suppose...

While we're likely to agree on most economic issues, your social platform is incredibly repulsive to me. Outlawing abortion, for example, will serve only to relegate the procedure to back alleys, where it will be performed with a coathanger rather than with proper medical equipment. People who want to fuck and not end up with kids will continue to do so whether you outlaw abortion or not, just to name one example. Almost every social policy you have listed will cause ten problems for every one it comes close to solving.

So, apparently, any law that isn't perfectly enforceable shouldn't be a law at all, is that what you're implying, Melkor? An abortion law can't be enforced on all occasions, therefore it shouldn't even be a law?

So why not apply that same ideology to other things? Murder - you can't stop murder; with murder illegal, a person simply has to be more secretive in accomplishing it. But no matter what laws the government makes, it cannot stop a murder, nor guarantee that the murderer will be caught. In Los Angeles alone in the past 5 years, over a hundred murders have gone unsolved.

However, if we legalize murder, there's no longer any risk of injury to bystanders. You don't have to be secretive about it, so you can simply kill the person in plain daylight, as opposed to striking from a distance and endangering the lives of passerbies, or employing a bomb, or any of the other kinds of murder techniques that take out people other than the intentional target.

So essentially, by your logic, because murder crimes can not be perfectly enforced, and because legalizing murder would make the world safer for bystanders, murder should be legal. Correct?

So you say no, that's an infringement on another person's rights. Stealing, rape, and all other perfectly unenforceable crimes that actually affect another person should remain illegal, correct? So, apparently the reason you believe abortion should be legal isn't solely for the safety of the would-be mother, it's also because it's her body, her right, correct?

Then we simply differ on what we consider a person. When does a fetus become a person? I say at conception. You say otherwise. Those are opinions, and you cannot (or, rather, I have never witnessed anyone) back them up factually. Your argument has no factual basis, and we simply differ in opinion. Those who agree with you are free to agree with you; those with us are free to agree with us.

However, I strongly doubt the leadership ability and wisdom to one who would condemn another group solely for holding a differing opinion.

So, apparently, any law that isn't perfectly enforceable shouldn't be a law at all, is that what you're implying, Melkor? An abortion law can't be enforced on all occasions, therefore it shouldn't even be a law?
Pretty much. Same deal with drug laws. I've puffed on a bong while watching a cop issue a traffic ticket across the street. Laws do not generally act as meaningful deterrants for crime, contrary to popular belief. People who are disposed to commit crimes will continue to commit them regardless of how many laws you choose to attach to their actions.

So why not apply that same ideology to other things? Murder - you can't stop murder; with murder illegal, a person simply has to be more secretive in accomplishing it. But no matter what laws the government makes, it cannot stop a murder, nor guarantee that the murderer will be caught. In Los Angeles alone in the past 5 years, over a hundred murders have gone unsolved.
Because murder and abortion are completely seperate, non comparable issues. A fetus has no identity that isn't contingent upon the identity of its host, therefore its termination is not a 'murder.' Murder is and should be illegal for patently obvious reasons, regardless of one's chances of getting away with it. Interestingly enough, you're completely missing my point but I'll play along anyway.




However, if we legalize murder, there's no longer any risk of injury to bystanders. You don't have to be secretive about it, so you can simply kill the person in plain daylight, as opposed to striking from a distance and endangering the lives of passerbies, or employing a bomb, or any of the other kinds of murder techniques that take out people other than the intentional target.
So essentially, by your logic, because murder crimes can not be perfectly enforced, and because legalizing murder would make the world safer for bystanders, murder should be legal. Correct?
Do not patronize me.

So you say no, that's an infringement on another person's rights. Stealing, rape, and all other perfectly unenforceable crimes that actually affect another person should remain illegal, correct? So, apparently the reason you believe abortion should be legal isn't solely for the safety of the would-be mother, it's also because it's her body, her right, correct?
More or less. As I noted above, a fetus is not an independent entity, and murder requires such an entity to actually be termed as such. You cannot murder a developing fetus any more than you could murder a pancreas or a liver. Sure, it has the potential to become a human being, but if you want to get into that area of things, we might as well lock up every dude who whacks off, because his sperm has the same potential. While we're at it, we might want to lock up every woman who's ever had a period too, since those eggs also carry that potential.

Then we simply differ on what we consider a person. When does a fetus become a person? I say at conception. You say otherwise. Those are opinions, and you cannot (or, rather, I have never witnessed anyone) back them up factually. Your argument has no factual basis, and we simply differ in opinion. Those who agree with you are free to agree with you; those with us are free to agree with us.
No factual basis? What? Tell me, if a fetus is a 'person' when it contains only one cell, then why do people say "we have 2 children and one on the way" instead of "we have three children?" If a fetus is a human being, why don't we hold funerals when there's a miscarriage? If a fetus is a person, why don't the parents name it while it's still a zygote?

And no, the people who agree with me would not be free to do so under this rather needlessly totalitarian platform. They would not be free to act upon these opinions, which is a necessity for any nation with the cajones to claim that it is "free." The only way we would be 'free' is if a choice existed. You want to take that choice away. 'Free' my ass.

However, I strongly doubt the leadership ability and wisdom to one who would condemn another group solely for holding a differing opinion.
You should see the look on my face right now. It's really interesting.

Considering that pro-life advocates pretty much make a career out of condemning pro-choice advocates [and vice versa], I would venture to guess you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Oh, and by the way, 'condemn another group solely for holding a differing opinion' is pretty much what [i]all of us are doing when we challenge anyone else's views in the first place.

You're just irritated that I have the balls to admit it.

So, apparently, any law that isn't perfectly enforceable shouldn't be a law at all, is that what you're implying, Melkor? An abortion law can't be enforced on all occasions, therefore it shouldn't even be a law?
It's only logical. If a law would have worse consequences then no law, why pass the law? It doesn't make sense to outlaw something because it makes you feel better that it's illegal if such a law would cause more of the thing that bothers you plus other bad consequences.

So why not apply that same ideology to other things? Murder - you can't stop murder; with murder illegal, a person simply has to be more secretive in accomplishing it. But no matter what laws the government makes, it cannot stop a murder, nor guarantee that the murderer will be caught. In Los Angeles alone in the past 5 years, over a hundred murders have gone unsolved.
Because laws against murder are more effective then laws against abortion. Further, legalizing murder would allow serial killers or psychotic people to simply spray an entire crowd and not stop - many more would die as a result of legalizing murder. If the premise of your argument were correct, I'd agree with it. But guess what? It isn't.

However, if we legalize murder, there's no longer any risk of injury to bystanders. You don't have to be secretive about it, so you can simply kill the person in plain daylight, as opposed to striking from a distance and endangering the lives of passerbies, or employing a bomb, or any of the other kinds of murder techniques that take out people other than the intentional target.
That's above. Many more would die, and bombs would still be used by people who like to kill that way.

So essentially, by your logic, because murder crimes can not be perfectly enforced, and because legalizing murder would make the world safer for bystanders, murder should be legal. Correct?

So you say no, that's an infringement on another person's rights. Stealing, rape, and all other perfectly unenforceable crimes that actually affect another person should remain illegal, correct? So, apparently the reason you believe abortion should be legal isn't solely for the safety of the would-be mother, it's also because it's her body, her right, correct?
If legalizing these things would lead to less of them, then yes. But it wouldn't. So this argument makes patently no sense.

Then we simply differ on what we consider a person. When does a fetus become a person? I say at conception. You say otherwise. Those are opinions, and you cannot (or, rather, I have never witnessed anyone) back them up factually. Your argument has no factual basis, and we simply differ in opinion. Those who agree with you are free to agree with you; those with us are free to agree with us.
Melkor answered this one for me. Fetuses aren't and never were capable of independent life or cognition.

However, I strongly doubt the leadership ability and wisdom to one who would condemn another group solely for holding a differing opinion.
This is silly. He's just saying you're wrong.

Hey Deleuze! Glad you could make it. I love it when we're on the same side of a debate. Lets take em to the cleaners!

It's only logical. If a law would have worse consequences then no law, why pass the law? It doesn't make sense to outlaw something because it makes you feel better that it's illegal if such a law would cause more of the thing that bothers you plus other bad consequences.


Because laws against murder are more effective then laws against abortion. Further, legalizing murder would allow serial killers or psychotic people to simply spray an entire crowd and not stop - many more would die as a result of legalizing murder. If the premise of your argument were correct, I'd agree with it. But guess what? It isn't.


That's above. Many more would die, and bombs would still be used by people who like to kill that way.


If legalizing these things would lead to less of them, then yes. But it wouldn't. So this argument makes patently no sense.


Melkor answered this one for me. Fetuses aren't and never were capable of independent life or cognition.


This is silly. He's just saying you're wrong.
Before I begin let me say, while I consider abortion immoral and unethical for doctors to perform unless the life or health of the mother are at risk, I do not believe it is within the authority nor is it the proper function of our government to make decisions concerning abortion for us. We alll must be free to choose for ourselves.
In what way are laws against murder more effective than laws prohibiting abortion would be? Both have gone on whether legal or illegal. It seems to me that those who would casually undertake either would do so regardless of legality.
More lives would be taken by legalised murder than by abortion? In the US each year there are about one and one quarter million abortions. Each year in the US about 13,000 murders are committed. It seems to me that in order for murder to end as many lives as abortion prevents would take more than legalisation. It might require some sort or mandatory murder.
Has legalisation of abortion lead to less abortions? If you could give some evidence of this Id be grateful.
If fetuses are not capable of independant life, why are we not discussing this from the womb? We were once fetuses. Fetuses grow less dependant on thier mothers as they grow. By your logic it would seem our right to end thier existances would decline, as well. It doesn't, a fetus can be legally aborted up to three months into gestation, no longer, it is a concrete time, similar to the hard and fast idea, by some, that life begins at conception.
I don't mean to critique your ideas specifically as much as to point out hat whether pro-choice or pro-life, there are few facts to support us. We each choose based on our own morals, nothing more.

Because murder and abortion are completely seperate, non comparable issues. A fetus has no identity that isn't contingent upon the identity of its host, therefore its termination is not a 'murder.'

I don't agree with that at all, I believe that a fetus deserves all the rights and pertains to all the laws that adults and children are subject to. And that means to me that abortion is murder. When the parents had sex they were taking the chance that they could end up with a baby, and if history has taught us anything, the "quick and easy" way out isn't always the best. and this is one of those cases.

That fetus eventually turns into a child, and that child has the potential to go far, and taking away its chance is taking away hope for it. It could do great things. And you want to take that away from it, it could be a mother teresa figure and help starving people, it could create a cure for a previously incurable diseas, and that would not only be taking away its hope, it would be taking away the worlds hope. and you only care about two people whom the child would be an "inconvenience" to. Children should be cherished, not slaughtered.

The abortion debate should really be relegated to other threads, this is more about seeing whether this manifesto accurately supports the views of those it claims to support, not us smart people.

One problem I see is your valuation of property rights. Judging by conservative policy it seems to me that you should put in some sort of clause saying the property rights of the rich are more important and can override the property rights of the poor because the rich are more essential to national economic interests.

Since I'm frequently mislabelled as a conservative, I would like to take this opportunity to condemn the NS Conservative Party on behalf of my 'group,' the Reason Party.

While we're likely to agree on most economic issues, your social platform is incredibly repulsive to me. Outlawing abortion, for example, will serve only to relegate the procedure to back alleys, where it will be performed with a coathanger rather than with proper medical equipment. People who want to fuck and not end up with kids will continue to do so whether you outlaw abortion or not, just to name one example. Almost every social policy you have listed will cause ten problems for every one it comes close to solving.

The Reason Party urges the NS electorate to avoid the Conservative Party like the plague for that very reason.

Faulty logic, dear. People always will commit immoral acts, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we should legalize said acts. Crime should be difficult to commit and risky to the perpetrator, then the frequency would most likely diminish and justice would not fail very often in application.

Faulty logic, dear. People always will commit immoral acts, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we should legalize said acts. Crime should be difficult to commit and risky to the perpetrator, then the frequency would most likely diminish and justice would not fail very often in application.

But that doesn't apply when crime is necessary .

It's like in situations of monopoly. Your source of food may be risky and unsafe, but if its the only supermarket in hundreds of miles you'll still go there. If you need an abortion and the only procedures are risky you'll still use those procedures.

By the way, as to the psycopath argument, we do make satisfying their desire for murder safer for such people by letting them join the CIA, play video games, etc.

I don't agree with that at all, I believe that a fetus deserves all the rights and pertains to all the laws that adults and children are subject to. And that means to me that abortion is murder. When the parents had sex they were taking the chance that they could end up with a baby, and if history has taught us anything, the "quick and easy" way out isn't always the best. and this is one of those cases.
So a fetus has the right to free speech? A fetus has the right to open up its own business or apply for a credit card? Nonsense. Rights do not exist without the cognitive capacity to understand and interpret them. This is the reason why animals don't have rights and its also the same reason why my pancreas doesn't have rights. At least, it doesn't have any that aren't immediately contingent upon my rights as a functioning entity.


That fetus eventually turns into a child, and that child has the potential to go far, and taking away its chance is taking away hope for it. It could do great things. And you want to take that away from it, it could be a mother teresa figure and help starving people, it could create a cure for a previously incurable diseas, and that would not only be taking away its hope, it would be taking away the worlds hope. and you only care about two people whom the child would be an "inconvenience" to. Children should be cherished, not slaughtered.
Yeah, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass a-hoppin'. Seriously, this is a ridiculous argument.

Yes, I care about the rights of the parents more because of the three variables in this particular equation, they happen to be the only functioning members of society. They actually happen o have identities of their own and they also happen to actually be contributing to society rather than [i]the potential to contribute to society.

Again, any one of my sperm cells has the 'potential' to cure cancer or initiate world peace. Egg cells purged during a menstrual cycle also have the same potential. Should we lock up masturbators and women too? Do our prisons have enough room for them? I'll give you a hint: the answer has two letters and the last one is an 'O.'

But that doesn't apply when crime is necessary .

It's like in situations of monopoly. Your source of food may be risky and unsafe, but if its the only supermarket in hundreds of miles you'll still go there. If you need an abortion and the only procedures are risky you'll still use those procedures.

By the way, as to the psycopath argument, we do make satisfying their desire for murder safer for such people by letting them join the CIA, play video games, etc.


This is presuming one needs an abortion, which, in nearly every case, is not applicable.

Again, any one of my sperm cells has the 'potential' to cure cancer or initiate world peace. Egg cells purged during a menstrual cycle also have the same potential. Should we lock up masturbators and women too? Do our prisons have enough room for them? I'll give you a hint: the answer has two letters and the last one is an 'O.'

Yes, I do believe masturbation is immoral, the Bible says against it, but I don't think we should lock people up for it, it takes a sperm and an egg to create a baby, I don't masturbate I let nature take its course (thats a nocturnal emmision by the way), but i don't help it along. and no, we shouldn't lock up women because the monthly cycle is natural, masturbation is not.

Yes, I do believe masturbation is immoral, the Bible says against it,
The Bible says a lot of things. Several centuries ago, eating meat on a Friday was a hellworthy tresspass. You can't possibly tell me that you derive your moral code from the entirety of the Bible. Techincally we're not even supposed to go to the bathroom.

but I don't think we should lock people up for it, it takes a sperm and an egg to create a baby, I don't masturbate I let nature take its course (thats a nocturnal emmision by the way), but i don't help it along. and no, we shouldn't lock up women because the monthly cycle is natural, masturbation is not.
I'm glad to see you have this much sense, but you can't possibly avoid the fact that both the sperm and the egg have the potential to become a human being. If your justification for outlawing abortion is that it negates this potential, so too do masturbation and menstrual cycles fit the bill. This is, at best, an inconsistent application of the principles to which you claim to adhere.

Look, I like life too. Life is nice. If I knew someone who were pregnant, I would never advise an abortion; I will argue for adoption every time. I'm not saying we should encourage people to have abortions, and I'm certainly not saying we should allow late term abortions either. However, while I'm prepared to argue for life with those whom I know, I cannot possibly pretend to know what's best for complete strangers. Outlawing the practice will, as I mentioned earlier, restrict the process of abortion to back alleys and crackhouses where they will be performed with coathangers as opposed to proper medical equipment used by licensed professionals. Nobody wants to have an abortion; women don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "gee, I hope I get knocked up today so I can go kill my fetus."

Economical Issues:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes in free trade, and no state intervention with personal or commercial monies. We believe that a person’s money belongs to them, and not to the nation as a whole.

2.The NS Conservative Party believe that taxes should be as low as possible, while providing basic services to those who really need them.

3.The NS Conservative Party believes in private property, and personal belongings. We believe that people should not have to share things that they have worked for unless they wish to, we believe that socialism is morally wrong.

4.The NS Conservative Party believe that companies should be privatised and receive no government funding.

Homeland Issues:

1.The NS Conservative Party believes that abortion is wrong and is a practice that should be banned. We believe that it is murder of an unborn baby that has much potential in life, and that the people that perform the operation, should be treated as criminals.

2.The NS Conservative Party believes that euthanasia is morally wrong, and is murder, a human life is being taken away, and we don’t agree with that.

3.Drugs shall be criminalised. Any person with illegal drugs (ie. not medication) will be prosectuted with a fine.

Sorry, but I find your Economic platform to be utterly inconsistent with your homeland platform, especially on the drugs issue. You don't even justify outlawing drugs.

Thanks for bumping this thread, Swimmingpool: I just noticed something else that's completely ridiculous in Blu's last post to me.

Question for Blu: If masturbation 'isn't natural,' then why do monkeys do it? Monkeys seem to be governed by 'natural' impulses, and as any confused ten year old outside the howler monkey cage will tell you, they diddle themselves just as much as a teenager with a fast internet connection.

Also, if it's not natural, then why does everyone already know how to do it without being shown in a video or textbook? Seems about as natural as sex itself, as far as I'm concerned.

Question for Blu: If masturbation 'isn't natural,' then why do monkeys do it? Monkeys seem to be governed by 'natural' impulses, and as any confused ten year old outside the howler monkey cage will tell you, they diddle themselves just as much as a teenager with a fast internet connection.

Also, if it's not natural, then why does everyone already know how to do it without being shown in a video or textbook? Seems about as natural as sex itself, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree. What is really unnatural is the arbitrary ban of it in the Bible. Blu-tac never explains why masturbation is not natural. He just claims it is (without backing it up) in order to add credibility to his bizarre opposition to it.

Yes, I do believe masturbation is immoral, the Bible says against it

Wait... stop... what has your priest told you that "Genesis 38:9" means?
Oh, no, I hear a cricket outside my window, I better stop masturbating, I fear the apocalypse is imminent...
:rolleyes: :headbang:
:fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap: :fap:

Faulty logic, dear. People always will commit immoral acts, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we should legalize said acts. Crime should be difficult to commit and risky to the perpetrator, then the frequency would most likely diminish and justice would not fail very often in application.
Sorry Neo, I actually didn't notice until just now that this was directed to me. In the spirit of conceding nothing to my moral opponents, I will now answer this. *ahem*

I'm not saying we should legalize everything that people are wont to do, even if it's "immoral," I'm saying it's not immoral at all.

And by the way, if legality had anything to do with it, we probably wouldn't have so many drug users in this country. In fact, last I heard, your average American teenager is more likely to start smoking pot than his Dutch counterpart. Therefore, we should take careful note of just which laws make sense and deserve to be enforced, and which ones are just totally goddamn ridiculous. Most of yours seem to fit squarely within the latter category.

Rights do not exist without the cognitive capacity to understand and interpret them. This is the reason why animals don't have rights and its also the same reason why my pancreas doesn't have rights. At least, it doesn't have any that aren't immediately contingent upon my rights as a functioning entity.


What about a newborn or very young child? What about the developmentally disabled? What about individuals suffering from major ilness or injury (edit: that causes the temporary or permanent loss of cognitive functions)? Cognitive capacity alone is not a suitable trait upon which to base human rights; there are too many human individuals who would be stripped of their rights if such was the case.

What about a newborn or very young child? What about the developmentally disabled? What about individuals suffering from major ilness or injury? Cognitive capacity alone is not a suitable trait upon which to base human rights; there are too many human individuals who would be stripped of their rights if such was the case.
Good point; I'm glad I have the opportunity now to clarify this. By that statment, I meant, in a general sense, that rights are conferred to rational beings; i.e., humans. To date, the most disgusting perversion of the concept of 'rights' has been acheived by detatching the concept from humanity altogether, appearing in the form of 'animal rights.'

In short, you're right. It's sort of a generalization, but one that's precisely as valid as "man has two arms and two legs."

Damn I love this dude.

Good point; I'm glad I have the opportunity now to clarify this. By that statment, I meant, in a general sense, that rights are conferred to rational beings; i.e., humans. To date, the most disgusting perversion of the concept of 'rights' has been acheived by detatching the concept from humanity altogether, appearing in the form of 'animal rights.'


I am still not satisfied with this argument/definition. As I've already said, not all humans are rational; the very young, developmentally disabled, those suffering from certain types of sickness/injury, etc.

As concerns the matter of abortion, the inability of the fetus to immediately engage in cognitive processes is (edit: of no consequence); there are other human beings in the exact same position who nonetheless enjoy the protection of human rights. What remains, however, is the fact that a fetus will eventually be able to engage in cognitive processes, just like a very young child, or a person who recovers from his illness or injury. In fact, the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn child is age and neither can age be a factor in the application of human rights; people who are older or younger than me still enjoy the same rights that I do.

I've thought about this for a very long time, and I keep coming back to the same conclusion: with the exception of life-threatening medical emergency that requires termination of pregnancy in order to save (edit: the life of the mother), there is no rational justification for abortion. (Contrary to the abortion issue that my nation regularly recieves, not even rape justifies abortion. The commission of a crime by A against B does not give B license to instigate force against C, when C is not responsible for the commission of said crime.)

I am still not satisfied with this argument/definition. As I've already said, not all humans are rational; the very young, developmentally disabled, those suffering from certain types of sickness/injury, etc.
Oh for Christ's sake...

Look, it's another generalization, just like some other statements of fact. Aristotle's definition of man as the 'rational animal' has been accepted for thousands of years: that doesn't mean that all people make good decisions. It also doesn't mean that we're all mentally or physically fit.

As concerns the matter of abortion, the inability of the fetus to immediately engage in cognitive processes is irrevelant; there are other human beings in the exact same position who nonetheless enjoy the protection of human rights. What remains, however, is the fact that a fetus will eventually be able to engage in cognitive processes, just like a very young child, or a person who recovers from his illness or injury. In fact, the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn child is age and neither can age be a factor in the application of human rights; people who are older or younger than me still enjoy the same rights that I do.

I thought about this for a very long time, and I keep comming back to the same conclusion: with the exception of life-threatening emergency that requires termination of pregnancy in order to save life, there is no rational justification for abortion. (Contrary to the abortion issue that my nation regularly recieves, not even rape justifies abortion. The commission of a crime by A against B does not give B license to instigate force against C, when C is not responsible for the commission of said crime.)
Fair enough. None of this, however, changes the fact that a fetus doesn't have its own identity: this throws out the window any credibility the "abortion is murder" argument may have ever had.

As I stated earlier, I will argue for adoption over abortion whenever and wherever it becomes a personal issue for me: I happen to like life and I'd prefer, as a point of fact, that it should flourish where possible, and that terminating it without just cause is a pretty irresponsible thing to do. That said, I think taking a hard-line stance against abortion is the rough locigal equivalent of trying to dictate the terms of most other forms of behavior. I, personally, don't like he idea of abortion and would in fact be very unlikely to reccommend it in almost any conceivable case.

This, however, doesn't mean I think that people who do it should be thrown in prison. That doesn't really solve the problem; it's kind of the equivalent of locking the barn door after all the chickens run out. Instead, I would prefer that the people who choose to do it are able to do so under conditions that don't harm them, and the rest of us focus on educational efforts and adoption plans and so forth. We can't tell people to stop fucking before marriage, because nobody will listen [and they shouldn't]. As long as that can't be done, the occasional abortion is probably unavoidable. I would rather we minimize the damage [or potential for damage] to life by allowing the mother to make such a decision without serious averse health effects. If you outlaw it, it will still be done, only in back alleys with discount docs and coathangers instead of in proper medical offices. In a way, it's sort of like drug laws.

Fair enough. None of this, however, changes the fact that a fetus doesn't have its own identity: this throws out the window any credibility the "abortion is murder" argument may have ever had.


Why doesn't a fetus have it's own identity?


We can't tell people to stop fucking before marriage, because nobody will listen [and they shouldn't]. As long as that can't be done, the occasional abortion is probably unavoidable.


The issue of sexual relations outside of marrage is irrevelant; I assume such relations are performed with full, voluntary consent and do not normally involve the termination of life processes.

And of course abortions will still occur if they are illegal. The law cannot stop crime, it can only punish crime. This does not mean, however, that a society should simply sit back and allow crime, of any sort, to happen without challenge.


In a way, it's sort of like drug laws.


Laws that prohibt the mere purchase or possession of drugs are unjustified not because they will never stop the purchase or possession of drugs (again, no law will ever prevent any kind of behavior), but rather because in the case of simple, personal use, no one is being hurt who doesn't want to be hurt. If I sit at home by myself and smoke a joint, the only party involved in or being hurt by my behavior is me, thus there is no rational justification to try and stop or punish me. If, however, in an impared state, I cause a motor vehicle accident where someone else is hurt or killed, I am responsible for that injury or death, and the other parties involved are justified in seeking my punishment. It seems to me that the principle would be the same in the case of abortion, as the act of abortion requires at least two parties: the one aborting, and the one being aborted.

Why doesn't a fetus have it's own identity?
Because it can't exist without the host. I guess, technically speaking, it has identity in the same sense as my organs have identity: you can point to my lungs and call them "lungs" or you can point to my toenail and call it a "toenail," but in any of these instances the identity of the thing being pointed at is directly contingent upon my identity, but a fetus doesn't have its own independent boundaries as a self-sufficient, functioning entity.

The issue of sexual relations outside of marrage is irrevelant; I assume such relations are performed with full, voluntary consent and do not normally involve the termination of life processes.
True enough, I suppose, but the broader implication of my statement is that it's sort of ridiculous to suggest that no one should fuck until they're ready to have a kid, which is a common conservative viewpoint. In this case, I wasn't so much making a jab at your line of thinking as I was making a jab at theirs.

And of course abortions will still occur if they are illegal. The law cannot stop crime, it can only punish crime. This does not mean, however, that a society should simply sit back and allow crime, of any sort, to happen without challenge.
Then I suppose it boils down to whether you deem the termination of an entity that is very technically still more or less a parasite as a crime. Abortion might be an ill-advised course of action, but that doesn't make it a crime in my book. People should be just as free to fuck things up as they should be to get things right, provided it doesn't harm anyone else. And, by "anyone else" I mean an entity with rationally defined boundaries that aren't completely contingent on someone else's. A fetus doesn't qualify in my book.


Laws that prohibt the mere purchase or possession of drugs are unjustified not because they will never stop the purchase or possession of drugs (again, no law will ever prevent any kind of behavior), but rather because in the case of simple, personal use, no one is being hurt who doesn't want to be hurt. If I sit at home by myself and smoke a joint, the only party involved in or being hurt by my behavior is me, thus there is no rational justification to try and stop or punish me. If, however, in an impared state, I cause a motor vehicle accident where someone else is hurt or killed, I am responsible for that injury or death, and the other parties involved are justified in seeking my punishment. It seems to me that the principle would be the same in the case of abortion, as the act of abortion requires at least two parties: the one aborting, and the one being aborted.
But a fetus isn't even self aware: I mean Christ how much do we want to pick this issue apart? Like I said to Blu, if the justification for outlawing abortion is that it terminates the possibility for sentience, why shouldn't I be thrown in state prison for wasting my sperm cells? Don't they have the same potential?

In understand and sympathise with a lot of your points, but if we want to start getting our panties in a knot over wasted probabilities, we'll never get anything else done. That said, abortion really isn't my cup of tea since I don't have a uterus and I won't be making any decisions of this nature. Abortion might not be a rational course of action, but that in and of itself does not justify its criminalization. If we wanted to lock up everyone who's made a bad decision, we might as well divert all of our budget to increasing prison space in order to lock up folks who decided to watch Titanic. It's just lunacy.

Because it can't exist without the host. I guess, technically speaking, it has identity in the same sense as my organs have identity: you can point to my lungs and call them "lungs" or you can point to my toenail and call it a "toenail," but in any of these instances the identity of the thing being pointed at is directly contingent upon my identity, but a fetus doesn't have its own independent boundaries as a self-sufficient, functioning entity.


An infant or very young child cannot exist without a caregiver either.

While it is true that a fetus is physically attached to the mother while in womb, this attachment does not make the fetus part of the mother's body. In fact, the the placenta is essentially a barrier between the mother and fetus that allows the passage of oxygen and nutrients, but otherwise keeps them seperated. And unlike the mother's lungs or toenails, the fetus possesses it's own set of DNA and, again unlike lungs or toenails, fetuses eventually seperate from their mothers and become individual entites. The comparison to individual internal organs is therefore invalid.

The only thing that changes with birth is the method of delivery of nutrients and oxygen. The dependency still exists, however, and this dependency does not justify the termination of a fetus anymore than it justifies the termination of a newborn child.


Then I suppose it boils down to whether you deem the termination of an entity that is very technically still more or less a parasite as a crime.


Pregnancy is the natural means and process of the continuance of the species, not parasitism. It is certainly true that ill health effects can occur in the process of pregnancy, but these ill health effects are not a necessary part of making pregnancy work.


Like I said to Blu, if the justification for outlawing abortion is that it terminates the possibility for sentience, why shouldn't I be thrown in state prison for wasting my sperm cells? Don't they have the same potential?


No, in fact they do not. The sole purpose of a sperm cell is to deliver genetic material to an ovum. A sperm, by itself, is not a human life and, by itself, has absolutely no potential to become a human life.

Abortion might not be a rational course of action, but that in and of itself does not justify its criminalization. If we wanted to lock up everyone who's made a bad decision, we might as well divert all of our budget to increasing prison space in order to lock up folks who decided to watch Titanic. It's just lunacy.


Locking up "everyone who's made a bad decision" isn't the point.

The point is, that for all the characteristics of a fetus people have thrown at me as a reason why fetuses don't have human rights, I (edit: have found) human beings who are considered to have human rights and who possess the exact same characteristics. This demonstrates to me a massive inconsistency. My goal is to resolve this inconsistency. We can deny the very young, the developmentally challenged, or the sick and injured human rights, or we can extend human rights to the fetus. Personally, I do not want to live in the society that chooses the first option, thus I side with extending human rights to the fetus.

An infant or very young child cannot exist without a caregiver either.
Yes it can, just not for very long. There's no conceivable way you can possibly compare the level of dependency required to sustain an unborn fetus with the dependency required by a small child. The difference here is that the more of the burden of survival rests on the child after birth rather than the mother: the baby has to be physically capable of eating, discerning threats to itself, and various other functions of rudimentary cognition in order to ensure its survival. They may not be particularly good at it yet [which is something of an oddity, as most other species are more or less self sufficient within a year or two], but that's of little importance.

While it is true that a fetus is physically attached to the mother while in womb, this attachment does not make the fetus part of the mother's body. In fact, the the placenta is essentially a barrier between the mother and fetus that allows the passage of oxygen and nutrients, but otherwise keeps them seperated. And unlike the mother's lungs or toenails, the fetus possesses it's own set of DNA and, again unlike lungs or toenails, fetuses eventually seperate from their mothers and become individual entites. The comparison to individual internal organs is therefore invalid.
I know what a placenta is, and I know that they have their own DNA, thanks. I'd have stuck solely with the DNA argument, as its more convincing. It's probably time for us to agree to disagree, as I happen to think that the rights of a cognitive, fully functioning entity tend to supercede those of a being that has yet to draw its first breath. Trying to place unborn fetuses on a theorietical equal footing with the rest of us isn't a particularly thrilling idea to me. If you want to deconstruct the issue to the extent which we both have already, where are you prepared to draw the line? If abortion is wrong [and applying your arguments to that effect], then aren't day old zygotes also "human beings?" Should a woman be thrown in solitary and considered for the death penalty for taking Plan B?

The only thing that changes with birth is the method of delivery of nutrients and oxygen. The dependency still exists, however, and this dependency does not justify the termination of a fetus anymore than it justifies the termination of a newborn child.
Point. This is probably the reason why, like I have said a half a dozen times already I don't like abortions either.

Pregnancy is the natural means and process of the continuance of the species, not parasitism. It is certainly true that ill health effects can occur in the process of pregnancy, but these ill health effects are not a necessary part of making pregnancy work.
Careful. That's why I said "very technically."

No, in fact they do not. The sole purpose of a sperm cell is to deliver genetic material to an ovum. A sperm, by itself, is not a human life and, by itself, has absolutely no potential to become a human life.
Aha! Gotcha. A fetus by itself also completely lacks this potential. It needs the mother.

5. Stem cell research will be allowed for the benefit of human life, however it shall be banned purely for scientific achievement (eg. cloning)
Slight issue here nobody's brought up.

You're going to need to research it (i.e. pure scientific advancement) in order to apply it (i.e. the benefit of human life). If your plan is to let other nations research it and then use the technology yourself, you've voluntarily sold out your national interests and part of your economy, and probably still violated your principles.

I support the Conservative Party, and I look forward to forming a coalition to get a majority. I disagree with banning all abortions, but a policy of anti-abortions is a positive one in my opinion. I do not believe any other party is opposed, so I will take NSCP with a grain of salt.

I also believe what animals do, doesn't make it right. I feel that a culture of gratification or act of gratification never helped society or anyone other than if you consider pleasure an end in itself. The idea that it doesn't do any good is at least an admitance of it being neutral at most bad.

Many are blinded by their own urges, and feel those who think any aspect of them are wrong are thus stupid/backwards. To truly contemplate morality and ethics, you must not work in the world of what makes feel good/sounds right. A lot of good ideas are terrible in sounding, and a lot of bad ideas sound great.

I don't agree with that at all, I believe that a fetus deserves all the rights and pertains to all the laws that adults and children are subject to. And that means to me that abortion is murder. When the parents had sex they were taking the chance that they could end up with a baby, and if history has taught us anything, the "quick and easy" way out isn't always the best. and this is one of those cases.

That fetus eventually turns into a child, and that child has the potential to go far, and taking away its chance is taking away hope for it. It could do great things. And you want to take that away from it, it could be a mother teresa figure and help starving people, it could create a cure for a previously incurable diseas, and that would not only be taking away its hope, it would be taking away the worlds hope. and you only care about two people whom the child would be an "inconvenience" to. Children should be cherished, not slaughtered.

How about masturbation, or any sex whatsoever that doesn't have the aim of producing a child? Hundreds of millions of sperm cells that could have potentially become Mother Teresa. I don't see the difference between that and a small bundle of cells that will potentially become a human in nine months.

I mostly agree with you Messerach. Sex cells are as much a producer of life than blood. Spilling blood is obviously not supported by most....I would hope so...

The act of masterbation is like cutting yourself accept w/ psychological damage as opposed to physical damage.

I don't believe government should ban private acts (as in prosecute), but it is wrong and should be thought of by a society as so. Just because I might supporting legalizing private marijuana use, doesn't make it right. Same with cigarettes, various acts amongst people, and cursing.

I don't believe government should ban private acts (as in prosecute), but it is wrong and should be thought of by a society as so. Just because I might supporting legalizing private marijuana use, doesn't make it right. Same with cigarettes, various acts amongst people, and cursing.

But why? How can something personal, which doesn't harm anyone, be wrong? All that you call "private acts". What's your basis for calling them "wrong"?

Ok, is suicide correct? Is getting all obcessed with what to wear a good thing? Is not sleeping good? Is not bathing good? Is being pessimistic to a point of depression a neutral act?

I hope you, Ariddia, are not devoid of any sense of ethics. One can argue on points, but to rule out any private act being wrong doesn't make sense. Also, if an act of two people is considered private. Then the grounds on an act of acceptability are vast (if claiming private=neutral/right).

I am going to assume you are going to define private acts more definitively in your reply, so then I can see where you are coming from. Nonetheless other than there are certain inalienable truths that come from somewhere (I have my ideas, others differ) including the benefit of being a thinking person (to consider right and wrong in all aspects of life, to be always perfecting yourself, helping the world be a better, stabler place), moral relativism (the idea of not discerning good and bad) is unhealthy and primitive.

Doesn't make it right for the gov't to stop you...

Even though the election is over, I wish to join this party.