NationStates Jolt Archive

A proposal banning Partial-Birth abortion has been proposed. Please support this measure.

I said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't want your kids, we'll gladly take them.

i am fully in support of this .

I have spoken with our surgeon general, Dr. Fiona Bixby, and here is her reply:

"Dilation and extraction ('partial-birth abortion' is *not* a medical term; it's a term cooked up by the anti-abortion movement) is not a procedure that any respectable physician would ever perform except in extremis. Unlike dilation and cutterage (the standard abortion procedure), which is a simple outpatient procedure, D&E is an intensive procedure that puts the pregnant woman herself at noticeable risk.

"D&Es are *only* performed when the health or life of the woman is in considerable jeapordy. Unwanted pregnancies are detected *well* before a D&E would be necessary to terminate the pregnancy; pregnancies terminated because they are unwanted are always terminated using D&C instead.

"Therefore, a ban on D&Es would be pointless if it contained exemptions to protect the life or health of the mother, and irresponsible if it did not. I would advise Gurthark to oppose this proposal."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

and temm me what would and extremis be? such as when a parent makes a last minuit choice to KILL HER CHILD?

My UN ambassador has returned with a *rough* draft of our proposed Resolution:

A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician
during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

Camarolina is fully in favor of this, but probably couldn't vote for it, as we favor a nationalist approach allowing nations to decide for themselves, as we are fully in favor of national sovereignty as opposed to world government.

We stand with Gurthark in opposition to this idea.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

While Khedive is opposed to partial-birth abortions due to its gruesome nature, we must reject this proposal on the grounds that it violates the national sovereignty of the Member States and should be allowed in certain cases if and only if the mother's life is in extreme danger.

and temm me what would and extremis be? such as when a parent makes a last minuit choice to KILL HER CHILD?

I believe Dr. Bixby was fairly clear about this: When there was potential for the death or for permanent damage to the health of the mother.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I see no logical reason to ban them, you are only killing more people. Partial birth abortions are only performed when the mother's life is at risk so essentially not only would you be killing the mother but in many cases you would be killing the baby anyways.

The State of Kansas requires reports be filed annually by physicians performing partial-birth abortions.

In 1999, 182 of these procedures were performed, and none of them were to protect the life or physical health of the mother.

Here is the report:

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf

Schim is against the ban.

This whole debate in the US is not about banning this procedure, but more about getting the foot in the door to banning all abortions.

The people of New Clarkhall would support a ban on partial birth abortions. We feel that beyond a certain time in neonatal development, the second trimester, the fetus is essentially alive. Abortion after this point, for any reason other than purely medical and for the mother's health, is immoral and illegal.

We do however, reaffirm the basic right of a female to have an abortion under these constraints.

The State of Kansas requires reports be filed annually by physicians performing partial-birth abortions.

In 1999, 182 of these procedures were performed, and none of them were to protect the life or physical health of the mother.

Here is the report:

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf

They were, however, in the physician's opinion, necessary to prevent "substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient's mental function."

That's a fairly strong standard.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

what gurthark just said.

While I consider abortion murder, I would not support this resolution, for 2 reasons:

1. It infringes on national sovereignty.

2. Abortions, including late-term ones like those you addressed, will happen whether or not me, you, or anyone else wants them to. Therefore, they might as well be safe and legal, as opposed to dangerous and illegal. Wouldn't you prefer the loss of one life instead of the loss of two lives?

EDIT: typo.

Not only is it against reilgions; there is no reason why women should have sex without the concent of baring children.

I have spoken with our surgeon general, Dr. Fiona Bixby, and here is her reply:

"Dilation and extraction ('partial-birth abortion' is *not* a medical term; it's a term cooked up by the anti-abortion movement) is not a procedure that any respectable physician would ever perform except in extremis. Unlike dilation and cutterage (the standard abortion procedure), which is a simple outpatient procedure, D&E is an intensive procedure that puts the pregnant woman herself at noticeable risk.

"D&Es are *only* performed when the health or life of the woman is in considerable jeapordy. Unwanted pregnancies are detected *well* before a D&E would be necessary to terminate the pregnancy; pregnancies terminated because they are unwanted are always terminated using D&C instead.

"Therefore, a ban on D&Es would be pointless if it contained exemptions to protect the life or health of the mother, and irresponsible if it did not. I would advise Gurthark to oppose this proposal."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We of the USSS concur 100%; indeed we could not have put it so well ourselves. Besides, in our country the right to privacy is written explicitly into the Constitution, and we feel with that comes the right to have an abortion regardless of rather pointless debates concerning whether or not the "child" is "alive." Keep this a political matter, not a moral one, and it becomes remarkably clear cut, not so?

Keep this a political matter, not a moral one, and it becomes remarkably clear cut, not so?

To say that politics and morals must be separated shows a ignorance on the part of our friends in the USSS. Why should I not kill you? Assuming we remove morals from politics all murders are OK, stealing is fine, in fact without morals why should anyone be granted any basic rights or laws. Is it immoral to have slaves? Yes, and so slavery is banned. We belive that the killing of a fetus while it is in the process of being born constitutes a grave crime and should be punished as such.

Though i am pro-choice i do not believe in late term abortions, except in cases where the mother's life or health is at risk. I could not vote to ban them completely because that would discount those circumstances.

The State of Kansas requires reports be filed annually by physicians performing partial-birth abortions.

In 1999, 182 of these procedures were performed, and none of them were to protect the life or physical health of the mother.

Here is the report:

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/99itop1.pdf

They were, however, in the physician's opinion, necessary to prevent "substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient's mental function."

That's a fairly strong standard.
- - - - -

Not in practice.

It means whatever the physician and patient want it to mean.

This is because there are no definitions or guidelines for that standard.

I would agree that there were high standards if a psychiatrist were required to certify to the patient's mental condition. Not a psychologist, but a psychiatrist.





Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Not only is it against reilgions; there is no reason why women should have sex without the concent of baring children.

Not against mine, it might be against yours but they are two very different things.

To say that it is against all religions is a very ignorant statement to make. It demonstrates your narrow view on the world.

And what about rape? Does this mean the woman must now consent to having a child?

What if the mother will die without the abortion? Can you say that she decided when she had sex that nothing could be done to save her life if things went wrong?

The outright banning of abortions in all circumstances except rape is the only rational choice. And the only reason abortions should be allowed in case of rape is because there is a severe amount of physical pain associated with childbirth that the woman, because she was raped, was prevented from deciding for herself whether or not she wanted to experience it.

The outright banning of abortions in all circumstances except rape is the only rational choice. And the only reason abortions should be allowed in case of rape is because there is a severe amount of physical pain associated with childbirth that the woman, because she was raped, was prevented from deciding for herself whether or not she wanted to experience it.

The outright banning of abortions in all circumstances except rape is the only rational choice. And the only reason abortions should be allowed in case of rape is because there is a severe amount of physical pain associated with childbirth that the woman, because she was raped, was prevented from deciding for herself whether or not she wanted to experience it.

The outright banning of abortions in all circumstances except rape is the only rational choice. And the only reason abortions should be allowed in case of rape is because there is a severe amount of physical pain associated with childbirth that the woman, because she was raped, was prevented from deciding for herself whether or not she wanted to experience it.

The outright banning of abortions in all circumstances except rape is the only rational choice. And the only reason abortions should be allowed in case of rape is because there is a severe amount of physical pain associated with childbirth that the woman, because she was raped, was prevented from deciding for herself whether or not she wanted to experience it.

Well look how fast Ithuania ditches his whole "absolute morals" argument when he finds an issue that contradicts it.

I believe this would fall under not causing physical harm to another, forcing a woman to carry the child is the same as enslaving a worker to do your work.

*Adds this to the list of times Ithuania has been wrong* It's really getting quite long now. :lol:

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

yes when a woman has sex she willing know the consequences of her actions. A child a blessing to the parents and should be treated as such. It is never in any instance ok to destroy innocent human life.

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.

And it is even less legal because the mother does not sign anything, so it would be the same as a company putting up a sign that says "If you enter the building you will be enslaved immedeatly".

And you called me dense... :lol:

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.
Umm...no. You can sign yourself away into anything you damn well please.

And it is even less legal because the mother does not sign anything,
She doesn't have to...as long as she agrees to the sex, she accepts the consequences voluntarily.
so it would be the same as a company putting up a sign that says "If you enter the building you will be enslaved immedeatly".
Again, it's your choice whether or not to go in. If you choose to, you accept the consequences of doing so voluntarily.

yes when a woman has sex she willing know the consequences of her actions. A child a blessing to the parents and should be treated as such. It is never in any instance ok to destroy innocent human life.

Try actually backing up your arguments with facts, or even any sort of reasoning other than what your personal beliefs are.

Nobody cares what you think unless you have some sort of backing for it. :roll:

Burn.....nice one Ithuania

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Since you stated that only in cases of rape would abortion be allowed, you denied the possibility of saving the mothers life by having an abortion.

So you would kill 2 people when one of them can be saved by an abortion. All because you believe the woman had it coming to her since she excepted that potential outcome when she had sex?

Yes...if it was her choice to have sex, then she accepts the consequences.

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.
Umm...no. You can sign yourself away into anything you damn well please.

So now you changed those "absolute morals" because last time I checked they said you cannot harm other people.

And it is even less legal because the mother does not sign anything,
She doesn't have to...as long as she agrees to the sex, she accepts the consequences voluntarily.

Which is the equivilant of saying, If people agree to live in the country, then they accept the consequences of thier actions. Which would include taxation. Yet again you compromise your beliefs.

so it would be the same as a company putting up a sign that says "If you enter the building you will be enslaved immedeatly".
Again, it's your choice whether or not to go in. If you choose to, you accept the consequences of doing so voluntarily.

So you agree that the government can tax people and have it be legal. Because the exact same argumetn you used can be applied to that.

I guess your "absolute morals" aren't so absolute afterall.

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.
Umm...no. You can sign yourself away into anything you damn well please.

So now you changed those "absolute morals" because last time I checked they said you cannot harm other people.
Show me how signing YOURSELF away will harm OTHER people.

And it is even less legal because the mother does not sign anything,
She doesn't have to...as long as she agrees to the sex, she accepts the consequences voluntarily.

Which is the equivilant of saying, If people agree to live in the country, then they accept the consequences of thier actions. Which would include taxation. Yet again you compromise your beliefs.

TGM...a while back, I posted something explaining why this is ridiculously false, which you said you copied and saved for later reference. Would you mind posting it here? I don't have time to search for it right now, and I don't want to type it all out again if I don't have to.

Ithuania by the way I am strongly pro-choice, for the reasons laid out superbly on capitalism.org.

But anyways here is your taxation speel:


Why taxation is theft:

I go to work. I earn money. Since I have accumulated that money by exchanging my labor for money that originally belonged to an employer in a voluntary mutual agreement, then (assuming that my employer obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) that money is morally mine. I have earned it, and I have obtained it with the consent of its prior owner. To take what is mine from me without my consent is theft.

But I do consent, because after all I'm free to leave society at any time, you say? Ok, fine. But I live on property that I own. Since I obtained that property with the voluntary consent of the prior owner (most likely by trading something I had of value for it, although he could have given it to me or left it to me in his will--it really doesn't matter as long as he consented to it), then (assuming, of course, that the prior owner obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) the property on which I live is morally mine. I own it, completely, totally, and unquestionably. Now, there is no such thing as "conditional" ownership of property--either I own it and I'm free to do as I please with it or I'm not. Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.


I take it that it derives from the fundamental ownership of land.

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.
Umm...no. You can sign yourself away into anything you damn well please.

So now you changed those "absolute morals" because last time I checked they said you cannot harm other people.
Show me how signing YOURSELF away will harm OTHER people.

No, signing yourself away hurts yourself. And the people enslaving you (I.E. government) are the ones hurting you.

And it is even less legal because the mother does not sign anything,
She doesn't have to...as long as she agrees to the sex, she accepts the consequences voluntarily.

Which is the equivilant of saying, If people agree to live in the country, then they accept the consequences of thier actions. Which would include taxation. Yet again you compromise your beliefs.

TGM...a while back, I posted something explaining why this is ridiculously false, which you said you copied and saved for later reference. Would you mind posting it here? I don't have time to search for it right now, and I don't want to type it all out again if I don't have to.

I have a feeling it involves you talking about jiggly jello and yet again changing those "absolute morals" if you agree to go to a country, you agree to pay taxes. You said it yourself, if people agree to enter the building, the company can enlsave them.

Which it is not my personal belief, it is yours. And according to you, it is absolute and cannot be changed. It could not be any simpler than I just said it, so just admit you are wrong and we can all get back to mocking you.

Thank you.

And capitalism.org's reasoning is completely bogus on that point, I might add.

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.
Umm...no. You can sign yourself away into anything you damn well please.

So now you changed those "absolute morals" because last time I checked they said you cannot harm other people.
Show me how signing YOURSELF away will harm OTHER people.

No, signing yourself away hurts yourself.
Where have I ever said you can't hurt yourself if you choose or voluntarily allow others to?

(a hint...I HAVEN'T)

Ithuania by the way I am strongly pro-choice, for the reasons laid out superbly on capitalism.org.

But anyways here is your taxation speel:


Why taxation is theft:

I go to work. I earn money. Since I have accumulated that money by exchanging my labor for money that originally belonged to an employer in a voluntary mutual agreement, then (assuming that my employer obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) that money is morally mine. I have earned it, and I have obtained it with the consent of its prior owner. To take what is mine from me without my consent is theft.

But I do consent, because after all I'm free to leave society at any time, you say? Ok, fine. But I live on property that I own. Since I obtained that property with the voluntary consent of the prior owner (most likely by trading something I had of value for it, although he could have given it to me or left it to me in his will--it really doesn't matter as long as he consented to it), then (assuming, of course, that the prior owner obtained it legitimately, and so on up the line) the property on which I live is morally mine. I own it, completely, totally, and unquestionably. Now, there is no such thing as "conditional" ownership of property--either I own it and I'm free to do as I please with it or I'm not. Since I own this property, then I have the right to do as I please with it--including live on it--without implicitly consenting to have a portion of my wealth taken from me at regular intervals. Since this property is mine, since this wealth is mine, I control it subject to no conditions save that I do not use it to cause harm to another person or his property. I have no moral obligation to abandon or give up, in whole or in part, what I have legitimately accumulated simply because of where it and I happen to be physically located except with my explicit consent.

Therefore, taxation is theft, period.


I take it that it derives from the fundamental ownership of land.

The very same argument that was just stated in that can be used to support abortion. Even though what you just said is bullshit, it still supports abortion, so therefore either you are pro-choice or you must admit that there are no absolute morals.

No, it doesn't.

You can't make an argument by picking out bits and pieces of what I've said and ignoring the rest. That's called "being a dense moron".

I'm pro-choice. A woman fundamentally owns her own body. She has the right to remove any object within it including a baby whenever she wants.

That the baby dies is merely a tragic consequence.

You're very dense. No one's being forced to do anything. If the woman chooses to have sex, then she voluntarily accepts the consequences that come about from that decision.

Which is the legal equivilant of signing yourself away to indentured slavery. Which your "absolute morals" are against.
Umm...no. You can sign yourself away into anything you damn well please.

So now you changed those "absolute morals" because last time I checked they said you cannot harm other people.
Show me how signing YOURSELF away will harm OTHER people.

No, signing yourself away hurts yourself.
Where have I ever said you can't hurt yourself if you choose or voluntarily allow others to?

(a hint...I HAVEN'T)

Ooooooohhhh, so you ARE a dumbass. I see, well that must be tough.

And if you allow people to hurt themselves, then you have to allow them to abort unwanted fetus's, because the fetus is essentially part of them.

Yes...if it was her choice to have sex, then she accepts the consequences.

So if you decide to ride a bicycle and you get in a horrible crash, i should really just let you die, since those are the consequences you accepted when you got on the bike.

If your home gets struck by lightning that was a risk you accepted when you bought a home, so really i shouldnt try to put out the blaze now should I? In fact you should be locked in the house because you owned one which was so prone to catching on fire.

No, it doesn't.

You can't make an argument by picking out bits and pieces of what I've said and ignoring the rest. That's called "being a dense moron".

Yes it does, just replace wealth with body and it becomes a pro-choice argument.

And I believe "being a dense moron" is more your endeavor.

the diffrence between haveing sex and becomeing pregnant and being struck by lightening are completely diffrent

1)becomeing pregnant is not a bad thing where as being hit by lightening is (duh)

2)the chances of being hit by lightening is completely slim and when you are hit it is not your fault at all you are just in that percential that is hit. Whereas when you have sex you have a very high chance of becomeing pregnant and you know of that risk whereas when you step outside you do not know you are going to be hit.

Just to inform you all.....our regional delagate,of Portugal, has presented a Ban on Partial-Birth abortion within the last few hours. We urge ALL UN delegates to support this measure.

the diffrence between haveing sex and becomeing pregnant and being struck by lightening are completely diffrent

1)becomeing pregnant is not a bad thing where as being hit by lightening is (duh)

That is your opinion, to a 15 year old, becoming pregnant is a horrible thing.

Remember what I said about backing up your arguments? Yeah, just start doing that any time now.

the diffrence between haveing sex and becomeing pregnant and being struck by lightening are completely diffrent

1)becomeing pregnant is not a bad thing where as being hit by lightening is (duh)

2)the chances of being hit by lightening is completely slim and when you are hit it is not your fault at all you are just in that percential that is hit. Whereas when you have sex you have a very high chance of becomeing pregnant and you know of that risk whereas when you step outside you do not know you are going to be hit.

Actually your chance of getting pregnant in a one-night stand is less than 2%. More than nine out of ten pregnancies naturally miscarry. This is because the mother's immune system will attack the baby because it doesn't recognize the father's DNA. It is extremely rare for a woman to sustain a pregnancy with a first-time partner for more than week or two.

Actually your chance of getting pregnant in a one-night stand is less than 2%. More than nine out of ten pregnancies naturally miscarry.

Are you saying you should have 50 one night stands?

If you look at the poll we are Split 50/50 on this issue, I just hope all the UN delegates will not block the passage of this great proposal.

the diffrence between haveing sex and becomeing pregnant and being struck by lightening are completely diffrent

1)becomeing pregnant is not a bad thing where as being hit by lightening is (duh)

2)the chances of being hit by lightening is completely slim and when you are hit it is not your fault at all you are just in that percential that is hit. Whereas when you have sex you have a very high chance of becomeing pregnant and you know of that risk whereas when you step outside you do not know you are going to be hit.

1.) If pregnancy is threatening your life it is

2.) You have a chance of becoming pregnant, now 1/3 of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage, and few of the remaining pregnencies reach a stage in which abortions are necesary to preserve the life of the mother.

You don't accept when you have sex that this may mean your death.

the diffrence between haveing sex and becomeing pregnant and being struck by lightening are completely diffrent

1)becomeing pregnant is not a bad thing where as being hit by lightening is (duh)

2)the chances of being hit by lightening is completely slim and when you are hit it is not your fault at all you are just in that percential that is hit. Whereas when you have sex you have a very high chance of becomeing pregnant and you know of that risk whereas when you step outside you do not know you are going to be hit.

1.) If pregnancy is threatening your life it is

2.) You have a chance of becoming pregnant, now 1/3 of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage, and few of the remaining pregnencies reach a stage in which abortions are necesary to preserve the life of the mother.

You don't accept when you have sex that this may mean your death.


How often is there a chance of the mother dieing singurlarly upon the child, or are there other things involved such as achol drugs cigarets..etc.

forcing your beliefs on someone else is wrong -period.It is not your body -it is not your life and it is not your choice.BTW the partial birth ban in the US would have passed many times already if the religous right would have just conceded to allow for extreme circumstances.even in this cyber world I would not presume to think I could know better then a Doctor or the woman involved what is best for her -or her child.if you want to save a child why don't you start with the ones that are already here-your arguments don't mean crap to the one who grows up abused or worse-and I don't see where you have adopted some of the hundreds of thousands who have no one to care for them -so you can put your holy attitude where the sun dont shine.

Dont be giveing me your attitude you jerk! i dont need it. And if you kept updated then you would realize that partial birth abortion is now ILLEGAL in the U.S..

Dont be giveing me your attitude you jerk! i dont need it. And if you kept updated then you would realize that partial birth abortion is now ILLEGAL in the U.S..
Of course it has to be signed by the President before becoming law, pretty much a formality in this case.

Also, my understanding is that it's almost certainly going to be declared unconstitutional as soon as it's challenged. I don't know whether or not violating an unconstitutional law is technically considered illegal or not.

Also, my understanding is that it's almost certainly going to be declared unconstitutional as soon as it's challenged. I don't know whether or not violating an unconstitutional law is technically considered illegal or not.

Well you cannot violate an unconstitutional law, becasue thne it would not be a law at all.

Of course it has to be signed by the President before becoming law, pretty much a formality in this case.


Just cos I'm bored I'll point out that this isn't the case in the USA.

Sven
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Dont be giveing me your attitude you jerk! i dont need it. And if you kept updated then you would realize that partial birth abortion is now ILLEGAL in the U.S..

Blow me a-hole -your the one with the force my opinion on everyone attitude!