by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:29 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Flibbleites » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:32 pm
by Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:33 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:35 pm
Flibbleites wrote:Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.
Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
by Flibbleites » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:36 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Flibbleites wrote:Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.
Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.
In an official capacity, which is better?
by Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:37 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Flibbleites wrote:Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.
Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.
Bob Flibble
WA Representative
Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.
In an official capacity, which is better?
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:40 pm
by Darenjo » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:44 pm
by Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:46 pm
Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.
Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
by Kryozerkia » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:50 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:50 pm
Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.
Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
by Darenjo » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:54 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.
Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
Do you have some heretofore hidden prejudice against neanderthals? Is racism rearing its ugly head here in the WA now?
by Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:57 pm
Darenjo wrote:Grays Harbor wrote:
Do you have some heretofore hidden prejudice against neanderthals? Is racism rearing its ugly head here in the WA now?
Haha. No, just, as of now, I've never come across a nation of neanderthals, and I was under the assumption (until reading Christian Democrats' last post), that he wanted this to apply to the RL modern human race.
By all means, if you can think of a nation of neanderthals, please provide me with the name
by Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:58 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.
Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
Homo sapiens is a species
Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies.
I also want this proposal to apply to those oddball nations that have "superhuman" populations ( - dumb nations).
by Darenjon WA Embassy » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:59 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Darenjo wrote:
Haha. No, just, as of now, I've never come across a nation of neanderthals, and I was under the assumption (until reading Christian Democrats' last post), that he wanted this to apply to the RL modern human race.
By all means, if you can think of a nation of neanderthals, please provide me with the name
We had a nation in my region, unfortunately CTE now, that went by the name "Neanderland", and was populated solely by neanderthals.
by Cinistra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:09 pm
Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.
Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:10 pm
Cinistra wrote:Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.
Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
The Homo sapiens neanderthalensis became extinct during the last ice age. As there is only one living species of the genus at present Homo, the term human being should suffice.
by Warzone Codger » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:11 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:12 pm
by Cinistra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:15 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:17 pm
by Cinistra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:22 pm
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:24 pm
by Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:57 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:This proposal is restricted to humans (i.e., Homo sapiens; cf., last provision).
by Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:12 pm
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Ms. Harper does not consider the outright restriction of abortion to be an international issue. Also,Christian Democrats wrote:This proposal is restricted to humans (i.e., Homo sapiens; cf., last provision).
That is a bit like "non-human species can ignore this resolution", which might not satisfy WA proposal rules.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement