NationStates Jolt Archive

As a member of the United Nations representing the holy empire of Alldiss I seeking to bring unto the table to outlaw partial birth aborton in the United Nations

Partial birth abortion consists of outlawing the right to have an abortion one month after the moment of conception

Is there a motion to second?

As a member of the United Nations representing the holy empire of Alldiss I seeking to bring unto the table to outlaw partial birth aborton in the United Nations

Partial birth abortion consists of outlawing the right to have an abortion one month after the moment of conception

Is there a motion to second?

There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. This is a fake name dreamed up by loonies. The medical procedure you're referring to is rarely performed and then only if, by not performing it, the mother would stand a better-than-50-50 chance of dying in delivery.

Most birth defects fatal to a fetus can't be detected until the 15th week of pregnancy, which it when it's safe to take samples of the amniotic fluid. Therefore, your 'one-month' cutoff date is ridiculous and ill-considered.

Furthermore, the PRK fully supports a woman's right to not have her body interfered with by insane religion-mongers.

In conclusion. Fsck no.




Madly Praying for Moderators,
~Kitsune!™
The All-Purpose Renaissance Fox,
God of Communism,
And the Whacked-Out Mind Behind the People's Republic of Kitsylvania!
Acting Game Moderator for the Amerigo Slave Crisis?
This has been an IC/OOC post.

I wish to make my rejection of the proposal known. Abortion will remain legal here.

I can't believe that in this day and age, this kind of proposal even pops into someone's head.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

A healthy baby should never be aborted.
You have no right to decide that on behalf of a woman.

Dark Ages or what. Sheesh.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Each year, 75 million women have unwanted pregnancies. Each of these women has her own familial relationships, hopes for the future, economic concerns, and health needs. These and other factors will influence her decision either to carry a pregnancy to term or to seek an abortion. Given the complexity of this decision, the only person equipped to make it is the pregnant woman herself. Neither family, nor clergy, nor community, nor government has the capacity to make that decision for her. Source: Safe and legal abortion is a woman's human right (http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_atksafeleg.html)

Dark Ages = no human rights. Modern Ages = at least some human rights, and continuing improvement of.

Just in case you are a Christian, here is a link (http://www.rcrc.org/religion/es8/es8.html) to a very convincing pro-choice Christian argument.

If she doesn't want her baby she can put it up for adoption. They are lots of people who can't have children. You are either male or very young or very ignorant to make that statement. You think pregnancy is something that will not in itself change a woman's life? You think 'giving a baby up for adoption' is a simple thing to choose? You think there will be no physical/financial/moral problems?

Want to propose something useful? Propose better sex education and free contraception to all.

*curses bugs in forum software*

:roll:

I think the problem with this topic is that half the population know they will never ever ever have to worry about getting pregnant...... The reality is that it is purely theoretical to some people and that is the level on which they deal with it. Which doesn't really work, because pregnancy and babies are not theoretical, are they?
Walking around pregnant is not fun even when you WANT the child. It must be hell on earth when you don't.. and that is only considering morning sickness, problems with one's employment, the hassle and expense of maternity clothes and bras...
Then there is the joyous experience of lying in a labour ward too tired to scream while your body feels like it is being ripped open..
Then of course the woman is also likely to finish the pregnancy with stretch marks (a polite word for permanent scarring), an episiotomy (that is when they slash the labia so the birth opening does not tear open to the anus), aching swollen breasts filled with milk, damage to her feet, hips, knees and ankles... well suddenly the theory starts sounding like a load of self-indulgent speculation made by people who rest safe in the knowledge that reality won't be coming home to them, personally.
I have had three children. I love them and I am happy I had them but there is no way on earth I would force anyone to go through pregnancy if they did not want too. Which is my informed opinion *grin*

I wish to make my rejection of the proposal known. Abortion will remain legal here.

The Dictatorship of russanisa agrees

I think it would be jolly good, to have a truly huge antiabortion protest. Gather all nice people who stand for the innocent unborn together in one place and then drop a thermobaric device upon them. That's right, because they are a fucking scourge. What kind of sick, twisted mind feels it has the right to tell someone else how to act, what to do, how to treat their bodies, what they can put in their mouths? This world is blighted by these mean- spirited, dogooder, holier-than-thou fascist scumbags. And yes, most of them are christian, republican, ignorant terminal valves. Jesus would fucking weep, if he were to exist.

There is no way on earth I would force anyone to go through pregnancy if they did not want to.

This just needs to be said again: If they don't want pregnancy then don't have sex. Either that or hope and pray that the pill and the condom work like they should.

Too much irresponsibility in this stupid country. :-\

I think it would be jolly good, to have a truly huge antiabortion protest. Gather all nice people who stand for the innocent unborn together in one place and then drop a thermobaric device upon them. That's right, because they are a f--- scourge. What kind of sick, twisted mind feels it has the right to tell someone else how to act, what to do, how to treat their bodies, what they can put in their mouths? This world is blighted by these mean- spirited, dogooder, holier-than-thou fascist scumbags. And yes, most of them are christian, republican, ignorant terminal valves. Jesus would f--- weep, if he were to exist.

Jesus is weeping for you now, when you speak of these "christian, republican, ignorant terminal valves" that are "mean- spirited, dogooder, holier-than-thou fascist scumbags" aren't you being just as narrow-minded as them?

There is no way on earth I would force anyone to go through pregnancy if they did not want to.

This just needs to be said again: If they don't want pregnancy then don't have sex. Either that or hope and pray that the pill and the condom work like they should.

Too much irresponsibility in this stupid country. :-\

I am so glad that there is one smart person on the website :D

*stepping out of char. for a moment*

All I have to say is this, in real life I am not a very religious person at all, but I fail to see how killing other people just to gratify your own sick and selfish sexual desire without ever having to accept the responsbility of a pregnancy has always seemed wrong to me.

I'm pretty disgusted that in our supposedly "modern and caring" world we have sch a cruel, barbaric, and selfish practice. If one wants to avoid pregnancy then, duh, don't have sex all the time.

Abortion and having tota and ultimate control over your body is fine as long as your not sacrificing others lives as well (like abortion does).

Future generations will look on this practice with disgust.

That's all I really want to say about the matter, I don't want to come here to debate politics.

*also steps out of character*

Speaking from very personal experience, I vote that this absolute piece of shit does not get made into a real binding law on this forum.

Abortion is as much a freedom for men as it is for women. I support the woman's right to choose in all and every form.

You all talk of a woman's right to choose.....in most cases she CHOSE to have sex and should have been aware of the consequences since most public schools today teach sex education in fourth grade. If she didn't know then that's HER OWN STUPID FAULT. Take responsiblity for your actions and deal with the outcome. Oh, and what about the baby? When does his or her opinion get to be heard? Does it matter if the child is handicapped? What's with the whole "aryian race" policy? It sounds to me like your saying that a kid with Down's syndrome or no legs isn't worth the time to be loved or cared for. When it comes to rape it still doesn't give you the right to murder some one because the conception was an accident! "If she doesn't want her baby she can put it up for adoption. They are lots of people who can't have children." Whoever said that is right. Millions of couples are incapable of giving birth and want to adopt. A pregnant woman should be considerate rather than selfish. And of course a pregnancy is going to change a person's life.....like the rape or the willful sex she had won't?

Considerate of what? Not being able to fend for your child while you're still young and unable to get a steady job? Giving up your child to adoption and putting him/her through home after unhappy home? Making that child suffer through abuse and torment because you couldn't provide? Making him wonder what kind of a monster are you that put him/her through a living hell that is my child's life?

No fucking way. I'm still young, and I don't have a well paying job yet, and I would rather my child die while he, or she, or they, are incapable of seeing the horrors of welfare!

I support abortion in all it's forms. It has, and will always be as long as I'm alive, the woman's right to choose whether or not her child should be brought to full bear.

Darwin be damned, Christ be damned. I support abortion.

This just needs to be said again: If they don't want pregnancy then don't have sex. Either that or hope and pray that the pill and the condom work like they should.

The person above and the ultra-ignorant fundamentalist-type who keeps typing 'IT'S HER OWN STUPID FAULT'......are men, right? Men can have sex, laadidaa....oops, condom broke, oh no! Or better still, no condom, get the girl drunk.....rape the girl.....etc, etc.

I'm not saying that these particular posters would act in this way, but what you fail to understand is this: the REAL WORLD we live in is a cruel place where your utopian fantasies of 'no sex unless you want to be a parent' are just as real as Vulcans in Star Trek.

A really, genuinely caring and intelligent HUMAN BEING (versus some holier-than-thou 'voice of God') will accept what kind of a world we live in and try to help and understand fellow human beings by any means possible.

What you also seem to think, falsely, I might add, is that anyone who says that the choice of having an abortion is a basic human right is also somehow not upset that abortions have to happen in the first place. Of course it isn't nice to terminate a pregnancy, but it will sometimes have to be done for medical, psychological or other reasons. This is the real world, fellas, you and those around you would be much happier if you accepted that and tried to open your minds a little.

-------

EDIT: ok, sod this - I am going to add a real-life example. See what the anti-abortion league would have to say to this -

A married young woman of 20 gets pregnant by her husband. She is not really ready for a baby psychologically, financially or in any other way. She has to support her own mother financially because her own mother is mentally ill with clinical depression.

The young woman's husband finds out about pregnancy and starts beating the woman. Randomly - sometimes in the mornings, sometimes when she comes back from work, kicking her down the stairs.....pushing her agains the kitchen sink....

The young woman becomes so ill and tired and scared that she has to stay home from work. Meanwhile, the husband, who gets paid weekly, sometimes takes his pay packet and disappears for the whole weekend, leaving the young woman on her own with no money to buy food.

The young woman is an immigrant in a country she has only been for 6 months. She has no family, other than her mentally ill mother and no local friends. She is in a low-income job.

She decides to have an abortion because of all the above. Bringing a child to the world would have been a very bad decision. She is only 9 weeks gone when the termination takes place.

Was this 'wrong'? If abortion wouldn't have been legal, she would have either suffered so much for the 9 month pregnancy that it would have led to her suicide, which would have killed BOTH mother and baby, OR she would have had an illegal abortion at a great cost and a great risk to her life.

How can you people be so damn blinkered? It's all I'm asking.

1. Can it be that hard to not have sex unless you're ready (and yes, sometimes even married couples aren't ready)?

2. Is it that hard to call the police if you're being beaten, or that your husband isn't giving you a dime to live on?

3. Is it that hard to put it up for adoption?

There are so many problems in this country's social system. We've downslidden so damn far that we're at the point where we remove rules because they're gonna get broken anyway (drugs and abortions are the two foremost in my mind at this time...)

As for the woman in your example? I seriously think she'd commit suicide under those conditions in addition to her grief over the fact that she had had her child killed. Because that's exactly what it comes down to - the mother choosing to have someone kill her child. Abortion is the weak man's euphemism for murder.

I've had the privilege to be a camp counselor for mentally and physically disabled kids, and many of their mothers had considered abortion during their pregnancy, but opted against it. I thank God every time I see the kids that their mothers didn't make that choice.

It's really easy to take a disconnected view of abortion, because a fetus without a name isn't near as "real" to you as money problems, or responsibilities. But the fetus could, and should, have a name, someday. Why should that life be any less valuable than yours or mine? Because its brain hasn't developed fully yet? Then let's just kill everyone under 16 - their brains haven't all fully developed either!

As for the snide "holier-than-thou" comments, well, perhaps if your conscience wasn't bugging you so much you might not need to throw that extra useless stuff in your posts. I'm of the opinion that potential life is just as important as tangible life, and religion doesn't have a thing to do with it.

Cheers and good night.

Outlaw masturbation - the sperm has a right to life! :lol:

Nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. A foetus is no more conscious than a cabbage, why no concern for cabbages? :roll:

Outlaw masturbation - the sperm has a right to life! :lol:

Nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. A foetus is no more conscious than a cabbage, why no concern for cabbages? :roll:

Let me know when cabbages have the potential for sentience, and I'll let you know.

Sperm has the potential for sentience. Are you proposing we ban condoms, masturbation and the ejaculation of more than one sperm at a time?
Even pro lifers have the potential for sentience but I'm not holding my breath on that one. :lol:

Sperm by itself doesn't do much of anything, least of all become a human. A fetus in its natural location (i.e. a woman's abdomen) will indeed become a human. But you already knew this.

Perhaps the term "potential for sentience" should have read "inevitability of sentience."

The woman's right to choose - to actually use her sentience?

No f--- way. I'm still young, and I don't have a well paying job yet, and I would rather my child die while he, or she, or they, are incapable of seeing the horrors of welfare!

I hope that was just a poor choice of words as a "child" would be unaware of "the horrors of welfare" for quite a while after birth.

The woman's right to choose - to actually use her sentience?

I'm sorry, you lost me. Why should one supersede the other?

The question is not should we outlaw abortion for the issue is niether black nor white. Perhaps the real question is, "Should there be a set of laws outlining when abortion is apropriate and when it is not?" For example you can not say that in all cases an abortion should not be carried out. In the case of rape, would you force a woman to carry the child of the man who violated her? Should she not only live with the memoery, but with the constant reminder for 9 months of what was done? The psycological damgae would destroy said woman.

The welfare of the child also comes into question. Should a child be born into a family unable to support it emotionally or financially? Should children be forced to live the life not knowing his or her mother or father because said child was given up for adoption? Many people against abortion say that we should think of the life of the child, however sometimes it is best to die than to live. The fact is no one can decided life or death for an unborn child, that child has no sense of being yet. So, the life of the mother should be considered. It is and should always be a woman's choice, but there should be psycological counceling before abortions occur, and I believe this is already in practice.

Now I'm sure I had other things to say but it is very late and I need sleep.

The woman is Actually already a sentient being. The fetus is just a potential one. Thats what I mean Adelphi.

Now another point is that if you outlaw abortion or try to impose a set of rules when it can and can't take place back street illegal abortions that place womens lives at risk will still take place.
Lets have clean safe abortion clinics with counceling services so any woman looking for an abortion can be sure she has thought things through and can also get help afterwards.

Noosans generally hold the view that it is the perogative of the mother should she choose to have an abortion. The role of the state is to provide the conditions whereby the woman is educated re birth control options, will be fully supported socially and financially (comprehensive childcare, paid maternity leave for 1 year, for example) if she chooses to have the baby, or the means for a safe procedure should she choose not to proceed with the pregnancy.

8) Safe surfing
Come and visit us some time

double-post :(

In reply to the blinkered:

1. Can it be that hard to not have sex unless you're ready (and yes, sometimes even married couples aren't ready)?
Who decides this? What planet are you from again? In a marriage, sex usually happens.

2. Is it that hard to call the police if you're being beaten, or that your husband isn't giving you a dime to live on?
Yes, because when the problem begins, you don't at first realise what is happening and how serious it is and you blame yourself. Continued acceptance is something else, but for a first experience of violence, it's understandable not to know what to do straight away. With no money, no family and no friends you are also a bit limited in the general options of how to get out.

3. Is it that hard to put it up for adoption?
Moron - it's not like the child would pop out automatically. Haven't you read this thread? There was an excellent description of pregnancy and childbirth earlier. You must be male.

As for the woman in your example? I seriously think she'd commit suicide under those conditions in addition to her grief over the fact that she had had her child killed. Because that's exactly what it comes down to - the mother choosing to have someone kill her child. Abortion is the weak man's euphemism for murder.

Well, I'm still here, didn't commit suicide, though I would have done if the hell would have carried on. Yes, that was an example that happened to me.

As for murder? Oh please. Talk about over-dramatisation. Do they not teach you biology where you are from? If what you say is true, all fertile women are murderers. Fertile women occasionally expel a fertilised egg - abort it - automatically. It happens. Mother nature decides it's not right for one reason or another, metaphorically speaking. Calling abortion murder is like calling men's masturbating 'wasting life' or some such religious fundamentalist's horse manure.

Speaking of which:

Sperm has the potential for sentience. Are you proposing we ban condoms, masturbation and the ejaculation of more than one sperm at a time?
Even pro lifers have the potential for sentience but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Heheheeeee! *nods*

OOC: Drakk and several other people seem to have gone through pretty much all the arguments in favour of abortion, and done so very eloquently. So I'm just going to post a link to http://www.wilken.freeserve.co.uk/Montypython/Songs/song15.htm to lighten the tone a little - it's vaguely relevant :)

Is this suggestion not a violation of the individuals right to self? For those who would demand that abortions be outlawed because of religious beliefs, do you not think that you are getting into political areas that your tax exempt status in many regions does not allow? As each person should be entitled to religious freedom, so should one be entitled to the freedom to make this choice that involves there own body? What if there was a religion that advocated abortion, would this not be a attack on their religious freedom?

In reply to the blinkered:

1. Can it be that hard to not have sex unless you're ready (and yes, sometimes even married couples aren't ready)?
Who decides this? What planet are you from again? In a marriage, sex usually happens.

2. Is it that hard to call the police if you're being beaten, or that your husband isn't giving you a dime to live on?
Yes, because when the problem begins, you don't at first realise what is happening and how serious it is and you blame yourself. Continued acceptance is something else, but for a first experience of violence, it's understandable not to know what to do straight away. With no money, no family and no friends you are also a bit limited in the general options of how to get out.

3. Is it that hard to put it up for adoption?
Moron - it's not like the child would pop out automatically. Haven't you read this thread? There was an excellent description of pregnancy and childbirth earlier. You must be male.

As for the woman in your example? I seriously think she'd commit suicide under those conditions in addition to her grief over the fact that she had had her child killed. Because that's exactly what it comes down to - the mother choosing to have someone kill her child. Abortion is the weak man's euphemism for murder.

Well, I'm still here, didn't commit suicide, though I would have done if the hell would have carried on. Yes, that was an example that happened to me.

As for murder? Oh please. Talk about over-dramatisation. Do they not teach you biology where you are from? If what you say is true, all fertile women are murderers. Fertile women occasionally expel a fertilised egg - abort it - automatically. It happens. Mother nature decides it's not right for one reason or another, metaphorically speaking. Calling abortion murder is like calling men's masturbating 'wasting life' or some such religious fundamentalist's horse manure.

Speaking of which:

Sperm has the potential for sentience. Are you proposing we ban condoms, masturbation and the ejaculation of more than one sperm at a time?
Even pro lifers have the potential for sentience but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Heheheeeee! *nods*

As I step back from all this (out of character), I realize that there is a huge error in logic here. Modern science testifies clearly that there is a huge difference between a sperm/egg and a fetus. The difference is this:

A sperm or egg has 12 chromosomes.
A fetus has 24 chromosomes.
A "normal" living human being has 24 chromosomes.

Obviously there is a huge difference between the sperm/egg and the fetus. Thus, one cannot justify that abortion is right because a woman releases an egg during her period every 28 days, and it cannot be justified that abortion is right because sperm is released during masturbation. Arguing that an egg or a sperm is the same thing as a fetus and justifying the abortion of a fetus from that standpoint is logically invalid.

Another logical falacy occurs in the quote "Even pro lifers have the potential for sentience but I'm not holding my breath on that one." That line of logic is an ad-hominem argument, which relays a personal attack on the pro-life group, and in the realm of logic, is illogical and irrelevant. Ironically, the use of ad-hominem arguments have a tendency to hint at a weak logical base in one's own argument because they have to resort to insult, of all things, to further their own point.

It may then be argued that the fetus (a politically correct euphemism for an infant) has no sentience. After all, who remembers their days in the womb? Yet, modern science points more and more to the amazing development that happens in the womb. Science will tell you that most of the significant development happens early on in the pregnancy, and the rest of the pregnancy is spent growing (the fact is, some infants have been born at 7 months and lived). Early on, the fetus has its own heart working with the mothers, and many other organs are developing. Yet, pro-choice advocates reason that there is no sentience since (A) the fetus cannot communicate with us back, and/or (B) we have no memory of our existence as a fetus. They then become quite convinced that there is no sentience there because of those two reasons. Yet, how many of us remember when we were an infant (say, less than a year old)? How many of us could communicate in a full sense as an infant? The answer is, of course, no one. No once remembers their time as a young newborn, nor did we have the capacity to communicate fully. Does this mean that it is okay to terminate the lives of newborns as well? I certainly hope not.

My point is this: although we can't pinpoint exactly when "life begins," modern science and genetics are telling us more and more that it begins within the womb as a fetus. To condone the termination of a fetus based on the pure uncertainty of whether it is alive or not is highly illogical, and quite frankly, irresponsible.

You missed an important point: women automatically abort fertilised eggs (which in your terminology are fetuses (sic) ). So are all women killers?

Second important point: I think the masturbation-comments were made in jest.

Third important point: it is evident from this thread that all the intelligent, open-minded people see that human rights dictate free choice for women. No one has the right to make this decision other than the woman.

Let women have their vote, leave them alone:twisted:

well i personally believe that abortion is not something gone into lightly, after all it is murdering a baby. but dispite my dislike of abortion i think that it depends on the situation and nobody has the right to take the choice of abortion away from a mother. i opose the notion!

abortion is neccesary and will remain legal in Henley :?

You missed an important point: women automatically abort fertilised eggs (which in your terminology are fetuses (sic) ). So are all women killers?

Second important point: I think the masturbation-comments were made in jest.

Third important point: it is evident from this thread that all the intelligent, open-minded people see that human rights dictate free choice for women. No one has the right to make this decision other than the woman.

First point: A fertilized egg, at the moment of conception has 24 chromosomes. Thus, a fertilized egg is clearly different than an unfertilized egg, and is equivalent genetically to a fetus. As I mentioned before, the fetus has the same number of chromosomes (which define humans genetically) as a living human being.

When a women automatically and naturally aborts fertilized eggs, it is involuntary, such is the case in a non-induced miscarriage. When a woman aborts a fertilized egg voluntarily, she must voluntarily get in a car, voluntarily drive to Planned Parenthood, and she must voluntarily sign the required paperwork and make the necessary payments to get a forced abortion, which is by no means a natural one. Or she may voluntarily take some sort of pill which will force a miscarraige - such a miscarriage is unnatural because it probably would not have happened had the woman voluntarily decided to keep the child So my point is this, intent is a pivotal factor. The natural miscarriage happens regardless of whether the woman intends it or not. Though tragic usually, she is by no means killing anything because she committed no acts to make the miscarriage happen. The unnatural/forced miscarriage or abortion are choices made voluntarily by the woman. Though she may not intend to kill anyone, she justifies the abortion/forced miscarriage by dehumanizing all aspects of the fetus, claiming that it is just a piece of tissue, and that abortion is just some morally unconflicting medical procedure to get rid of that tissue. I do not want to generalize all women when I say that, but I do say it because it is characteristic of much pro-choice rhetoric. While she does not intend to kill anyone, she intends to no longer have the fetus. If the fetus is in fact alive, and she intended to get rid of it, resulting in it no longer being alive, I belief that by definition, an act of killing has been committed. I do not wish to have a "holier than thou art" attitude when I say this, because my goal is to aimed at the issue, and not at the people.

Third Point: While I acknowledge your attempt to characterize all intelligent and open minded people as pro-choice, I feel it is largely mistaken. To make such a declaration is to make a generalization that is clearly invalid - for there are many intelligent and open minded pro-life people, and some close minded pro-choice people. Intelligent people and closed minded people fall on both sides of the fence surrounding this issue. Additionally, intelligent people have just as much capability to make mistakes as close minded people do, because we are all human.

You are right though, no one has the right to tell a person what to do with their body, but only under most circumstances. If in fact, the fetus/fertilized egg is life, then more than one human being's well being is involved in that woman's choice. To say that society/government/pro-lifers has no right to influence a women's decision and that at the same time, a woman has the right to force her decision over the unborn child's right to life is a very hypocritical stance. A woman's choice shouldn't be made just for herself, but also for the child as well. To do otherwise is to defy nature itself.

Abortion will also remain legal in Browning.

The Goverment has no right to interfer in this matter.

"To say that society/government/pro-lifers has no right to influence a women's decision and that at the same time, a woman has the right to force her decision over the unborn child's right to life is a very hypocritical stance. A woman's choice shouldn't be made just for herself, but also for the child as well. To do otherwise is to defy nature itself."

Abortions should be compulsory for right wing republican mysoginistic christian fundamentalist fascistic sexless freaks.

Abortions should be compulsory for right wing republican mysoginistic christian fundamentalist fascistic sexless freaks.

Sounds like a very compassionate remark from a pro-choice activist. You made many incorrect assumptions in your slanderous ad hominem statement against me. I forgive you for your ignorance.

A couple things come to mind when reading this debate.

First of all, adoption was mentioned as a way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of infants/children who are put up for adoption that are never adopted. They become wards of the state until they're of legal age. Then they get to deal with, in some cases, the wonderful psychological effects of feeling unwanted. These effects also sometimes occur in children who are eventually adopted. Adopted children are more likely to suffer from mental disorders, etc., than children who weren't adopted. I do not intend that as an attack against adoptive parents, but rather as a statement of fact.

Secondly, there is the choice to have sex vs. to not have sex. The people who say "you could choose to not have sex" conveniently forget about the biological need for intercourse. Certainly, many people can resist this need, but many more cannot. There are also others who view sex not as a method of procreation, but as a way to further their emotional connection with their lovers.

we must breed fine soldiers for the future and therefor theres no abortion allowed and we make only exeptions when the wellfare of mother or child is in danger as political i mutst say we never force the mother to give birth but its better that ones there in they come out to you see btw we do use anti conception so we dont have unwanted children that die in the woomb bij human interfierence :roll:

we must breed fine soldiers for the future and therefor theres no abortion allowed and we make only exeptions when the wellfare of mother or child is in danger as political i mutst say we never force the mother to give birth but its better that ones there in they come out to you see btw we do use anti conception so we dont have unwanted children that die in the woomb bij human interfierence :roll:

Abortion itself is a barbaric ritual only allowed by governments that choose to ignore all medical science concerning the matter. Newer technology has allowed humans to see the development of a human being prior to birth. To say abortion is a choice is to deny all of the medical information available prior to birth.

Besides, humans have a pretty good idea what causes pregnancy. So shouldn't that be where the choice is made, instead of after the new life has begun?

I will second any motion for partial birth abortion.

Abortion is the worst accepted atrocity in our modern world. Pro-choice = PRO-DEATH to the most innocent people in this world. The mother does not have the right to choose, SHE MADE THE DECISION WHEN SHE OPENED HER LEGS, the child has the right to life which outweighs anything else. Life, is our most important gift, to deny life is to deny god. Even if, Especially if, your not religious, would you rather a bad life OR NO life at all. You all make me sick.

Having read certain individuals' opinions, I'm glad I'm a male and will never have to deal with abortion.

A baby is not SOMEONE until it is born. Before that, it is SOMETHING. A woman is free to do whatever she feels is right for her. I'd rather be dead than doomed to live an unhappy life before birth.

Overpopulation is a problem anyway, and abortion is one of the ways to help that. If abortions didn't happen, there would be MANY kids for a state to take care of, which would mean that it would provide less support per citizen. No thanks. Quality is better than quantity - better have one happy child than four unhappy ones, because you can't support them.

With all other arguments outlined in this forum (mostly the freedom of choice), I officially conclude that in Godjiland, abortion will ALWAYS be legal. The other option is ridicuouls.

Ignoring medical science?
Ah pro-lifer accusing pro-choice of that?
Thats Ironicly hilarious. :lol:

Ignoring medical science?
Ah pro-lifer accusing pro-choice of that?
Thats Ironicly hilarious. :lol:

It's the fault of the woman because she opened her legs? What about the guy? Doesn't he have any responsability? After he have done his business, he can go back to play with his friends and forget about it. I'm not only talking about rape victims, I'm talking about men in general. If they don't want a kid, they disappear. I'm all for outlawing abortion, but you have to assure me that the proper help will be available to the future parents. Give them good daycare, paternal leave for a year, make it socially acceptable for young parents, for large families...

After thinking about it, we shouldn't outlaw abortion, but make every possible move so that abortion becomes obsolete in itself.

As a member of the United Nations representing the holy empire of Alldiss I seeking to bring unto the table to outlaw partial birth aborton in the United Nations

Partial birth abortion consists of outlawing the right to have an abortion one month after the moment of conception

Is there a motion to second? I think abortion is dumb and needs to be outlawed now i mean poeple think your not killing a baby but you are it's a living thing that the mother doesn't give a chance to grow!

I think abortion is dumb and needs to be outlawed now i mean poeple think your not killing a baby but you are it's a living thing that the mother doesn't give a chance to grow!

You're calling abortion 'dumb' and yet you sem to have no concept of grammar. I find that hilarious.

It's funny...people who are rabidly anti-choice are also dead-set against educating kids about sex past the point "DONT DO IT LOLOLOL WTF." If they knew how to properly use contraception and how one gets pregnant, they wouldn't NEED to get abortions.

I think everyone just needs to shut up and mind their own god damn business re: abortion. If you don't like abortion, don't HAVE one.

The Peoples Republic of Sonnyland will second the proposal against partial birth abortions.

OOC: "Partial-birth abortion" is abortion that's late-term, in the last trimester, I believe, the kind of abortion that kills an almost-baby, but they're pretty much only done in cases whether the mother's life is in danger, at least in the USA. Abortion one month after conception isn't "partial-birth abortion," 'cause there's no "partial-birth" about it.

Abortion should be cheap, legal and rare, in Bill Clinton's words.

But it shall and still will always remain legal. Don't have sex, just masturbate. Good advice, but what about unwanted or unneeded pregnancies while you're married?

The Islasoros Board of Health and Medicine regulates the performance of abortion procedures in accordance with the society's needs. The premature destruction of potentially viable slave labor has been deemed unprofitable, and so as an alterntative to abortion, parents who do not wish to keep their housekeeper-to-be are offered ample compensation in exchange for the fetus, once it is brought to term and birthed. For those nations within the UN who wish to seek an alternative to abortion, the Islasoros UN Ambassador presents this policy for consideration.

Abortion...

So many ask, "Why do we have to make such a big deal out of it?"

Well, unlike a lot of the other social issues, it clearly is a life and death issue. And yes, there is life involved.

Regardless if the embryo, fetus, child, whatever you want to call it is not competely viable, it does not take away from the fact that it has the potential to have life.

I mean think of it this way. If we knew that that Hussein guy in the Middle East was developing weapons of mass destruction, would the world just be standing around and saying since the weapons are not actually usable, he is not a threat. Of course not!

Hence, it is not whether life actually exists at the moment of abortion, but whether that fetus has potential for life.

Now that we have determined that there is something very big at stake (life), there is little to be discussed. I think few would argue that we should be like God and mess around with life.

Abortion is clearly wrong and is there for those who cannot take responsibilty for their actions.

Flashbang911 of Lower Calculand

Abortion is clearly wrong and is there for those who cannot take responsibilty for their actions.

So...a woman is responsible if she gets raped?

Wow. There's some guys in Afghanistan I think you'd get along great with.

Third important point: it is evident from this thread that all the intelligent, open-minded people see that human rights dictate free choice for women. No one has the right to make this decision other than the woman.

Do you always call your opinions "important points" and pretend that they are uncontestable fact?

As a member of the United Nations representing the holy empire of Alldiss I seeking to bring unto the table to outlaw partial birth aborton in the United Nations

Partial birth abortion consists of outlawing the right to have an abortion one month after the moment of conception

Is there a motion to second?

The Holy Empire of Iosefi Terra wishes someone had aborted you. In fact, we will now hold state-sponsored abortions of all our citizens born on this day whether they be in first trimester or fourhundredth. No price is too high for our Emperor.

Tell me this, if a woman considered getting pregnant such a disaster, then why the hell was she engaging in the very activity that gets you pregnant? Abortion is simply murder in the name of handing a crutch to people engaging in irresponsibility.

"Ooh I've been having sex for 4 years and now I'm pregnant, how did that happen?!?"

One argument I saw was something about how many million unwanted pregnancies there are per year in the US, and how these girls (paraphrased) "have aspirations and dreams which are ruined, and their lives are as good as over".

So let me get this straight. If a twenty year old woman gets pregnant, you are trying to say that you can justify ENDING an innocent life barely-begun, in the name of preventing a 20 year old life becoming more challenging as a result of it's own actions???

Oh but an unborn baby doesn't have rights, don't you know? It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't have potential ambitions, or a future ahead of it. It doesn't have gifts, or a bunch of wonderful things that it would have contributed to the world. There aren't people who's lives would have bee touched by it in later years.

An unborn baby isn't SOMEONE but SOMETHING???? That's one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. I'm sure it's easy for you to say now that you are someone. Bet you're glad nobody treating you like someTHING before you were born. :x

Pregnancy by rape is a dark area. Rape is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and my sympathy goes out to anybody who has experienced it. But you need to look at the situation now. You are not the guilty one, but neither is your unborn child. If you are truly not ready to raise a child, there is always adoption.

In a situation where both the baby and mother may die, I have to submit that it is better to preserve one life than let two lives be lost, whatever that may involve. I also feel this way about a child that the doctors know will die shortly after birth and will only suffer pain by being born.

Tell me this, if a woman considered getting pregnant such a disaster, then why the hell was she engaging in the very activity that gets you pregnant? Abortion is simply murder in the name of handing a crutch to people engaging in irresponsibility.

"Ooh I've been having sex for 4 years and now I'm pregnant, how did that happen?!?"

One argument I saw was something about how many million unwanted pregnancies there are per year in the US, and how these girls (paraphrased) "have aspirations and dreams which are ruined, and their lives are as good as over".

So let me get this straight. If a twenty year old woman gets pregnant, you are trying to say that you can justify ENDING an innocent life barely-begun, in the name of preventing a 20 year old life becoming more challenging as a result of it's own actions???

Oh but an unborn baby doesn't have rights, don't you know? It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't have potential ambitions, or a future ahead of it. It doesn't have gifts, or a bunch of wonderful things that it would have contributed to the world. There aren't people who's lives would have bee touched by it in later years.

To the person who said an unborn baby is someTHING not someONE. I bet you're glad nobody thought that of you before you were born, and I'm sure it's easy for you to say now. You are someONE after all. :x

Pregnancy by rape is a dark area. Rape is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and my sympathy goes out to anybody who has experienced it. But you need to look at the situation now. You are not the guilty one, but neither is your unborn child. If you are truly not ready to raise a child, there is always adoption.

In a situation where both the baby and mother may die, I have to submit that it is better to preserve one life than let two lives be lost, whatever that may involve. I also feel this way about a child that the doctors know will die shortly after birth and will only suffer pain by being born.

Sorry about the double post, didn't think my first post had gone through properly.

are you crazy??? A woman has a right to decide what she wants done with her body and no one should force her into anything! Esp as a pregnant woman is full of hormones and doesnt need any extra pressure from anyone!
This is a crazy idea!

i reject this proposal

A lot of people have mentioned the idea that a woman having an unwanted pregnancy is irresponsible, and that due to her irresponsibility, she got pregnant. I don't particularly disagree with that assumption. But is it a good idea to have someone who's irresponsible raising a child? Would you let someone who's irresponsible baby-sit YOUR children?

Partial birth abortion consists of outlawing the right to have an abortion one month after the moment of conception

Is there a motion to second?


It'll never work.

Just 'coz.

Each year, 75 million women have unwanted pregnancies. Each of these women has her own familial relationships, hopes for the future, economic concerns, and health needs. These and other factors will influence her decision either to carry a pregnancy to term or to seek an abortion. Given the complexity of this decision, the only person equipped to make it is the pregnant woman herself. Neither family, nor clergy, nor community, nor government has the capacity to make that decision for her. Source: Safe and legal abortion is a woman's human right (http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_atksafeleg.html)

Dark Ages = no human rights. Modern Ages = at least some human rights, and continuing improvement of.

Just in case you are a Christian, here is a link (http://www.rcrc.org/religion/es8/es8.html) to a very convincing pro-choice Christian argument.

If she doesn't want her baby she can put it up for adoption. They are lots of people who can't have children. You are either male or very young or very ignorant to make that statement. You think pregnancy is something that will not in itself change a woman's life? You think 'giving a baby up for adoption' is a simple thing to choose? You think there will be no physical/financial/moral problems?

Want to propose something useful? Propose better sex education and free contraception to all.

Boclair has for many eons promoted state sponsored abortion for unattractive women and those mentally deficient.

This is how we Boclairians have evolved mentally and physically beyond which the other nations within the UN could only ever aspire.
Voluntary termination further bonds our society in encouraging those of low intelligence and high ugliness to contribute in a positive manner by promoting excellence and reducing the weakest link. Women of talent and intelligence who require abortion for medical reasons will have their offspring specially cared for within state institutions where their talents and superior DNA will be encouraged to prosper.

The Mighty Ruler of Manpouch proclaims:


Manpouch refuses to accept this socialist dogma that has been surfacing as issues within the UN.

Manpouch decrees that it will spit on any new liberal proposals that attempt to indoctrinate or impose rules upon its people.

Manpouch will retain its sovereignty

Manpouch has spoken you may get off your knees now.

The Mighty Ruler of Manpouch proclaims:


Manpouch refuses to accept this socialist dogma that has been surfacing as issues within the UN.

Manpouch decrees that it will spit on any new liberal proposals that attempt to indoctrinate or impose rules upon its people.

Manpouch will retain its sovereignty

Manpouch has spoken you may get off your knees now.

Each year, 75 million women have unwanted pregnancies. Each of these women has her own familial relationships, hopes for the future, economic concerns, and health needs. These and other factors will influence her decision either to carry a pregnancy to term or to seek an abortion. Given the complexity of this decision, the only person equipped to make it is the pregnant woman herself. Neither family, nor clergy, nor community, nor government has the capacity to make that decision for her. Source: Safe and legal abortion is a woman's human right (http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_atksafeleg.html)

Dark Ages = no human rights. Modern Ages = at least some human rights, and continuing improvement of.

Just in case you are a Christian, here is a link (http://www.rcrc.org/religion/es8/es8.html) to a very convincing pro-choice Christian argument.

If she doesn't want her baby she can put it up for adoption. They are lots of people who can't have children. You are either male or very young or very ignorant to make that statement. You think pregnancy is something that will not in itself change a woman's life? You think 'giving a baby up for adoption' is a simple thing to choose? You think there will be no physical/financial/moral problems?

Want to propose something useful? Propose better sex education and free contraception to all.

Why not just wait until the child leaves the womb?

It's called a partial-birth abortion because the living infant is partially delivered feet first, all the way up to her neck. Then, with the head lodged in her mother's womb, her skull is punctured and her brains are removed by suction. Literally moments from live birth, and feeling the full pain of the procedure, the child dies instantly, her skull collapsed.

Why is it okay to take the childs life with the head still in the womb and not second later after it is fully delivered? It is still a fully developed child! There is no difference. Murder is murder!

If you don't want the risk of pregnany then keep your legs closed!

If you don't want the risk of pregnany then keep your legs closed!

My question is, why is the sex life of other people any of your damn business?

If you don't want the risk of pregnany then keep your legs closed!

My question is, why is the sex life of other people any of your damn business?

Let's see...we are talking about abortion. You're right, sex has nothing to do with that topic. It's not their sex life I'm concerned about. It's the life that has no choice in the matter that concerns me.

And you make my point precisely about the Pro-Choice folks. You quoted me on abstinence and said nothing of the violant brutal way the child's life was taken. Then again, I'm sure you are more interested in protecting your right to have a few moments of ecstasy and orgasm than you are in protecting the rights of the unborn.

If you don't want the risk of pregnany then keep your legs closed!

My question is, why is the sex life of other people any of your damn business?

Let's see...we are talking about abortion. You're right, sex has nothing to do with that topic. It's not their sex life I'm concerned about. It's the life that has no choice in the matter that concerns me.

And you make my point precisely about the Pro-Choice folks. You quoted me on abstinence and said nothing of the violant brutal way the child's life was taken. Then again, I'm sure you are more interested in protecting your right to have a few moments of ecstasy and orgasm than you are in protecting the rights of the unborn.

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Likewise, you are only interested in repressing women through outdated and misogynist legislation of what is legal or not.

See, I can bullshit too.

How can anyone say it's right to tell others what to do with their lives?
When you're dying and are STILL saying that you lived a better life 'cause your way was "right", I MIGHT give it a thought. But until then, screw you who try and boss around.

Ahh, the familiar pro-life/pro-choice argument. Few others seem to raise such contempt between opposing sides. The "pro-life" people often amuse me. They tend to remind me of animal activists that protest against cruelty to animals while wearing their leather hiking boots, or environmentalists protesting to save the rain forests while writing on pamphlets of white paper because the recycled stuff just isn't "pretty enough."

Let me ask those against abortion this, while you preach against those who support abortions, labeling them as murderers even, can you tell me that you hold all life sacred and never have taken the life of another being? Now don't answer this too quickly. This would include every sentient being, be it fly, or moth, or mosquito, or cow. Though I doubt most of you have actually slaughtered a cow, your desires are still directly responsible for it's loss of life. Now, you could argue that these beings are not the same "higher lifeform" that humans are, but I ask, who are you to make that determination?

Certainly the human mind is the most complex arrangement of neurons known to us today, giving us such abilities as reason and such impairments as worry, but aside from a few different arrangements in our DNA, what makes our spark of life any more special than any other creature's?

Ignoring most people's double standard when it comes to what they consider murder, while there are indeed abortions performed for the factor of convenience (if you can call it that), there are vastly more performed because a woman simply cannot hope to support a child in this world. Many argue "Put it up for adoption!" But should every woman put their child up for adoption, adoption agencies will fill to numbers beyond imagination rapidly and simply shut down, lacking the funding and the space required to hold so many children. Are you, the one above all those "murderers", prepared to fund these agencies? Until such an effect for your actions hits you, it is easy to rant for anti-abortion laws from your ivory tower.

Then you argue, "Keep your legs closed!" and to use a condom/birth control. Expecting a man, as well as a woman, to remain abstinate is simply not realistic in our society. At one time in history, yes, this may happen for the most part, but it won't happen this day and age. "Punishing" these men and women with forcing them to raise a child, or forcing a mother to give a child they grew attached to during her pregnancy to an adoption agency is arguably no less barbaric than the very thing you fight against. Birth control? Well, if you want to have a battle of morals, impeding the possibility for a human life is no more moralistic than ending a fetus's life before it assumes conscious thought. By artificially blocking a life from occuring, you're as much a murderer as those you berate.

The government has no more right to force a female to undergo the strain and damage of childbirth than they do forcing men to pass kidney stones for the fun of it. If you're "pro-life," that is fine. But practice your choice within the privacy of your own home. Should I desire to expand my horizons and further understand your side of the issue, I'll give you a call.

-Dalmask

It makes no since to be Pro-Life, because being Pro-Choice means that Pro-Life people don't have to have abortions, and that those who want abortions can have them.

There is no way on earth I would force anyone to go through pregnancy if they did not want to.

This just needs to be said again: If they don't want pregnancy then don't have sex. Either that or hope and pray that the pill and the condom work like they should.

Too much irresponsibility in this stupid country. :-\

I am so glad that there is one smart person on the website :D

Not smart enough to be aware of the fact that a raped woman can also get pregnant though :(

And yeah, too much irrational thinking in this country, is true :mrgreen:

there's no such thing as an unborn child. If it's not born, it's not a child.
I also like the argument that since women expelling eggs is involuntary it is ok, while abortion is voluntary and evil. So what you're saying is that women who naturally miscarry are guilty of manslaughter and should go to jail for a year, while women who have abortions are guilty of murder and should be killed or go to jail for life.
Pro-life arguments are fucking nonsense.

"All I have to say is this, in real life I am not a very religious person at all, but I fail to see how killing other people just to gratify your own sick and selfish sexual desire without ever having to accept the responsbility of a pregnancy has always seemed wrong to me. "

Which is great if (1) we accept that abortion is killing other people, and (2) sexual desire is selfish, and (3) responsibility for a pregnancy is not being accepted.

on (1), a fetus was not generally considered a child until after abortion was made a medical procedure, largely as the result of lobbying in the mid-1800's by MDs who wanted control taken away from midwives. A lot of the cry about "unborn children" comes from religious types who have large numbers of pedophiles in their ranks, whom they are trying to protect. After all, having lots of unwanted, unwatched children makes it a lot simpler to abuse them. And reviving orphanages is great for them - total control over their victims.

on (2), I note that sex is a common and major bond between two people. If it is heterosexual, that may cause pregnancy to result for the female. If it is homosexual, the same anti-abortion people tend to be rather condemnatory. Similarly if, when hetersexual, it is anal, oral, manual, or anything else that might avoid pregnancy, the anti-abortion crowd again decries the action.

on (3), no woman who is pregnant can avoid taking responsibility. She may decide to carry to term, or to abort. If carried, she may decide to abandon, kill, put up for adoption, or keep. The man, on the other hand frequently avoids any responsibility at all. So if you wish to outlaw abortion, let's begin by FORCING men to take responsibility as well. Castrate and penisectomy any man who gets a woman pregnant against her will (even if the sex is consensual). Use DNA tests to ascertain the man, and oveturn the US 5th amendment to make it legal there. I suspect the arguement would rapidly change.

I wish to make my rejection of the proposal known. Abortion will remain legal here.

The Dictatorship of russanisa agrees

With respect for what we regard a fundamental choice that only the woman has the capacity to make, the Queendom of Blomphoria rejects the motion and strongly agrees with all the other enlightened states voicing their opinions for retaining the legality of abortion.

What people don't realize is that abortions will take place whether you outlaw them or not. it is not a question of morals. if abortion is legal, then women will have safer and regulated abortions. they will also see a councelor who will perhaps convince them to keep the baby and put it up for adoption (you can't get an abortion without seeing a councelor)

if you outlaw abortion, you force women into back ally operations that are very unsafe and could kill her.

as far as abstaining from sex - many MARRIED women get abortions. you don't have to have sex all the time, either. just once could get a woman pregnant.

i completely understand seeing a fetus as a life, i really do. i don't agree. but either way, it's not even the issue.

The dude above is right. If you outlaw, it'll still happen, only with coathangers in dark alleys.

It's funny how this debate usually goes down religious lines. Those that believe in an afterlife are against abortion, those that don't go the other way. Well, perhaps if the religious folks would relax thair stance on birth control, there wouldn't be so many abortions, or unawanted pregnancies.

I can never figure out what the problem is with condoms - why would God not be down with condoms? Are we really saying a sperm cell is a person?

And is it really better for another child to be born to an Ethiopian mother who can't feed the four kids she already has? Wouldn't it be better to give people who can't feed themselves condoms so they A) don't get AIDS, and B) don't give birth to a child who'll spend the only six months of its life covered in flies, rife with disease, as it slowly starves to death?

Is that God's will?

The view must be great from up on that high horse.

Double post deleted, yo.

I think the idea of condoms being unacceptable to a religious person is that sex is only supposed to happen if the intention is to procreate. Certainly with a condom, you're unlikely to procreate, thus making them "bad".

As a ROMAN CATHOLIC, I stand with you!

I think the idea of condoms being unacceptable to a religious person is that sex is only supposed to happen if the intention is to procreate. Certainly with a condom, you're unlikely to procreate, thus making them "bad".

i think that illustrates just how blinkered many religious people are. :?

just to add one more voice to the maelstrom, i'm pro-choice, or whatever. i'm pro-abortion. for me, at the end of the day, its a matter of freedom: any woman should have the choice whether to have a baby or not. its that simple.

- The Benign Dictator.

I think the idea of condoms being unacceptable to a religious person is that sex is only supposed to happen if the intention is to procreate. Certainly with a condom, you're unlikely to procreate, thus making them "bad".

i think that illustrates just how blinkered many religious people are. :?

just to add one more voice to the maelstrom, i'm pro-choice, or whatever. i'm pro-abortion. for me, at the end of the day, its a matter of freedom: any woman should have the choice whether to have a baby or not. its that simple.

- The Benign Dictator.

I second the motion to ban partial birth abortions. It is not a "made up name" and yes there are indeed thousands of unwanted pregnancies every year. But has anyone bothered to ask "why"?

The reasons are simple ignorance of preventative methods, poverty, ignorance of physical causes of pregnancy, and above all of these: Promiscuity.

If people had more education about the myriad of negative effects of promiscuity they would likely hesitate before "dipping the wick" unprotected or even doing it at all outside of a monogomous relationship. In addition to pregnancy, there are also AIDS, emotional stress, and a whole slew of sexually transmitted diseases too numerous to list.

I move that in addition to a ban on late term abortions, an increase in sexual education be brought about.

On the issue of partial, late term abortion The United States of Cohuila Y Texas supports the criminalization of said act.

On the issue of abortions in the first trimester, however, the USCYT allows said procedure to be legal. The USCYT abhors such acts however there arises certain circumstances where the procedure is warranted. Therefore, the USCYT allows such procedures to occur as to allow women to recieve them under medically suitable and sanitary conditions which minimize the risks to life and health.

The USCYT also requires that doctors make sure that patients have considered all other avenues of resort prior to the procedure.

As a member of the United Nations representing the holy empire of Alldiss I seeking to bring unto the table to outlaw partial birth aborton in the United Nations

Partial birth abortion consists of outlawing the right to have an abortion one month after the moment of conception

Is there a motion to second?

There is no such thing as partial birth abortion. This is a fake name dreamed up by loonies. The medical procedure you're referring to is rarely performed and then only if, by not performing it, the mother would stand a better-than-50-50 chance of dying in delivery.

Most birth defects fatal to a fetus can't be detected until the 15th week of pregnancy, which it when it's safe to take samples of the amniotic fluid. Therefore, your 'one-month' cutoff date is ridiculous and ill-considered.

Furthermore, the PRK fully supports a woman's right to not have her body interfered with by insane religion-mongers.

In conclusion. Fsck no.




Madly Praying for Moderators,
~Kitsune!™
The All-Purpose Renaissance Fox,
God of Communism,
And the Whacked-Out Mind Behind the People's Republic of Kitsylvania!
Acting Game Moderator for the Amerigo Slave Crisis?
This has been an IC/OOC post.




We the people of Wuppernal agree with The Peoples Republic of Kitsylvania. A womans body is HER property, no religion or organization should be able to interfer with it in ANY way.

The Grand Duke of Wuppernal.

Certainly the human mind is the most complex arrangement of neurons known to us today, giving us such abilities as reason and such impairments as worry, but aside from a few different arrangements in our DNA, what makes our spark of life any more special than any other creature's?

As you pointed out in your own post, it is the very conscious thought that the fetus does not assume that truly makes human life special. Humans are intelligent, aware, capable of deep psychological contemplation. . . It is this that truly makes human life unique.

A fetus incapable of conscious thought is incapable of doing this. It is no different than eating meat, or destroying an insect. Certainly human ego will make people say "A fetus is better than an insect!", but that is simply for what it MIGHT be in the future, which could never happen, than what it is now. Please don't trifle yourself with such arrogance. To put it quite crudely, get over yourself.

The bottom line is that a woman's body is her own. It is her decision whether or not she wants to have a child, and no one else's. A wise woman once said "A woman will have an abortion whether it's legal or not. Should we leave her to do it with a rusty coat hanger, or give her the best medical care possible to support this decision?"

Many argue the moral future ramifications of abortions, cutting off a human life without giving it the chance to exist. After all, Johan Sebastian Bach's mother would have had an abortion, were it possible for her to.

But then again, we must consider the fact that Hitler's mother was thinking about getting an abortion, and decided not to.

There is no way on earth I would force anyone to go through pregnancy if they did not want to.

This just needs to be said again: If they don't want pregnancy then don't have sex. Either that or hope and pray that the pill and the condom work like they should.

Too much irresponsibility in this stupid country. :-\

I am so glad that there is one smart person on the website :D

Assume a lady was raped and got pregnant, assume your daughter was raped and got pregnant...now tell me...would you call this lady or your daughter irresponsible just because she wasn't on the pill? Should they carry this unwanted child around and be haunted by it the rest of their lives? Adoption you say? Ohh I get it now, you want these people to go through all the hardships of prengancy, and have this unwanted child growing up finding the truth about who his/her parents are? A rapist and a mom that didn't want this child. Wow. Brilliant idea smart ass! -.-

Then you argue, "Keep your legs closed!" and to use a condom/birth control. Expecting a man, as well as a woman, to remain abstinate is simply not realistic in our society. At one time in history, yes, this may happen for the most part, but it won't happen this day and age.


It goes to show how much we lack morals in today's world. People are not willing to take responsibility for their actions. They try to convince themselves that it is okay to kill the baby so that they themselves do not have to feel guilty. A little bit of responsibility would really go a long way.

There is no way on earth I would force anyone to go through pregnancy if they did not want to.

This just needs to be said again: If they don't want pregnancy then don't have sex. Either that or hope and pray that the pill and the condom work like they should.

Too much irresponsibility in this stupid country. :-\

I am so glad that there is one smart person on the website :D

Assume a lady was raped and got pregnant, assume your daughter was raped and got pregnant...now tell me...would you call this lady or your daughter irresponsible just because she wasn't on the pill? Should they carry this unwanted child around and be haunted by it the rest of their lives? Adoption you say? Ohh I get it now, you want these people to go through all the hardships of prengancy, and have this unwanted child growing up finding the truth about who his/her parents are? A rapist and a mom that didn't want this child. Wow. Brilliant idea smart ass! -.-

I would sincerely have hoped that the readers might have figured out that my original statement was directed at ladies (and gents) who don't have the willpower to keep their pants on, but instead chose to have sex, and then as an afterthought (and an absolving of responsibilities) kill the baby.

In the situation that you described, if it was my daughter, I certainly wouldn't think her irresponsible, nor did I say that rape victims are irresponsible in my first post. Instead, I would pray about it, counsel her to go through with the pregnancy and put it up for adoption (though I would leave the decision to her, and hope that I'd brought her up right to value the life inside her). I would be with her the whole time, I don't go in for that crap about throwing my daughter out of the house for being pregnant - I HATE stories like that, they make me sick and sad. In regards to whether or not she keeps the baby, I'm not in a great position to counsel her on that, so I'd either leave it up to my wife to talk to her about that, or let her decide on her own. If these "problems" were solved with love instead of hate or selfishness, then they wouldn't be problems any more.

In my personal opiinion - And not much else -, I believe in pro-choice to a point, and pro-life to a point. My country allows abortions at the moment, and I will see to it that it stays that way. However, I do frown upon it. I know it sounds contradictory, but the bottom line is, I do not believe it is my or my country's right to infringe on whether a woman wants an abortion or not, because as someone else here has said, legal or illegal a woman who wants to have her child aborted will do it either way.

____
Lord Gunther Prozen
Prime Minister of the Holy Empire of X Prime

Abortion has a place in society. It creates jobs for nurses and doctors, whilst decreasing the overpopulation risk. If I were a young woman who accidentally got pregnant, I know I would want the baby dead so that my life wasn't ruined.

If the father would rather it lived and the mother wanted it dead then the father should have full custody and the mother should have no financial ties. This should also be the case the other way around.

Abortion will remain legal in the Republic of Wieland no matter what. We consider it a human right. Besides, as far as this discussion is about morals and promiscuity, we don't believe it's up to our government to judge peoples sex life. We prefer to enable our citizens to make well-informed, responsable decisions for themselves, by supplying proper information, free condoms and pills, and medical care. This proposal will not pass.

Ok, first off, to Harrisonveld. IT CREATES JOBS?!?!?!?!?!? That is quite possibly the stupidest argumant I have heard yet. Legalizing hired hitmen would create thousands of jobs, should we allow that?
Next, to X Prime. This post is the best I can see, but to argue that it (the abortion) will happen anyway is probably the nest stupidest argument. Again, all things that are illegal are going to hapen anyway, so using that argument, nothing should be illegal.
Onward and upward. Many of you are saying "it's the womans right" because "it's the womans body." Well..that seams a logical argument, and it works on me in the early stages only. Once the baby develops brain waves, which I beleave is somewhere around 2 to 3 months, it is a life. it starts sucking its thumbs, etc. That gives the woman plenty of time to kill her child before it starts to live. After that, provided no real life threatening problem to the mother arrises, ALL abortions should be considered murder, therefore illegal.
Also, this thing about attacking the phrase "partial birth abortion," is getting old. GET OVER IT. It might not be a technical term, but it does discribe what happens: deliver the child all the way to the head, than suck out its brains. Thats whats happening and its wrong. Just think if that pore childs head should accidently slip out somehow it would have all the rights to life as you or I. Thats small line to deside life or death, value or uselessness, am I the only one that is desturbed by that?

I would sincerely have hoped that the readers might have figured out that my original statement was directed at ladies (and gents) who don't have the willpower to keep their pants on, but instead chose to have sex, and then as an afterthought (and an absolving of responsibilities) kill the baby.

no, sir, it is YOUR responsibility to exactly say what you mean; to expect the reader to simply assume things is very unreasonable of you :(

In the situation that you described,...ziiiiiiiip.... If these "problems" were solved with love instead of hate or selfishness, then they wouldn't be problems any more.

fascinating word choice 8)

the "selfishness" i mean.... cause from where i stand it is exactly selfishness that makes those who oppose abortion try to impose their will on every woman who prefers to stay in control of her own body, and by doing so are in violation with every woman's right to excersize the freedom to do with her own body as she pleases without being hindered by moral-right-doers; a true act of terrorism if there ever was one :(

this is especially the case when the arguments that are used are based on religious dogma :(

fact is that it is the woman that has to go through the pregnancy, its the woman who has to do all the hard work, all of it, and as such it is her responsibility alone to decide whether or not she wants to do the work... or not :!: and all the morality in the world put together cannot change this, not one bit 8)

I would sincerely have hoped that the readers might have figured out that my original statement was directed at ladies (and gents) who don't have the willpower to keep their pants on, but instead chose to have sex, and then as an afterthought (and an absolving of responsibilities) kill the baby.

no, sir, it is YOUR responsibility to exactly say what you mean; to expect the reader to simply assume things is very unreasonable of you :(

In the situation that you described,...ziiiiiiiip.... If these "problems" were solved with love instead of hate or selfishness, then they wouldn't be problems any more.

fascinating word choice 8)

the "selfishness" i mean.... cause from where i stand it is exactly selfishness that makes those who oppose abortion try to impose their will on every woman who prefers to stay in control of her own body, and by doing so are in violation with every woman's right to excersize the freedom to do with her own body as she pleases without being hindered by moral-right-doers; a true act of terrorism if there ever was one :(

this is especially the case when the arguments that are used are based on religious dogma :(

fact is that it is the woman that has to go through the pregnancy, its the woman who has to do all the hard work, all of it, and as such it is her responsibility alone to decide whether or not she wants to do the work... or not :!: and all the morality in the world put together cannot change this, not one bit 8)

How about ending the whole debate on capital punishment and just calling it a retro-active abortion ?

:? Seriously, if a woman gets pregnant, she and if there is one, the father, needs to take responsibility. Abortion is not the answer to the mistakes people make. Why make the CHILDREN suffer?? What did they do??? Either wear protection and be smart, or just don't sleep around. None of this Parial Birth Abortion crap will enter into the Empire of Eolie.

:? Seriously, if a woman gets pregnant, she and if there is one, the father, needs to take responsibility. Abortion is not the answer to the mistakes people make. Why make the CHILDREN suffer?? What did they do??? Either wear protection and be smart, or just don't sleep around. None of this Parial Birth Abortion crap will enter into the Empire of Eolie.

:? Seriously, if a woman gets pregnant, she and if there is one, the father, needs to take responsibility. Abortion is not the answer to the mistakes people make. Why make the CHILDREN suffer?? What did they do??? Either wear protection and be smart, or just don't sleep around. None of this Parial Birth Abortion crap will enter into the Empire of Eolie.

Oh non-existing-god, cut the rubbish, just go whole hog and shout,

"Oh please, won't any-one think of the children!",

Then I can just laugh at you instead of shaking my head in pity. Instead of re-hashing the same old arguments, I'll leave you with this.

Give us a bloody reason why, not an argument equal of running around like chicken little claiming the sky will fall.

And its not a bloody "child", its a freeking "embryo", heck, people with no basic grasp of basic biology ping me off big some-times.

Its when I meet with nasty little play on the emotions of the reader posts like this I get annoyed, don't try to cloud the issue with the idea of children being at stake, thats playing on human conditioning, its not the age old instinct of "Child in danger, protect child, continue species" its a case of science and medicine and fact, not basic instinct, your post insults the reader by playing on the most animalist instincts of the human creature, rather then on the respected and now more then ever perhaps critical interllect.

Ahem, that my rant for now, :wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

"A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope." 1996

"The conflict is between a culture that affirms, cherishes, and celebrates the gift of life, and a culture that seeks to declare entire groups of human beings - the unborn, the terminally ill, the handicapped, and others considered 'unuseful' - to be outside the boundaries of legal protection." 1999
- Pope John Paul II

There is a serious problem in our culture with the way abortion is viewed, and that is because lies have been propegated about the matter and about childbirth in general. Allow me to clear up a common misconception:

"It's her body, she can do what she wants with it."
the problem here is that it really is NOT her body at all. the fetus has its own unique set of chromosomes, its own separate bloodstream, and is considered by all scientific accounts to be a separate entity. being a completely separate human being, it has the rights that its country upholds-- life being one of them. to take the life of this fetus, by scientific and legal standards, is murder of the first degree. please understand that morality and religion are not being brought into this; accordingly, do not slander me as being narrow-minded or religion-mongering. i consider this to be a matter of human rights and of scientific fact.

Another misconception:
"The fetus is not fully grown so it is not human" or "The fetus isn't actually a person, because it hasn't gone through birth yet."
This matter is a bit harder to explain, but bear with me. The human mind begins to develop instantly at conception with the creation of the zygote, the single-celled precursor to the fetus. this zygote, being responsible for its own growth and genetic development and being genetically unique, has the capacity for completing its life. As its body and mind develop, it actually has dreams while it is yet inside the womb, as can be verified by monitoring the cerebral activity of an unborn fetus as early as its brain can be distinguished from the rest of its body. even before that, however, the organism with only one cell-- the zygote-- is considered human. it is alive, and if that cell dies, the human life ends. to cause its death, therefore, would be CAUSING A HUMAN TO DIE. taking a human life is murder.

Therefore, let no one say that abortion is not murder. I cannot accept it.

EDIT: if you mistrust any of the information i have provided above, or if you simply desire to have an intelligent debate, email me at robhart03@yahoo.com and i will be willing to discuss the matter. Please do not email me if you only wish to rant against my legal personal convictions on this issue.

There is a serious problem in our culture with the way abortion is viewed, and that is because lies have been propegated about the matter and about childbirth in general. Allow me to clear up a common misconception:

Uh-huh.

"It's her body, she can do what she wants with it."

Okay, I know what you think you mean when you tear this apart, but, this phrase means its her body and she need not give birth if she does not wish too. Not, its a fetus in her body, the fetus is not the issue in this case, its the issue of having to give birth to it. Even further having to support it.

the problem here is that it really is NOT her body at all. the fetus has its own unique set of chromosomes, its own separate bloodstream, and is considered by all scientific accounts to be a separate entity.

Uh-huh, but your forgetting, that despite being a seperate entity, it still must gain all nutrients from its carrier, and for that matter requires the carrier for protection from the out-side world until fully formed when it exits.

being a completely separate human being, it has the rights that its country upholds-- life being one of them.

The idea of it being a seperate human being is still debate-able, please don't try to claim it so.

to take the life of this fetus, by scientific and legal standards, is murder of the first degree.

Nope, because I know there are lots of abortion clinics in the world protected by the law of the land. it seems rather this is your opinion. Not fact.

please understand that morality and religion are not being brought into this; accordingly, do not slander me as being narrow-minded or religion-mongering. i consider this to be a matter of human rights and of scientific fact.

Oh, I'm not, I'm just saying I doubt your "scientific" claims, as all data can be interpreted differently. Also its seems your very selective in application of rights...

Another misconception:

Oh really? :wink:

"The fetus is not fully grown so it is not human" or "The fetus isn't actually a person, because it hasn't gone through birth yet."

Could very well be true, depends on the "exact" - "moment" it becomes "self aware" and "thinks" on the same level as we do. I do how-ever understand the anger at the idea of it not being human if its not been born, thats a bit of a worry, because right before birth, it certainly is human.

(If I recall correctly, there was some real concern that the chinese have a policy of a needle full of (Form-a-what-is-it, darn'd, I should know that, its a chemical any-way, :wink: , geeez, I only used it about two weeks ago in lab work being stuck into the head of the un-state-sanctioned baby as the top or crown of its head appears out of the opening. Csn't be too sure if its true though. Still, its a worry.)

This matter is a bit harder to explain, but bear with me.

I'll * try * :roll: ... :wink:

The human mind begins to develop instantly at conception with the creation of the zygote, the single-celled precursor to the fetus. this zygote, being responsible for its own growth and genetic development and being genetically unique, has the capacity for completing its life.

Wrong, as a zygote, a single cell, its not got a human mind developing, its a single cell, with single cell mentality. Just like any other single cell. No point getting sentimental over it, its technically not a human mind, it only has a possibility of developing into one.

As its body and mind develop, it actually has dreams while it is yet inside the womb, as can be verified by monitoring the cerebral activity of an unborn fetus as early as its brain can be distinguished from the rest of its body.

Sorry, I'll need some actual proof of these "dreams" as I am fairly sure at that early stage it could well be the standard automated firing to simply maintain homeostasis in its developing body, as well as the brains continued formative process.

even before that, however, the organism with only one cell-- the zygote-- is considered human.

Yeah. By you.

it is alive, and if that cell dies, the human life ends. to cause its death, therefore, would be CAUSING A HUMAN TO DIE. taking a human life is murder.

Nope, its a cell, if it dies, its still a cell, but its a dead one. Like when a cell in a fly is dead when you squirt it with bug spray.

Therefore, let no one say that abortion is not murder. I cannot accept it.

There-fore, let not the cancer cell be discriminated against, for it is human and thus murder to harm, quickly, go forth and shut down chemo-clinics, let not radiation or micro-waves be used to "treat" it too, for if it is human, it is good. Any stuff any other opinion.

:wink:

Please do not email me if you only wish to rant against my legal personal convictions on this issue.

Thou have posted thine email addy here? Though I think thee a fool for that which is above, and for posting your email addy here, I think you brave, :shock:

"Legal personal convictions"

Is that word play, a pun, or an triple word oxy-moron ?

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

From: The People's Republic of Norris Land:

As the leader of Norris Land, I am and always will be against abortions. It's murder, and there's no other word for it. The child being developed inside the mother IS living, and "abortion" is just another way to say "kill the baby." And by saying "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it" is not true. It's the baby's body, living inside the mothers. If the girl does not wish to have a baby, she shouldn't even be sexually active in the first place, and abortion is just a way for her to get rid of the child they would call a "neusence."

I STRONGLY support the ban of abortions, and I will continue to debate the subject until abortions are banned, in which I very much think they should be.

Signed: Norris of Norris Land

I second the proposal. I say we should outlaw all abortion. But partial-birth is a good start.

I recognize the fact that the mother has a right to her body. I recognize there are circumstances in which a mother may be in danger, or her baby conceived against her will. However, I also recognize that there are other alternatives to abortion, namely adoption and safe sex/no sex.

Now before I get attacked for suggesting adoption and safe sex/no sex, let me explain. Adoption obviously is not a perfect institution, we all acknowledge this. But neither is abortion. Not only does abortion violently kill a human in its earliest stage of development, but it also emotional scars a woman for the rest of her life, even if rape started it all. As for sex, it's easy to say "NO SEX," but some people just don't see that as an option. For those who wish to participate in intercourse, condoms are a good choice. If you argue the woman has a right to say what comes out of her body (namely the fetus during abortion,) then why shouldn't she have a say as to what goes in? If she doesn't want to risk becoming pregnant, shouldn't she demand her partner use correct protection?

It seems logical to me, as well as all the citizens of Azea-Lao. For these and other reasons, abortion will remain accessible through the government only to women is specific situations. As the Grand Duchess, I think that the government shouldn't really be involved in this choice, but this issue is too huge to ignore. It is a worldwide issue, and it must be acknowledged.

This delegate has read the entire last six pages of debate, and hasn't yet seen the following viewpoint come into discussion:

A human fetus only begins to develop neural connections between its cerebral cortex and mid brain after the 26th week of pregnancy. Before this time the fetus is incapable of feeling pain, or experiencing consciousness.

This is well after the majority of “late-term” abortions are carried out.

Before the cortex can connect with the body the organism is a fetus. It has potential to become a human being, but is not one yet. It has less consciousness than a titmouse, and no autonomy.

Shortly after this connecting stage it becomes an “unborn baby”. If it leaves the womb before this time it is a miscarriage. If it leaves the womb after it is premature.

The nation of ClarkNovinia has wrestled with this issue for some time. Few would argue that an abortion should be carried out five minutes before the natural birth occurs. Or a week before. Two weeks before? A month?

Where to draw the line?

We believe that the beginning of sentience is the proper threshold. It is morally and biologically fortunate for modern woman that this does not occur until six and a half months into gestation: well after most mothers decide whether to rear a child. 98% of all abortions are performed at least two months before this stage.

We do not kill people outside the womb because we recognize that they are other minds, much like ourselves. Therefore it would be unjust to kill a baby in a woman's body that has begun to think. Before this it merely has the potential for the behavior and experience we call humanity. Not humanity itself.

We think that's fair. From where we sit the debate is somewhat simplistic and juvenile. There's room in this issue for everybody's comfort.

Ok, first off, to Harrisonveld. IT CREATES JOBS?!?!?!?!?!? That is quite possibly the stupidest argumant I have heard yet. Legalizing hired hitmen would create thousands of jobs, should we allow that?

Because the process is consensual by the person needing a medical procedure performed. If the victim requested a hitman be sent after him or her for a specific reason, then I would feel that the person had that right. Perhaps, there's a bizarre fetish for having one's life placed at risk, and one wishes to see if he or she can escape his or her fate.

Because this does not limit any other person's personal freedom, this is not an issue. If person A were to place a contract on person B's head with a hitman, the effect of this would necessarily be to put a gross limitation on person B's freedom. As such, this sort of contract should remain illegal.


In the case of a woman deciding to have an abortion, she should not have the freedom to have the procedure performed on her body infringed upon by the government. The case to ban abortion is the case of a significant portion of an electorate to limit the freedom of a person to choose what they do to their body. No woman should have submit to a population who would wish her freedoms to be so grossly limited. End of argument, IMNSHO.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian worlds.

komokom, i see there's no convincing you. you have attempted to refute comments of mine with ideas that you must know are false. you're determined to retain your opinion no matter what i say, so i will say no more unless you really have questions for me. feel free to email.

oh, and on that email matter,i have yet to receive a single reply to my invitation for debate. so i guess i'll give my screen name for aim-- it's GungHo Friends (same as my nation name, real original, i know). also, my email again is robhart03@yahoo.com. keep in mind that i don't really want angry ranters to come after me with their rhetoric and insults. i'm interested in intelligent debate, even if it's not specifically on this issue.

komokom, i see there's no convincing you. you have attempted to refute comments of mine with ideas that you must know are false. you're determined to retain your opinion no matter what i say, so i will say no more unless you really have questions for me. feel free to email.
.

Actually, upon reading the debate. His Komokom's points seem to be factually correct. If you have issues with killing cells, I commit genocide at least once a day, commiting millions upon helpless millions of unprotectd sperm cells (okay only .5 the normal amount of chromosomes) each day. More over than that, I kill milions being affected with mild dandruff symptons. As such, millions of cells die each day.

So, as such, I am killing human life every single day. Now, if you consider actual sentient human life to be an emergent property of mass groups of cells coming to greater levels of complexity, the groups of cells that make a fetus aren't capable of being remotely more intellgent than your average cow, lamb, or chicken until very very late in the pregnancy. In some cases, this does not happen until after birth (sad as that case may be).

perhaps then we are considering that it is wrong to harm any life at all, in which case we should *definitely* be considering an end to the slaughter of mammals for the sake of consistency.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the Jovian Worlds

How about ending the whole debate on capital punishment and just calling it a retro-active abortion ?

Please do not grave dig ancient topics.

Seeing as some half-decent debate has arisen, I'm inclined to leave this thread unlocked.

However, if it slips too far away from UN matters, I'll split it off to General.


[EDIT]
Actually, after re-reading, people are assuming this proposal is still on the floor.
Therefore, this thread is locked.


If someone else wants to submit this as a proposal again, they can.