Right to Life Caucus Organizing Convention

[Senator Clarence]

Aye

[realisticidealist]

Aye, assuming I can.

[shua]

Aye, assuming I can.

if it passes, then we have standing to vote on it

[Senator Clarence]

Honorary members have same rights as registered ones, so vote on anything you like

[ZuWo]

Aye

[Jayhawker]

Aye

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Am I welcome to join?

[ZuWo]

Am I welcome to join?

More than welcome! As an RPP member, all you have to do to join is to register in the "New Register Thread".

[Insula Dei]

Could I be, like, a honorary member? Or can you only be in one caucus at a time?

[TJ in Wisco]

Could I be, like, a honorary member? Or can you only be in one caucus at a time?

You can only be registered in one caucus at a time, but we'll take anyone who is pro-life and wants to join regardless of offical registration status.

[TJ in Wisco]

The bylaws have been passed with 6 AYES and 0 NAYS.

[Senator Clarence]

Next up is our platform

[TJ in Wisco]

Here’s a rough draft of a platform. It could probably use some more work, though I suspect if we wanted to include more detail it could end up almost infinitely long.

Comments?

Right to Life Caucus Platform

1. Abortion
We hold that abortion is the taking of a human life and work toward both reducing its occurrence and outlawing it. While tighter restrictions are preferable to none, the fact that abortion is the willful taking of a human life should be enshrined in common law as the inhuman practice it is.

We favor laws restricting parental notification, parental consent, making the mother see an ultrasound before having an abortion, and requiring all options to be explained to a mother considering having an abortion. We favor placing restrictions on when in a pregnancy an abortion may occur. Even though these restrictions are fundamentally flawed in compromising the value and definition of human life, they seek to foster an increasing awareness to the life of a human fetus and have some effect in reducing the number of abortions performed.

Since laws against abortion remain without a majority approval nationwide, we seek primarily to enact these policies on the regional level and strive to retain the ability to do so without obstruction from the federal government.

2. Stem Cell Research
While stem cell research offers wide possibilities for the future of medical technology, we cannot use this in such a way as to violate the human life of embryos. We oppose all research techniques that include the destruction of a human embryo, cloning of a human embryo, eugenic attempts to selectively destroy embryos, or the creation of an embryo for harvesting.

Where the destruction of the embryo itself is a violation of human life, conducting stem cell research in general is not. Therefore, we oppose the use of funds to conduct research done from destroyed embryos. We do not seek to ban research from destroyed embryos because the research itself is not an inherent violation of the special nature of human life.

3. Euthenasia
We hold that life has an inherent value and that one does not have the right to forfeit the value of his or her own life, such as in physician-assisted suicide. We work to eliminate the pressures on the elderly to terminate their lives and do not consider suicide a valid medical practice. The social implications of this are a re-affirmation in the value of human life beyond the workforce and into geriatric ages.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I wish to join this caucus.

[TJ in Wisco]

I wish to join this caucus.

Register in the "New Register" thread.

[Senator Clarence]

Bravo on that platform!

[realisticidealist]

Couple of comments. First, I think you spelled euthanasia wrong (or at least, I've never seen it like that). Second, "restricting parental notification" in the second paragraph seems like a typo or poor wording.

Also, I'd love to have something on there about some other issues, like the death penalty, but that might not be the direction people want to go, which is fine. Maybe a reference to cloning?

[ZuWo]

Couple of comments. First, I think you spelled euthanasia wrong (or at least, I've never seen it like that). Second, "restricting parental notification" in the second paragraph seems like a typo or poor wording.

Also, I'd love to have something on there about some other issues, like the death penalty, but that might not be the direction people want to go, which is fine. Maybe a reference to cloning?

I would like to include a passage which condemns the death penalty as I believe the right to life should count for everyone but I understand that this issue is very controversial among conservatives and within the anti-abortion community. That's why it might be difficult to find some common ground on the death penalty.

[Jayhawker]

Couple of comments. First, I think you spelled euthanasia wrong (or at least, I've never seen it like that). Second, "restricting parental notification" in the second paragraph seems like a typo or poor wording.

Also, I'd love to have something on there about some other issues, like the death penalty, but that might not be the direction people want to go, which is fine. Maybe a reference to cloning?

I would like to include a passage which condemns the death penalty as I believe the right to life should count for everyone but I understand that this issue is very controversial among conservatives and within the anti-abortion community. That's why it might be difficult to find some common ground on the death penalty.

FWIW, I agree with this assessment. I personally consider "Right to Life" to be both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty.

[TJ in Wisco]

Is there anyone who thinks we should not include opposition to the death penalty?

[Senator Clarence]

Yes- there is a difference between protecting innocent children and protecting serial killers and traitors...

[ZuWo]

Yes- there is a difference between protecting innocent children and protecting serial killers and traitors...

No one wants to protect serial killers or traitors. I think most if not all of us agree that they should be punished hard for their deeds and spend at least a large part of their life in jail (or be there forever). However, from my personal Christian point of view - and I assume there are other Christians in this caucus who share similar sentiments - it does not seem morally right to deprive any human being of his or her life (cases of self-defence or war situations have to be judged from a different point of view, though). Only God should have the power to give and take life, in my opinion.

But as I said, I see that this issue is controversial among conservatives and I don't want the death penalty to become a wedge issue and destroy our common goal to make abortion inaccessible. That's why I suggest we either hold a vote on how we shall treat the death penalty and then move on or don't tackle this issue at all.

[TJ in Wisco]

Well, capital punishment has already been abolished in Atlasia if that means anything. For some reason, this forum has a particularly strong majority against the death penalty. I'm not exactly sure why that is.

But the question before us is whether or not we ought to include opposition to the death penalty in our bylaws. I would say that, unless we have something awfully close to unanimous consent, we ought not delve into that issue. It's already been outlawed and it's going to stay that way under any circumstances I forsee. I don't think there's an advantage to having this argument, unless our goals transcend beyond Atlasia and into the cold world of real life....

.....but then maybe it's a discussion worth having.

[shua]

Does it make sense to say "We favor restrictions such as parental notification . . ."?

On the death penalty,  to me that is a clear instance of the right to life being violated, especially as it's a matter of life actively being taken away by the government.  But this is an Atlasian caucus, and if we don't want to address it unless it becomes an issue here, that's fine.   

I have my doubts about the issue of physician-assisted suicide, but I'm okay with opposition being a part of the platform in general terms.  I would suggest that "one does not have the right to forfeit the value of his or her own life, such as in physician-assisted suicide" is confusing because it sounds like it's saying that it actually forfeits the value of a life, or it intends to forfeit that value, neither of which is accurate from my perspective.  Does it make sense to replace "forfeit" with "violate"?    Also, we might consider addressing other forms of euthanasia besides assisted suicide.

[A-Bob]

I favor the death penalty personally for serious crimes. However, overall I fit with the rest of the caucus' principles. If this is a wedge issue we could just strike it, not taking a position on it one way or another.