>The origin of the anti-abortion argument displayed in Catholic theology does not come from a desire to protect a life that is believed to already exist. In fact it originates from the Aristotelian philosophy that the true nature of something is in what it has the potential to be. For example the true nature of an acorn is that it will one day become an oak tree. Hence the true nature of a feotus is that it will one day become a person. Is this a valid argument or do you have a better one?
Category Archives: Human Rights
>Do you think your life has more worth/value than that held by others? If not then what stops us signing a donor card and committing suicide?
>Please don’t take this question as advice. It was on the TV show House and I thought it made a good debate.
> This picture (taken from http://www.fullposter.com)shows the 1998 US embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya. It depicts what we often think of when we think terrorism. But this is something that is going on all around the world, not only targeting the West but many centres of authority around the world.
Some people suggest that few people truly believe terrorists will be granted eternal paradise. They say that if this was true then more people would be doing it and that in fact it is only the young who are fooled. Do you believe this is true? If so then why do those few believe?
And more importantly, if you believed killing others would gain you access into eternal paradise would you do it? If you believed your God wanted you to spread misery would you worship that God?
>The Chagos Islanders numbered more than 2000 people when between 1967 and 1971 they were forcibly removed by the British Government to make way for a joint UK-US military base. Funds were designated to allow rehousing in Mauritius but in reality the people never saw much of the money and were forced to live in slums. Many committed suicide. But those who remain are still refused the right to return.
Since 2000 a series of legal attempts have been made to allow the Chagossians the right to return or at least further compensation. In 2003 and 2004 the High Court repeatedly found in favour of the Chagossians and it was only by Royal Decree that the UK government was able to overturn the decision. In 2007 a new attempt was made, with the courts once more fighting the government. On the 23rd of May 2007 the Court of Appeal said that the methods used to stop Chagos families returning to their homes were “unlawful” and an “abuse of power”. Yet the House Of Lords still vetoed the rights of the Chagossians in 2008.
I find this disgusting. Don’t you?
>So many questions to ask…
What are your thoughts?
>In many countries around the world certain groups of people are barred from voting. In the UK this list includes:
- Those under 18
- Certain prisoners e.g. those serving “intermittent custody” (meaning that they are in prison some days and home on others) can vote if the election falls on a day when they’re at home but not if they’re in prison.
- Hereditary members of the House of Lords
- People convicted of electoral malpractice are banned for five years.
- Those permanently detained in psychiatric hospitals
- Members of the Royal family can vote but do not do so as it would be considered unconstitutional.
Why do I tell you this? The Economist recently published an article asking that we give the vote to prisoners. I disagree. But do you think we should change who can vote in the UK or any country? In some US states anyone who goes to prison loses their votes for life.