Conscientious objectors should be obliged to make the same sacrifices as conscripted soldiers

Thanks, Brian, for the debate. 1. Pro begins by pointing out that I have stated CO's to be cowards. You'll notice that this is a complete fabrication; nowhere in the debate have I ever said or implied such a thing. This is a completely straw manned argument. What I said in my first point was that Pro's proposition of sending all CO's to fight completely negates the entire point of claiming CO status in the first place. The very reason people do so, I noted, is because they don't want to fight; they have a strong moral or religious objection against it. So, therefore Pro's assertion that we send them to fight is a bad suggestion. Instead of (a) defending that position or (b) making a new one, Pro responds simply by clarifying that CO's have a genuine moral or religious objection to inflicting suffering on their fellow human beings. I completely agree, and that's why Pro's suggestion (and resolution) is bad. Thus this random argument put forth by Pro in the last round is completely useless and does absolutely nothing to defend his position or combat mine. 2. Pro begins his refutation of this point with, "If my opponent is correct in her assertion that an individual has no responsibility to protect his country, then it therefore follows that his country has no responsibility to protect him." First of all, "his country" cannot protect him. His country can be considered (a) a piece of land or (b) a set of ideals, i.e. democracy. Neither land or democracy can protect an individual. Therefore this argument fails on the ground that it does not logically flow. Perhaps what Pro meant by "his country" are the men and women who fight in the name of that land or those ideals. In that case, then yes, I completely stand by that statement -- the men and women who fight in the armed forces have no inherent responsibility to protect anyone else. As I said in the last round, we all have our own opinions and values. It is the perpetuation of your values that is of utmost importance. That is why it is okay to sacrifice your own life for something that you extremely value or believe in; however, it would be a disgrace to your own humanity to die for something you don't. If something meant enough to you, you would die for it. If it doesn't, you shouldn't have to. To continue this point, Pro asks, "So, for example, if a CO's house is bombed by an invading army and catches fire with him still in it, why should firemen risk their lives to save him?" The answer is that they don't have to. However, if they accepted a paid job as a firefighter, then they should fulfill their obligation to do the job that they signed up to do. The obvious difference here is that people choose jobs as firefighters, therefore they choose to risk their lives for other people. Conscientious objectors do the exact opposite. Pro adds, "Furthermore, if CO's don't recognise the law of the land, why should they have any recourse to it?" Well, first of all, conscription is against the law, and not upholding the rights of CO's is against the law. Second, what benefits are CO's receiving? Pro never expanded on this. Third, if the recourse Pro is talking about is military safety and protection, then the answer to that question is quite obvious -- the people who sign up for the military CHOOSE to protect those people; everyone in the country including CO's. If the people fighting didn't want to protect those people, then they wouldn't fight. That is the choice they get to make, and as I said, the perpetuation of their furthermost values are what's important to an individual's livelihood. Finally, regarding Pro's point that military doctors should be required to murder then butcher conscientious objectors for their body parts, I had assumed that my objection to CO's being used for any sacrifice they morally oppose to was to be considered across the board. In other words, not only should CO's not be expected to fight, but they should also not be expected to help in any way (including for their body parts). This is because it's not just the fighting itself (violence) that they object to but the cause itself. For instance, Catholics have a thing called the Just War Theory. There are checkpoints that must be adhered to in order for the Church to deem a war just (morally acceptable). The war in Iraq failed to meet those standards, and the Pope made that clear to Bush [1]. Thus it's not just the fighting itself but the implications and reasoning behind a war that make it unacceptable or against certain religious standards. Therefore one should not be expected or required to contribute in any way - violent or not - especially in a way that infringes upon their right to life and right to perpetuate their own values. Thanks Brian, -- L [1] http://www.americancatholic.org...