NationStates Jolt Archive

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

If abortion is allowed to remain legal, then when a pregnant women is killed, the killer should only be tried for the mother's death and not the mother and child's death.

OOC: Scott Peterson is on trial for the mother and the child's death but abortion still remains legal, which is pretty much the same thing, minus killing the mother. Weird, eh? Kill a pregnant women and you go on trial for 2 murders, commit abortion, it's perfectly fine. I'm not a bible-beater, but that is some bullshit.

Well, it depends on how late of term the baby was. And I suppose it makes a difference to some people that the baby was wanted and was going to be born.

This whole issue is so subjective that I definitely think individual sovereignty is the way to go. I would support such a proposal.

You know, I'd have a whole lot more sympathy for the "pro-life" viewpoint if it wasn't so obviously full of bullshit.
If you guys are so pro-life, then why do you support the death peanlty? Why do you support the South American death squads? Why are you against gun control and nuclear weapons control?
When you guys say "right-to-life" it seems to me, decidedly...that you are talking about YOUR right to decide who should live or die!

You're very inconsistent. Even with regards to the who "pro-life" thing in general...leaving out the death penatly, death squads, guns and nuclear weapons.

Why is it that so many people who are so "pro-life" when that life is in the womb, turn around and give that same life a giant middle finger once it is out of the womb?

You fight vehemently for the as-yet-to-be-born...but as soon as they are born, they get a giant middle finger and a big "Screw You!" from you guys!

You cut welfare programs needed by needy families. You cut Head Start, and other educational programs. You cut WIC programs needed by needy families, especially single moms. You cut welfare-to-work programs and day-care programs, making it impossible for the single mother to get out there and actually take advantage of welfare-to-work, and thus, enable her to crawl off the shit heap. You cut finding to LIHEAP this year, so that children of poor parents in the Northeast of America can freeze their keesters off this winter!

You say pro-llfe...but it seems you're only pro-life so long as it doesn't cost you anything!! As soon as it costs you something to be pro-life, you turn a cataract eye and a deaf ear to it...choosing instead to give that same life a giant middle finger and a hearty "Screw You!"

Now, how do you pro-lifers square up these decidedly anti-life actions, with your words of pro-life? Or am I right in my assumption that you just want to claim the moral high ground for free...and you abandon it the second it costs YOU anything?

you want to stand there, promethian, beating your breast over how righteous and moral you are to defend the unborn...yet, every action you take hurts the needy that are already born. And for what? To give you selfish, greedy sons-a-guns another friggin' tax break you don't need!! :evil:

Ouch. But too bad I've never called myself pro-life. All I said is that it should be one way or the other. If you can abortions then you can't try a man for 2 murders for killing a pregnant woman. The reasons I don't call myself pro-life is b/c I support the death penalty. As for the whole pro-lifers cutting welfare and such, you are being very stereotypical. It'd be the same as saying all blacks look alike, like watermelon, are lazy, greasy, smoke crack and steal. Or saying Hispanics are lazy, greasy, sneak into our country, and steal. Or like saying all Irish are drunks. Or that all French are homosexuals. The point is, when you rant you sound ignorant you when you ramble on saying you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...you did this....you did that...you did this...

See my point? If you think the pro-lifers are so horrible, then go start a movement to fix what they've done wrong, while I sit here and watch the rest of America make assholes of themselves.

I am neither onw way or the other on abortion (slightly leaning towards pro-choice if anything).

The thing I am against is IVF. If two people can't have a child, IMHO that's natures way of telling them they shouldn't reproduce.

And just remember, for every couple that successfully undergo IVF treatment, there is one less orphaned child out there likely to be adopted.

We have more than enough people on the planet as it is without invented new ways of making more.

I am neither one way or the other on abortion (slightly leaning towards pro-choice, if anything)...

The thing I am against is IVF. If two people can't have a child, IMHO that's natures way of telling them they shouldn't reproduce.

And just remember, for every couple that successfully undergo IVF treatment, there is one less orphaned child out there likely to be adopted.

We have more than enough people on the planet as it is without inventing new ways of making more.

I'm pro-choice, but also believe abortion is morally wrong (Yes, that's a messed-up position, I know).

However, even if abortion is legal, someone should be charged with murder for killing a viable child (A baby if born at that point would be able to survive) with the mother. Anything before that, you also wouldn;t be able to tell the mother was pregnant so it shouldn't count.

Now there are a few cases where a mother has been deliberately attack with the intention of killing the baby (kicked in the stomach). That IS murder.

Abortion can be different for certain cases. I don't believe in abortion just because the mother would be inconvenieced. If the mother is a stable (mentally, physically, and financially) adult there is no reason for abortion.

Ouch. But too bad I've never called myself pro-life. All I said is that it should be one way or the other. If you can abortions then you can't try a man for 2 murders for killing a pregnant woman. The reasons I don't call myself pro-life is b/c I support the death penalty. As for the whole pro-lifers cutting welfare and such, you are being very stereotypical. It'd be the same as saying (snip snip) that all French are homosexuals.

But don't you know? All French ARE homosexuals! :wink: :roll:

Just kidding... if all French were homosexuals, Quebec would be a lot cooler ;D

OOC: Scott Peterson is on trial for the mother and the child's death but abortion still remains legal, which is pretty much the same thing, minus killing the mother. Weird, eh? Kill a pregnant women and you go on trial for 2 murders, commit abortion, it's perfectly fine. I'm not a bible-beater, but that is some bullshit.

Actually, Sliponia, you need to read up on your facts more carefully. Peterson can be charged with two murders because the baby was killed during the third trimester, when most every person asked (along with our good pal THE LAW) says that abortion should be banned.

If you guys are so pro-life, then why do you support the death peanlty?

That's not very logical. The death penalty is only excercised after extensive judicial proceedings which, most of the time, take several years to decide and the person in question has invariably been convicted of some heinous crime. Granted, I'm against it, but your argument does not smell like sense.

The thing I am against is IVF. If two people can't have a child, IMHO that's natures way of telling them they shouldn't reproduce.

Nature didn't invent computers, either. Or the cars that were used to deliver your food. Or the roads that they drove on. Or the farming techniques and technologies used to produce your food. Or the refrigerators that kept your food from being overgrown with bacteria. Or the power plants, lines, mines, railroads, and systems that are used to power your refrigeration. And yet you use all of those. Be consistent.

And just remember, for every couple that successfully undergo IVF treatment, there is one less orphaned child out there likely to be adopted.

If you have one natural child of your own in your entire life, you're being a hypocrite. Some people have this silly urge to pass on their genes.

OOC: Scott Peterson is on trial for the mother and the child's death but abortion still remains legal, which is pretty much the same thing, minus killing the mother. Weird, eh? Kill a pregnant women and you go on trial for 2 murders, commit abortion, it's perfectly fine. I'm not a bible-beater, but that is some bullshit.

Actually, Sliponia, you need to read up on your facts more carefully. Peterson can be charged with two murders because the baby was killed during the third trimester, when most every person asked (along with our good pal THE LAW) says that abortion should be banned.

If you guys are so pro-life, then why do you support the death peanlty?

That's not very logical. The death penalty is only excercised after extensive judicial proceedings which, most of the time, take several years to decide and the person in question has invariably been convicted of some heinous crime. Granted, I'm against it, but your argument does not smell like sense.


I love how you only addessed that ONE point I made, and neatly sidestepped all the others...in fact, you didn't even QUOTE me on my other points...so much easier for you to dismiss me as a whacko if you just ignore the other, more valid points I made, isn't it?

The thing I am against is IVF. If two people can't have a child, IMHO that's natures way of telling them they shouldn't reproduce.

Nature didn't invent computers, either. Or the cars that were used to deliver your food. Or the roads that they drove on. Or the farming techniques and technologies used to produce your food. Or the refrigerators that kept your food from being overgrown with bacteria. Or the power plants, lines, mines, railroads, and systems that are used to power your refrigeration. And yet you use all of those. Be consistent.

And just remember, for every couple that successfully undergo IVF treatment, there is one less orphaned child out there likely to be adopted.

If you have one natural child of your own in your entire life, you're being a hypocrite. Some people have this silly urge to pass on their genes.

Interesting points, but basically irrelevant to my statement.

To say that because I am against one type of technolgy (IVF research) means that I must be aginst ALL technolgy is just plain silly. I'm not Amish for cryin' out loud! :P I am a believer in natural selection, and that means that in the animal kingdom (from bacteria to humans), certainly individuals cannot reproduce - unfortuante, but a fact nonetheless. Using technology to extend the lifespan or improve the quality of life for people with illnesses is a different matter entirely, in my eyes. A perosn born with an illness shouldn't have to suffer if their is scientific means to alleviate the condition. People who discover that they cannot breed naturally, though, have a choice to do something truly worthwhile and adopt.

Don't you agree that couples who cannot have children biologically would be better advised to adopt a needy child than to have one cooked-up in a petri dish for them? Yes, wanting to pass on one's genes is a biological imperative, but I would like to think that in a civilised society we could possibly put the needs of orphaned children ahead of our animal impulses.

The fact of the matter is this planet is already overpopulated with humans, and we are tearing through our natural resources at an exponentially increasing rate. In my set of values, IVF is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As for my hypocracy, no, I do not have any children, biological, adopted, IVF or otherwise. If and when I do wish to have children, if I find I cannot have them through natural means, I would be quite willing and prepared to adopt.

Don't worry, I know my view of IVF is a bit controversial, I've had plenty of diagreements with people over the issue in the past :wink: At the end of the day, though, I stand by my views.

so much easier for you to dismiss me as a whacko if you just ignore the other, more valid points I made, isn't it?

Why debate that which I take little to no issue with?

Or should I say, "How easy for you to ignore the one point I made against you?" Would you prefer that I be pointlessly confrontational?

---
Edited for New Fubaria.

Using technology to extend the lifespan or improve the quality of life for people with illnesses is a different matter entirely, in my eyes.

I, too, believe in natural selection, but humans evolved and were largely successful because of the use of tools (technology) and language. If we ignore our power to reason and invent, we turn our back on all that has made our species great.

Although I'm sure there are plenty of religious types who would take issue with that. Maybe I should revise that to "a good portion of what made us great." Eh.

The fact of the matter is this planet is already overpopulated with humans, and we are tearing through our natural resources at an exponentially increasing rate. In my set of values, IVF is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I'll grant you that, definitely, but I'm one of those annoying freedom fighter people. Not much chance either of us will convince the other, it would seem.

Meanwhile, back to the issue...Yes, each country should decide their own laws on abortion. In fact, each country should in general decide their own laws on EVERYTHING unless they are egregiously violating a basic tenet of humanity (like enslaving people, chopping off people's hands to see who will bleed the longest, amongst other things). The UN is not an international government.

so much easier for you to dismiss me as a whacko if you just ignore the other, more valid points I made, isn't it?

Why debate that which I take little to no issue with?

Or should I say, "How easy for you to ignore the one point I made against you?" Would you prefer that I be pointlessly confrontational?



Fair enough. I just assumed you held an opposed view to my own concerning abortion.
To be honest, I care less one way or another about abortion since I am sterile, and thus, I have no dog in this fight. I have never had, nor will I ever have, the ability to become pregnant. Such is the way of things. I have learned to accept what I cannot change.
I adopted a dog, instead. She is like a child to me. Being as I AM able, financially, to care for a dog...and NOT financially able to care for a human child...this seemed a reasonable solution.
what really gets me, though, about the whole abortion debate is the way the pro-lifers so vehemently support life in the womb...and then give that same life a great big middle finger and a hearty "Screw You" once that life is out of the womb. It's like...they are pro-life only until it costs THEM something! Then they turn a cataract eye and deaf ear to the cries of the needy. That really bugs the crap outta me.

The UN is not an international government.

I believe that you confuse real life and this game. In NationStates, the UN is expressly the world's governing body. The FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/pages/faq.html).

In fact, each country should in general decide their own laws on EVERYTHING unless they are egregiously violating a basic tenet of humanity (like enslaving people, chopping off people's hands to see who will bleed the longest, amongst other things).

Back on topic, most pro-lifers view abortion as murder. If a government were to stage or support the mass murder of a few thousand toddlers every year, do you think the UN should get involved? Granted, that's not how I, and presumably you, see abortion, but that's pretty much their side of the argument in a nutshell.

what really gets me, though, about the whole abortion debate is the way the pro-lifers so vehemently support life in the womb...and then give that same life a great big middle finger and a hearty "Screw You" once that life is out of the womb.

Yeah, there's alot of people out there who really don't make sense. I think any political extreme tends to get pretty wierd.

If the mother is a stable (mentally, physically, and financially) adult there is no reason for abortion.

Well, now. Suppose that this mentally, physically, and financially stable adult mother was impregnated due to rape. Would she then wish to keep the child? Boy, would she feel great explaining to her child what daddy was like. "Oh, honey, I didn't want you. I got raped." That'll do wonders for a kid's self-esteem.

The real issue here is "quality" of life.

From an extremist's perspective, pro-lifers would deny a woman the ability to terminate the existence of their unborn child, thereby forcing them to give birth regardless of the conditions into which the child would be exposed to, humane or otherwise. That's when we get our orphans, babies thrown into dumpsters (or worse), child labor in undeveloped countries, etc. Granted, some turn out okay, but at the expense of the parents who probably ended up on Welfare.

On the other hand, an extreme pro-choicer would bring abortion abuse into society. A message would be sent to young teens informing them that it's okay to have unprotected sex because in the event of impregnation the pregnancy can be aborted. I strongly doubt this is the intent of pro-choice advocates, but it seems to me that the under-educated youth of the world would see this as one less reason to buy condoms or the pill (still considering STDs). Even adults could decide they want a child, get pregnant, and then decide they weren't themselves or that they want to wait a few more years and abort. Such a fickle attitude toward the life and death of the next generation is a deplorable disregard for human morality.

The decision for abortions should be decided based on the best interests of the CHILDREN. They are the real heart of this issue.

(Feel free to criticize. I know I made some over-generalizations and stereotypes to make my point.)

Unfortunately, you're probably right that we won't come to an agreement about abortion, at least not in the near future. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" people almost inevitably end up talking past each other, with no attempt or even desire to understand the other side's arguments. Many (though not all) pro-choicers deny that there is a "life" involved in abortion. They maintain the fiction that an abortion is just like any other operation. The idea that a fetus is "alive" in any meaningful sense or that it can feel pain is not to be discussed. Many pro-lifers (again, not all) don't give any weight to the woman's situation. Their response to discussion of a woman's freedom or rights is essentially, "it's the dumb bitch's fault for getting pregnant in the first place." Or the less harsh among them will just deny that there are signficant negative consequences to unwanted pregnancies, asserting that no matter how bad the situation is, "life is always a precious gift." Furthermore, as Labrador points out, many pro-lifers are hypocrites who show little interest in protecting life in other situations. So one side views the other as a bunch of cold-blooded murderers, while the other side thinks that its adversaries care about "life" only insofar as it can be used to oppress women. With such bleak views of each other's motives, how can these groups ever reach an agreement?

Sadly, in the current (real-world) political environment, they probably can't. Abortion has become an all-or-nothing debate. The only "compromise" position that seems to have any support is to allow abortion for cases of rape and incest. But this is still logically inconsistent with the pro-life position, and it is far too restrictive to satisfy pro-choice people. Neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers would be happy with a compromise that, say, limited abortion to the first (or second) trimester or some other arbitrary point. I don't think activists on either side want to sit down and work out a compromise with people whose beliefs they consider to be evil.

In any case, I suppose I've veered off-topic. The issue at hand is to make abortion a topic determined by nations, not by the UN. But isn't this the case already? Do we have any abortion laws on the UN books? If not, then this resolution doesn't really change anything, except to formalize the status quo.

I don't think activists on either side want to sit down and work out a compromise with people whose beliefs they consider to be evil.

That's the problem with Western philosophy. We tend to think of things as good OR evil, black OR white. Where's the gray? Besides, what is evil to one person may be seen as good to another. Take Hitler, for example. He thought he was doing a good thing by exterminating the Jews from Europe. Luckily for the rest of the Jewish people, the Allies didn't see it that way, and interpreted the Holocaust as a mass slaughter based on race.

Abortion is no different. Pro-lifes see abortion as murder, pro-choices see it as a way to secure personal liberties. The two issues are highly contradictory based on the established philosophical practices of the Western world.

In my opinion, anti-abortionists arguing their cause with religious backing are crusading for the wrong reasons. Since abortion can be seen as good or evil, what sense does it make to fight against it from those perspectives?

What I'm really saying is this:

Since the arguements regarding abortion are based on individual perspectives, is it fair to let the opinions of some become law over all?

Why doesn't someone just make a proposal to ban sovereignty.

This is a good proposal; then it would end the ceaseless debates and rancor.

If your nation has unwanted babies send them here, we are ready to receive them.

We are not going to successfully come to an agreement on abortion that pleases both sides of the arguement. It is impossible to do so. Even if you could prove without a doubt that an unborn child has no rights, those of us who are pro-life have a set of morals that point us in a different direction. We would not drop beliefs and values that most of us were born and raised with in exchange for the exact opposite. I believe it is a similar situation with tose who are pro-choice. Due to the unlikeliness of a solution coming from the numerous debates, which I do enjoy greatly, I propose that we leave the issue of abortion in the hands of the individual nations. Please support my proposal.


I'm not exactly sure what this would change. It's the de facto state of affairs already--since the U.N. hasn't created legislation about abortion, nations are free to do what they want about it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

If abortion is allowed to remain legal, then when a pregnant women is killed, the killer should only be tried for the mother's death and not the mother and child's death.

OOC: Scott Peterson is on trial for the mother and the child's death but abortion still remains legal, which is pretty much the same thing, minus killing the mother. Weird, eh? Kill a pregnant women and you go on trial for 2 murders, commit abortion, it's perfectly fine. I'm not a bible-beater, but that is some bullshit.

[OOC: I've seen this argument a number of times, and I take it it's supposed to convince pro-choice people to change their minds. As such a person, I can tell you that it won't. I don't support the law you refer to. Nobody who I know who's pro-choice supports that law. We all believe it was passed by the right wing as a stalking horse for anti-abortion laws--and if you look at who's supported laws like that, you can see that we have a case. It's a bad law, and it probably won't survive a Supreme Court challenge, if it gets there. If you kill a pregnant woman, you should be tried for *one* murder. If you cause a woman to abort (against her will), you should be tried for *some* violent crime, and treated as if you had caused grievous bodily harm (which should itself be a very serious offence), but you shouldn't be tried for murder. And the woman should be considered the victim, not the fetus.]

Back on topic, most pro-lifers view abortion as murder. If a government were to stage or support the mass murder of a few thousand toddlers every year, do you think the UN should get involved? Granted, that's not how I, and presumably you, see abortion, but that's pretty much their side of the argument in a nutshell.



Well, I view cutting off the only lifeline and means of support needy children have as murder. I view cutting funding to LIHEAP, to Head Start, to welfare-to-work programs, day-care programs, and other programs that make it POSSIBLE for a single mother who made a mistake to climb off the shit heap...I view THAT as murder.

Oh, and as George Carlin once sagely pointed out..."Haven't you ever noticed that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to boink in the first place!! There's such balance in nature!"

If abortion is allowed to remain legal, then when a pregnant women is killed, the killer should only be tried for the mother's death and not the mother and child's death.

OOC: Scott Peterson is on trial for the mother and the child's death but abortion still remains legal, which is pretty much the same thing, minus killing the mother. Weird, eh? Kill a pregnant women and you go on trial for 2 murders, commit abortion, it's perfectly fine. I'm not a bible-beater, but that is some bullshit.

Well,m it is different simply because it is the mother's choice whether the baby lives or not. If the baby is killed, or aborted, or whatever, without the mother's consent, then it IS murder. That is the difference.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You know, I'd have a whole lot more sympathy for the "pro-life" viewpoint if it wasn't so obviously full of bullshit.
If you guys are so pro-life, then why do you support the death peanlty? Why do you support the South American death squads? Why are you against gun control and nuclear weapons control?
When you guys say "right-to-life" it seems to me, decidedly...that you are talking about YOUR right to decide who should live or die!

You're very inconsistent. Even with regards to the who "pro-life" thing in general...leaving out the death penatly, death squads, guns and nuclear weapons.

Why is it that so many people who are so "pro-life" when that life is in the womb, turn around and give that same life a giant middle finger once it is out of the womb?

You fight vehemently for the as-yet-to-be-born...but as soon as they are born, they get a giant middle finger and a big "Screw You!" from you guys!

You cut welfare programs needed by needy families. You cut Head Start, and other educational programs. You cut WIC programs needed by needy families, especially single moms. You cut welfare-to-work programs and day-care programs, making it impossible for the single mother to get out there and actually take advantage of welfare-to-work, and thus, enable her to crawl off the shit heap. You cut finding to LIHEAP this year, so that children of poor parents in the Northeast of America can freeze their keesters off this winter!

You say pro-llfe...but it seems you're only pro-life so long as it doesn't cost you anything!! As soon as it costs you something to be pro-life, you turn a cataract eye and a deaf ear to it...choosing instead to give that same life a giant middle finger and a hearty "Screw You!"

Now, how do you pro-lifers square up these decidedly anti-life actions, with your words of pro-life? Or am I right in my assumption that you just want to claim the moral high ground for free...and you abandon it the second it costs YOU anything?

you want to stand there, promethian, beating your breast over how righteous and moral you are to defend the unborn...yet, every action you take hurts the needy that are already born. And for what? To give you selfish, greedy sons-a-guns another friggin' tax break you don't need!! :evil:

Who the f*** are you talking about? I am totally against death penalties and death squads and whatever else you are talking about. I hold human life very sacred. I don't "give it a big middle finger" I doubt any pro-life person out there is pro-everything else you said. I am pro-life even if it costs me. Why do you think my taxes are so high? That isn't lining my pockets. It's keeping my citizens alive regardless of brain functions. It is supporting single teen mothers who made mistakes. Most of that 80% tax rate in my nation goes to the needy. I support gun control. I am ashamed of the nations who do allow abortion, and I pray for them, but I am pro-life 100% unlike these pro-lifers that you apparently imagined, for I can see no one being so backwards.

Ah...forgive me. I speak from an American perspective, being as I am American. I'm betting you are not. What I witness, here in America, is the total hypocrasy of the "right-to-life" crowd, which I detailed above. This applies, very specifically, to the "right-to-life" crowd that I see, here in America. The 80 percent tax rate of which you speak leads me to the conclusion you must be from some country other than the United States.

It may be that things in your country are different than in mine...and you may even be sincere in your individual belief in the sanctity of all life. Not for me to judge.

But American right-wingers (the majority of whom are "right-to-lifers") seem only to believe in the sanctity of life when it costs them nothing. As soon as it costs them something, in terms of welfare, food stamps, welfare-to-work programs, heat assistance programs, etc....well, then they cut funding to those programs...leaving the very life that they claim to hold so sacrosanct...to suffer needlessly...all so that they can get a tax break with with to further line theri already bulging pockets.

Again, forgive me if I've offended you with my words. I seem to have offended you by projecting what I witness specifically in Americans, onto you, perhaps unjustly so.

Mind if I ask what country you are from, since it obviously isn't America?

If you were from America, you'd understand what I was getting at with the referenced post...and you wouldn't be paying an 80% tax rate, either.

See, the main reason conservatives HATE liberals like me is that I rub their faces in things they'd rather not see. They would rather turn a cataract eye and a deaf hear to the suffering their selfish policies create. And then I go and shove their face in that which they try so hard to ignore.

Even an American "pro-lifer" while he'd never openly admit it...could see the truth in my words. The fact that you seem confused, puzzled and insulted tells me you are not an American...and that I have made the error of painting with too broad a brush. The error I have made is in assuming the American experience is mirrored throughout the rest of the world.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Ah...again, then, my apologies. There are certain issues that really hit a hot button in me...and cause me to go OOC, and these issues really make my blood boil.

This issue happens to be one of them, because it is so full of hypocrasy. The ones making the biggest issue over abortion are also the first in line to cut support to needy mothers and children, in my experience. and I cannot square up their words with their actions.

When I witness hypocrasy, it really makes my blood boil. In that, i'm like most American Liberals. If there is one thing we liberals uniformly hate, it's hypocrasy...especially when the other side seems to get away with it!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Oh, and as George Carlin once sagely pointed out..."Haven't you ever noticed that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to boink in the first place!! There's such balance in nature!"
"And isn't it odd how everybody in favour of abortion has already been born?"

We'd support a sovereignty resolution (I'm pro-life for everyone incidentally, ignoble murderers and inconvenient foetuses alike)

Oh, and as George Carlin once sagely pointed out..."Haven't you ever noticed that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to boink in the first place!! There's such balance in nature!"
"And isn't it odd how everybody in favour of abortion has already been born?"

We'd support a sovereignty resolution (I'm pro-life for everyone incidentally, ignoble murderers and inconvenient foetuses alike)

Yeah, well..if you're so pro-life...are you prepared to not cut funding that the needy who get born NEED? Or do you vote to cut them off and let them suffer?
Childrens health care programs, dental care programs...welfare, food stamps, WIC Programs, day-care programs, welfare-to-work programs, Head Start, fuel-assistance programs...etc, etc.

If you are "pro-life" but opposed to programs such as I listed above, then you are nothing more than another of those self-righteous morons who want the moral high ground as long as it doesn't cost them anything! Soon as it does, they turn a deaf ear and a cataract eye to the cries of the suffering poor...they vehemently support life in the womb, but the second that life is out, they give it a giant middle finger, by taking away everything that life needs to survive, and not suffer, once they are out of the womb!

What say you, Thrace?? Are you consistent?? Are you really pro-life?? Or just one of these anti-abortionist, self-righteous schmucks that make my blood boil?

Understand that I'm neither pro-abortion or anti-abortion. I'm sterile and have no dog in this fight. But, as an American Liberal, if there is one thing that really makes my blood boil, it's hypocrisy...especially when my enemies (right-wingers) get away with it!

Ah...again, then, my apologies. There are certain issues that really hit a hot button in me...and cause me to go OOC, and these issues really make my blood boil.

This issue happens to be one of them, because it is so full of hypocrasy. The ones making the biggest issue over abortion are also the first in line to cut support to needy mothers and children, in my experience. and I cannot square up their words with their actions.

When I witness hypocrasy, it really makes my blood boil. In that, i'm like most American Liberals. If there is one thing we liberals uniformly hate, it's hypocrasy...especially when the other side seems to get away with it!

I'll admit that Bush's foreign policy and our stance in the Mid East is extremely hypocritical, but a liberal policy, affirmative action doublespeak is about as hypocritical as American domestic politics gets.

You don't have to oppose abortion to be a right-winger, in fact I think right-wing and libertarian arguments in favor of abortion, which stem from principle, are much stronger than comparable left-wing arguments, which stem more from a policy perspective.

Anyways, www.abortionisprolife.com -- Objectivists for abortion. Because abortion is part of a woman's right to life. To sum it up, abortion is a right because the baby has no right to be a woman's womb, and is only there by the woman's permission. She may revoke it at any time.

This is really the only consistent way of defending abortion I've come across. I find a lot of left-wing arguments well, hypocritical.

I find a lot of left-wing arguments well, hypocritical.

Point taken. the difference is WE DONT GET AWAY WITH IT!!

The supposed "liberal media" jumps our ship if we engage in hypocrisy, but right-wingers get away with hypocrisy all the time, and that really makes my blood boil!! No one ever calls out the right-wingers for their hypocrisy! At least, no one with a reasonable chance of being heard by a majority of the populace, anyway!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Soon as it does, they turn a deaf ear and a cataract eye to the cries of the suffering poor...they vehemently support life in the womb, but the second that life is out, they give it a giant middle finger, by taking away everything that life needs to survive, and not suffer, once they are out of the womb!

Why do you need tosay a cataract eye? Isn't a blind eye good enough?

Because a blind eye CAN'T see. A cataract eye CAN, with effort. That's the difference. See, the conservo-creeps don't WANT to see or acknowledge the suffering their short-sighted policies cause.

Soon as it does, they turn a deaf ear and a cataract eye to the cries of the suffering poor...they vehemently support life in the womb, but the second that life is out, they give it a giant middle finger, by taking away everything that life needs to survive, and not suffer, once they are out of the womb!

Why do you need tosay a cataract eye? Isn't a blind eye good enough?

Because a blind eye CAN'T see. A cataract eye CAN, with effort. That's the difference. See, the conservo-creeps don't WANT to see or acknowledge the suffering their short-sighted policies cause.

What about a Glaucoma eye? And cataracts don't necessarily make you short-sited, they just block parts of your view. I'm short-sighted in my right eye but 20/15 in my left. What about that?

Soon as it does, they turn a deaf ear and a cataract eye to the cries of the suffering poor...they vehemently support life in the womb, but the second that life is out, they give it a giant middle finger, by taking away everything that life needs to survive, and not suffer, once they are out of the womb!

Why do you need tosay a cataract eye? Isn't a blind eye good enough?

Because a blind eye CAN'T see. A cataract eye CAN, with effort. That's the difference. See, the conservo-creeps don't WANT to see or acknowledge the suffering their short-sighted policies cause.

What about a Glaucoma eye? And cataracts don't necessarily make you short-sited, they just block parts of your view. I'm short-sighted in my right eye but 20/15 in my left. What about that?

what about it? I'm speaking in metaphors. Grow up.

what about it? I'm speaking in metaphors. Grow up.

Oooo metaphors. How poetic of you. Have you read Brave New World? That's a very metaphorical book. You and other welfare-statists sort of remind me of Mustahpa Mond only without the cool rhetoric.

Hmm, I don't support this proposal. I believe that we must work together to protect the life of every individual no matter what country they reside in. if we agree to this then we are basically allowing murder to be commited and we know that it is being commited. By bringing in a resolution that bans abortion in all nations we have the satisfaction of knowin that murder will not be commited (or at least legally).

Every baby has the right to live would you want to be killed if the child does no lean up to the doctor and say kill me doctor kill me then you may it is a crime that the mother should be put to death!

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan, acting as a UN observer for its few days in existence after secession from the corrupt and defunct South Pacific, wishes to express its first opinion on the UN floor.

We believe that this particular resolution's purpose has been lost in the wave of abortion arguments that has ensued. This proposal was to allow nations the CHOICE of determining for themselves what they desire to be the morals of their own country (I cannot imagine a "pro choice" advocate who would not support this particular proposal). Part of our nation's and our region (The United Capitalist Confederation)'s problems with joining the UN as it stands is its frequent, hasty, and emotionally-based decisions.

What this proposal suggests is quite simple: that the UN take a step back and show some RESTRAINT. Before charging forward and destroying nations' economies with ill-founded resolutions that sound peachy (take the recent alternative fuels resolution), the UN ought to allow nations to choose for themselves. Self determination is a key here. Nations ought to be allowed to choose what they value more- a woman terminating her pregnancy or the life of a child. The UN has no place legislating FOR the many nations of the world on this particular issue. Before people become upset, it is important to understand that this proposal does not outlaw or permit abortions. It simply allows the people of a country to decide for themselves (as far as I was aware, the people of a nation are often better arbiters of what is good for themselves than this body) .Nations are defined and identified by their morals- allow the PEOPLE to make the choice with abortion. It is with this thought that the people of Novakistan (being simple observers of the UN) whole-heartedly support the proposal as it stands- urging restraint on this body to not intervene where a country's (or even the states of a country's) legislatures ought to be deciding.

On a further note (in regards to the actual issue of abortion instead of the right of self-determination and sovereignty), I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

Jesus... I must apologize for the amount of posts. It would appear that it actually DID post my message everytime I got an "URL error".

Hmm, I don't support this proposal. I believe that we must work together to protect the life of every individual no matter what country they reside in. if we agree to this then we are basically allowing murder to be commited and we know that it is being commited. By bringing in a resolution that bans abortion in all nations we have the satisfaction of knowin that murder will not be commited (or at least legally).

Forcing single moms who cannot afford to have kids into having kids as a result of a mistake they made...and then cutting funding for programs these needy children need in order to have a decent chance at life is also murder.

Can't have it both ways, conservo-creeps!

Either you start paying for the moral high ground, or give it up.

The problem with a lot of the "pro-lifers" is that they seem to believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, and ends at the moment of birth.

The problem with a lot of the "pro-lifers" is that they seem to believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, and ends at the moment of birth.
Exactly my point! Thank you, Ursoria.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The problem with a lot of the "pro-lifers" is that they seem to believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, and ends at the moment of birth.
Exactly my point! Thank you, Ursoria.


Now, I'd like to bring up a quick semantic issue: by definition, pro-life view points in regards to abortion are pro-life, period. This is the simple Identity Property applied to politics. Pro-life politics, while commonly associated with more conservative political views, do not neccessarily entail pro-death penalty positions. I believe this confusion of "pro-life" and "conservative" should be clarified in future posts.

The proposal of sovereignty on abortion is a logical one.

It'll never make everyone happy, and maybe make MOST unhappy but...

One abortion per woman. Made a mistake? One chance to learn better. One. You want a second abortion? No problem, but the second one comes with sterilization. (Excepting proven cases of rape and medical issues.)

Perfect solution? No. It might make women think very hard before they get pregnant, and harder still before having the first abortion. (I suspect most women agonize over that decision. I cannot imagine it is lightly made.) It'll definitely make them think before having the second abortion.

As for whether it is morally wrong or not, morals are subjective. If they weren't, there would be no argument at all.

I'd rather see a woman have a dozen abortions than see her break her child's arm or beat that child to death.

I do agree that the question of abortion should be left to the individual nations. I will support such a resolution, but I'll like you to define the direction of the proposal in more detail

I would support a proposal to leave abortion up to individual nations.

Pro-life positions can be called anti-abortion. Pro-choice, on the other hand, can not be called pro-abortion. By having abortion legal it enables women to have a procedure more safely if they so need/choose (rather than forcing them to find some illegal way of doing so). That does not mean running out and saying "forget about that birth control, just get an abortion!" There are many options to both prevent and deal with a pregnancy, pro-choice means giving people the ability to legally choose whichever option they require (because people will get abortions even if they aren't legal, sometimes one may feel she has no other option, why should anyone be allowed to decide for her what decisions are legal?)

Or course the answer is, because the fetus is a human and as such has inalienable human rights (this debate always comes down to this, because there is no way to ever prove it one way or the other). Personally, I think that fetuses are potential humans, until they can survive outside of the womb (either on their own or with machine support) they are entirely dependent on the mothers body and are not human, but a potential human. Not all fetuses are birthed, miscarriages are quite often; a child has not become a human until s/he is separated from the mother and can survive. That is my personal position, because it cannot be verified either way, if it could there would be no debate about abortion.

On the topic of a comatose patient. If the person has given explicit instructions prior to the accident/illness that stipulates s/he wants to have the plug pulled under these situations or does not want it to happen, the family is obligated to follow his/her wishes. If that person has not, it is legally left up to the family (unless the coma patient has named someone else responsible) and since there is no way to really know that a comatose patient will ever wake up it is up to that family to decide what they think would be best to do. That situation is not completely analogous to abortion because with pregnancy you can guarantee that within about nine months or less you will know if the child will live or die. I do not have an answer as to why s/he should die, I have never been in that situation and I am sure that each has it's own circumstances. My answer doesn't give the family the 'right' to kill him, it says that (unless s/he has provided instructions) they have the responsibility to decide what to do. The ill person has become a legal responsibility, I believe it is up to that person or group of people to decide based on their circumstances and would not tell someone what they should do. I feel the same way about abortion.

Perfect solution? No. It might make women think very hard before they get pregnant, and harder still before having the first abortion.
One woman doth not a pregnancy make. Perhaps hetero men should be more educated and made to feel more responsible for the consequences of their actions in order to make abortion less necessary. If all people were more fully educated on the consequences and the means of protection, along with free access to those things and perhaps stricter punishments for parents who do not follow through with the obligations that come with having a child there would be less need for abortions. People would get pregnant less and both parents would be more willing (or at least better made) to care for the child.

I would support a proposal for free birth control methods and better sex ed.

You know? That hurts. None of us think it ends at birth. We try. We would all like to be able to guarantee a good life for all of our people. Funding just sort of falls short sometimes. Some people are afraid to raise their nation's tax rate to an insane amount to help keep their more vulnerable citizens alive. I am not. And I'm sure that if there were no costs involved in it, you would all be pro-life. If it weren't so Goddamn expensive to raise a kid, admit it, you would have no reason for abortions. I say we ban commercialism on basic needs. If shelter, food, water, etc. weren't so f***ing expensive (in the long run) even the most anti-fetus pro-choicer out there would have no good arguement for abortion. You say we're afraid of the costs? You say we're just trying to look good until it starts to cost us? At least we try. You just sit around looking for excuses to keep things cheap. Try thinking beyond just material goods sometime. Think about human life. Think about the poor people who need you, the elderly people who can't afford their medications because the drug industry is more intent on lining their pockets than helping those in need. Think about the starving homeless people, living in boxes and eating out of dumpsters. We can help all of these people if we really want to. You people said something about taking care of the actual life before we start worrying about potential life, well let's start helping the actual life out there so that we can help the next generation come about.

Wow, Vivelo...you really seem pissed. From your words, you do not seem to think t=lie the vast majority of right wingnuts who are "pro-life."
I suspect, from your words, ideologiccally, we have more in common than you suspect, Vivelo. You're showing good promise at being a well-educated, good-hearted person...in other words...a Liberal!

I personally liked clinton's approach to abortion...safe, legal, and RARE.

No, I'm not for abortion, particularly...but until the other social problems we have both expressed concern over...mainly, the F**king high expense of items needed for basic survival...there does need to be an escape valve for mothers who choose not to give birth, because they cannot afford to properly raise and care for that child. And if you make it illegal, they will still get it done...but at great risk to their health. It's like guns...you outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns. Same argument applies here.

And, no adoption is not a viable answer...firstly, there are not enough adoptive parents...and let's face it, most adoptive parents want a little white baby that can conceivably pass as their own. So what you end up with is a bunch of unwanted kids in an orphanage or institution somewhere...kids who grow up their whole childhoods knowing they are unwanted, unloved...and that can lead to serious problems later on. Such as criminal activity. Or do you disagree?

And Labrador, you seem to be forgetting these little things dotted around the nations known as orphanages and foster care agencies. Obviously not all the kids placed in there will end up in a good home, but a bad life is better than no life at all.

Not always.

I grew up in an alcoholic, abusive home. I was abused verbally, mentally, emotionally, and physically by my father...and sexually, by my brother. I was abused in every way shape and form known to man. It's a fu*king miracle I am able to function as a law-abiding, tax-paying responsible working citizen, and not in some white room with padded walls, in a straightjacket!

Sometimes, I think it might have been better for me if I hadn't been born...rather than the 23 years of Hell I endured until I finally got enough good sense to get the f*ck out of my father's house, and never darken his doorstep again!

Perfect solution? No. It might make women think very hard before they get pregnant, and harder still before having the first abortion.
One woman doth not a pregnancy make. Perhaps hetero men should be more educated and made to feel more responsible for the consequences of their actions in order to make abortion less necessary. If all people were more fully educated on the consequences and the means of protection, along with free access to those things and perhaps stricter punishments for parents who do not follow through with the obligations that come with having a child there would be less need for abortions. People would get pregnant less and both parents would be more willing (or at least better made) to care for the child.

I would support a proposal for free birth control methods and better sex ed.

Agree! In fact...if genetic testing determines that two aborted kids were by the same FATHER...then the FATHER should damn well ALSO be sunject to sterilization!

Damn freaking men would care a whole lot more if it was THEM who got pregnant!! If it was THEM who stood the greater risk of contracting STD's, etc.

No, the woman takes on almost ALL the risks and responsibilities...the man has a pleasurable evening, and skates off scott-free...EFF THAT!!

Men should damn well have to pay.

We are not going to successfully come to an agreement on abortion that pleases both sides of the arguement. It is impossible to do so. Even if you could prove without a doubt that an unborn child has no rights, those of us who are pro-life have a set of morals that point us in a different direction. We would not drop beliefs and values that most of us were born and raised with in exchange for the exact opposite. I believe it is a similar situation with tose who are pro-choice. Due to the unlikeliness of a solution coming from the numerous debates, which I do enjoy greatly, I propose that we leave the issue of abortion in the hands of the individual nations. Please support my proposal.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Greetings:

While I have not had an opportunity to look at your proposal yet, it is likely that a resolution that would declare that the abortion issue be decided on the state level (rather than internationally) would have the support of the RCO, and we would recommned it to our regional delegate. Good luck - we hope that you are successful.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland (by permission of the ruling party).

Perfect solution? No. It might make women think very hard before they get pregnant, and harder still before having the first abortion.
One woman doth not a pregnancy make. Perhaps hetero men should be more educated and made to feel more responsible for the consequences of their actions in order to make abortion less necessary. If all people were more fully educated on the consequences and the means of protection, along with free access to those things and perhaps stricter punishments for parents who do not follow through with the obligations that come with having a child there would be less need for abortions. People would get pregnant less and both parents would be more willing (or at least better made) to care for the child.

I would support a proposal for free birth control methods and better sex ed.

Agree! In fact...if genetic testing determines that two aborted kids were by the same FATHER...then the FATHER should damn well ALSO be sunject to sterilization!
I do not agree with sterilization as the punishment. Forced sterilization is an enfringement of rights. Especially since I believe abortion should be legally available, people who have abortions are not criminals who require punishment. I just think that there are a lot of ways that the need for abortions can be decreased, that doesn't change the fact that I think there still should be the option to legally have an abortion without punishment.

Perfect solution? No. It might make women think very hard before they get pregnant, and harder still before having the first abortion.
One woman doth not a pregnancy make. Perhaps hetero men should be more educated and made to feel more responsible for the consequences of their actions in order to make abortion less necessary. If all people were more fully educated on the consequences and the means of protection, along with free access to those things and perhaps stricter punishments for parents who do not follow through with the obligations that come with having a child there would be less need for abortions. People would get pregnant less and both parents would be more willing (or at least better made) to care for the child.

I would support a proposal for free birth control methods and better sex ed.

Agree! In fact...if genetic testing determines that two aborted kids were by the same FATHER...then the FATHER should damn well ALSO be sunject to sterilization!
I do not agree with sterilization as the punishment. Forced sterilization is an enfringement of rights. Especially since I believe abortion should be legally available, people who have abortions are not criminals who require punishment. I just think that there are a lot of ways that the need for abortions can be decreased, that doesn't change the fact that I think there still should be the option to legally have an abortion without punishment.

Actually, I agree with you. However, someone had the AUDACITY to suggest WOMEN get sterilized, involuntarily, along with a second abortion...so I said, fine...what's good for the goose is good for the gander...and two unwanted aborted kids from the same FATHER should result in HIS sterilization, too, then. Of course, much as I expected, I got no reply.
Which just goes to prove me right...that abortion, for most people who oppose it...is just another means by MEN...to control the reproductive choices of WOMEN.
I, for one, am sick and tired of men who want to jump in the sack right away, won't take no for an answer...then run like hell when they get the woman preggers...leaving HER holding the bag on everything...and then they condemn HER when she gets an abortion, because she cannot financially care for a kid...and SHE is the one who goes thru nine months of pregnancy...whilst the guy skips off, scott-free....to do it to yet another woman!

And if you do say no...sooner or later, you end up with a reputation of being a cold fish...that you won't do it...and then no guy wants to date you anymore.

It sucks...you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't...it's like effing heads, the men win...tails...the women lose. Screw that! I just turned his argument back on him...and, as expected, he ran like hell.

Actually, I agree with you. However, someone had the AUDACITY to suggest WOMEN get sterilized, involuntarily, along with a second abortion...so I said, fine...what's good for the goose is good for the gander...and two unwanted aborted kids from the same FATHER should result in HIS sterilization, too, then.
I would agree, if someone was to implement sterilization for those who abort it should be for both men and women (but I still think forced sterilization is a barbaric idea).

Actually, I agree with you. However, someone had the AUDACITY to suggest WOMEN get sterilized, involuntarily, along with a second abortion...so I said, fine...what's good for the goose is good for the gander...and two unwanted aborted kids from the same FATHER should result in HIS sterilization, too, then.
I would agree, if someone was to implement sterilization for those who abort it should be for both men and women (but I still think forced sterilization is a barbaric idea).

So do I. I only suggested it to make a point.