Abortion Question in front of UN right now
Oilermania
15-11-2003, 18:33
As a liberal country my concern is that, with this new resolution, the rights of Women, will be violated, in that they shall not be allowed the right to any abortion. The nation of Oilermania will not be voting in favour of this resolution.
Since when did abortion become a basic, unalienable human right?
Nevermoore
15-11-2003, 22:16
The resolution up for vote protects all life. ALL LIFE, that means abortion WILL be illegal. So will harming anything considered alive. Like a garden weed or a plauge.
Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting
The resolution up for vote protects all life. ALL LIFE, that means abortion WILL be illegal. So will harming anything considered alive. Like a garden weed or a plauge.
Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting
It depends on how this resolution defines life for an individual.
Seeing how intelligence, spirituality, sentience or however one defines individuality is ignored in this resolution one could argue that the fetus and the woman are one complete organism and this organism would have the right to eliminate part of itself.
Woman should get a choice I mean whats the point of being born if your mother 16 just left school. Can't get a job, and you'll have to grow up in abject poverty right now. Is there a point. No it just wreaks two lives
Another problem is that it appears inherently flawed and contradictory. One, it is a propsal to "improve worldwide human and civil rights." Yet states in the proposal: "We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise. " One seems human exclusive, one states it is not...we cannot have it both ways. Therefore, due to the confusing and contradictory nature of this proposal, it must be rejected! Though a good idea, overall, it needs to be more specific before we can pass it.
---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---
Oakeshottland
15-11-2003, 23:33
Greetings:
Wherever one stands on abortion, euthanasia, or the like (the RCO is a Catholic state, so you can guess our stands on these), this resolution must be rejected.
Consider how broad it considers "all life," and how willing United Middle-Earth is to take interpretative liberties with it. Effectively, euthanasia (or any self-killing) is illegal. So would abortion, whether the fetus is seen as an individual living entity or a part of the living mother. Indeed, considering how some bacteria grow on eyelashes, I presume we would be banned from washing our faces.
This "human rights" bill is actually anti-human, indeed anti-life. Its strictures make continued living impossible - it provides us a "human right" to live until starvation or infection brings us all down.
With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.
New Kingman
15-11-2003, 23:33
I had supported this resolution, but withdrew my vote. I urge all to do the same.
I had supported this resolution, but withdrew my vote. I urge all to do the same.
No! Bacteria have rights too!
Collaboration
16-11-2003, 03:47
As Gurthark points out, the proposal has a loophole in that it provides "living beings have a right to exist in such a way as they see fit so long as they do not cause harm to another living being." (Or words to that effect)
This at least should protect women in cases involving their life or health, presumably including mental well-being. That would be a workable exemption.
still doesn't solve the problem of feeding the world...