NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay this one is not going to be crappy like my other one. :lol: So I have came up with another one. Abortion, yes, abortion. Everyone knows what abortion is, right. Well my idea is to ban abortion for everyone. Oh yeah, I attached a poll.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Did I miss something? Why are there two of these threads floating around?

I am against the resolution in general, but I have a question. Would it apply to mothers who are likely to die in childbirth? Because that would be even more ridiculous.

Good idea... except that it will never pass because the UN is full of too many bigots who are too blind to understand how an unborn child is still a human.

So are sperm considered unborn children too? So every time someone masturbates, are they guilty of mass homocide? Your arguement is too vague.

I can see civil liberties are real popular in this crowd.

Good idea... except that it will never pass because the UN is full of too many bigots who are too blind to understand how an unborn child is still a human.

So are sperm considered unborn children too? So every time someone masturbates, are they guilty of mass homocide? Your arguement is too vague.

I agree with you there. If sperm are considered unborn children, then even during intercourse, men are conductors of mass GENOCIDE. I mean, really. Even fathers have demolished entire nations when only saving one or two human beings, if you think about it. Though I'm not of the UN, I just thought I'd put in my two cents.

Read up on your biology...

So are sperm considered unborn children too?

Of course not... because you need a sperm and an egg in order to make a human. A sperm on its own is not a human being, but an egg fertilised by a sperm is... it's just very undeveloped.

NB: I support abortion in the case mentioned earlier, where the mother will die in childbirth, and I am a leftish supporter of civil liberties. But looking at it logically, you abort a baby, you kill a human. And I don't advocate murder. So I don't support abortion.

What about pregnancy as a result of rape? Would that be outlawed as well?

This issue is not black and white any way you cut it, you can't call anyone who supports abortion a bigot either - just because they don't follow your ideals. Personally I'm pro-choice, I can see the arguement you're making but to consider it murder is a bit strong, since it does not become a human form immediately, rather a collection of cells which initially at least shares many characteristics with a parasite. What it develops into is another matter and I think there is certainly a case for limiting the time frame during which an abortion is allowed more strictly.

I wonna suggest you the obliged abortion of borning stupids. Any pregnant waiting for a future stupid baby must be obliged to abort. Eugenetic end of human stupidity is the goal. Remember: now the mother of stupids is always pregnant.

are we talking about aborting dedicated game machines or providing them as a means of entertainment for unborn featuses?

or perhaps the retroactive abortion of convicted serious criminals?

=^^=
.../\...

I hesitate to call anyone pro-life.

More along the lines of pro-birth.

So we force people to have children, banning abortion...then what? We will have to step in and help those not suitable and/or not ready to parent a child, along with those who are not able to.

Likewise, our already full orphanages will simply become more crowded, all in the name of pro-birth.

There are many more issues that must be solved before we can even begin considering the idea of a global, universal, non-medical ban on abortion.

Has anyone ever seen a study done on the effects of aborting a rape victim's baby versus having the baby?

Has anyone ever seen a study done on the effects of aborting a rape victim's baby versus having the baby?

the effects on whom? the baby, the rapist, or the rapee?

Hmmm... well, ignoring Fanculia...
So we force people to have children, banning abortion...then what? We will have to step in and help those not suitable and/or not ready to parent a child, along with those who are not able to.

Likewise, our already full orphanages will simply become more crowded, all in the name of pro-birth.

There are many more issues that must be solved before we can even begin considering the idea of a global, universal, non-medical ban on abortion.

So would you advocate killing babies to avoid the hassle of building orphanages or helping unsuitable parents? Admittedly there are many issues that must be solved first; I am not advocating an immediate ban on abortion.

What about pregnancy as a result of rape? Would that be outlawed as well?

*Grins ruefully* Good question. Logically I would say have the baby and put it up for adoption, but the mother cannot be held accountable for the pregnancy as she might be had she got pregnant normally. And then you have to think about the child... being adopted isn't great anyway, and if you know that you're the child of a rape victim, so your mother doesn't want you and your father was a subhuman (yeah, so I'm prejudiced)... Although rape victims have had their children and loved them. It's not the child's fault...

it does not become a human form immediately, rather a collection of cells which initially at least shares many characteristics with a parasite. What it develops into is another matter and I think there is certainly a case for limiting the time frame during which an abortion is allowed more strictly.

What are humans but a collection of cells? I see your point, but I disagree... I'm assuming the parasitic characteristics are things like living off the mother's circulatory system, nutrients and so on via the umbilical cord. Weeeell... so what? Since when did the fact that an unborn baby lives off its mother qualify it as not worthy of life? If you're going to go into parasites then you could say since we all live off others we are all parasites too (I realise this is taking it to the extreme...).

While abortion is permitted, there will also be cosmetic abortions. There is currently a legal injunction being sought against a doctor who performed an abortion on a 26 week foetus with a cleft palate. A cleft palate. Do you know how easy that is to correct? This kind of thing is what makes me pro-life :evil:

While abortion is permitted, there will also be cosmetic abortions. There is currently a legal injunction being sought against a doctor who performed an abortion on a 26 week foetus with a cleft palate. A cleft palate. Do you know how easy that is to correct? This kind of thing is what makes me pro-life :evil:

Why does that make you anti-choice? Why not simply institute laws to prevent abortions which are simply due to cleft palates etc.? In that particular case, the mother had reached a late stage of the pregnancy without aborting, and only chose to abort when she discovered the cleft palate. So why not say that abortions are banned in the final third of the pregnancy (obviously except if the mother's life would be endangered), and non-serious, easily-fixed conditions like that are only revealed to the parents at the end of that period, thus ensuring that abortions do not occur simply because of cosmetic issues.

My only point is that abortion cannot be banned until we have an infrastructure that is going to support that unwanted child.

Likewise, while a woman should have a choice of what to do with her body, I think it starts before she is pregnant. She is able to make the choice long before she gets pregnant. Abortion as a form of birth control is as immoral as murder.

I didn't mean that only this kind of case was what made me pro-life... just an example. Current laws state that an abortion needs the consensus of two doctors before it can go ahead, and there is no provision for banning cosmetic abortions. I suspect many people would object to information on their baby being withheld from them, even if it is for a purpose like preventing cosmetic abortions. And the problem with instituting laws against end-of-term abortions is... they are already in place. AFAIK, it is illegal to abort a foetus after 24 weeks in the UK, unless the mother's life is endangered. Yet the cleft palate case was aborted at 26 weeks. While abortions are permitted for any reason other than the mother being in danger, there is the possibility of exploitation. If they are banned in end-term pregnancies... so what? They are already banned after 24 weeks yet abortions later than 24 weeks still take place. The current law requires two doctors to approve the abortion, and as such is open to huge abuse - all a doctor needs to do is ask for a second opinion from a colleague and he/she may perform the abortion, even if it is for cosmetic reasons.

My only point is that abortion cannot be banned until we have an infrastructure that is going to support that unwanted child.

Likewise, while a woman should have a choice of what to do with her body, I think it starts before she is pregnant. She is able to make the choice long before she gets pregnant. Abortion as a form of birth control is as immoral as murder.

I agree. Contraception is there... if you don't want a baby, use it.

When you scale back and look at the basis of the different sides of the abortion argument it boils down to fighting over a woman's right to choose.

A ban on abortion infringes a woman's right to choose, while never holding her responsible for her to engage in unprotected sex.
A ban on abortion infringes a woman's right to a normal life, while never holding her responsible for the choice to even risk affecting that life.

An agreement will never be reached on this issue because the main argument is not about whether or not it's murder or whether or not it's a woman's right. the main argument stems from the fact that the one side of the camp is saying that abortion is immoral and makes concessions for health reasons, while the other side is stating that abortion is birth control and should not be regulated.

Well, how about we all put birth control medicines in the water that will make men and women both sterile. That way you dont have ANY accidental pregnancies. Then, if you want a kid, then go get the antidote. This can be done by either buying it, applying for a lisence to have a kid, or whatever floats your country’s boat. Just think of it as another filter that goes in your water system.

It's generally a male point of view to say "force the woman to carry the baby to term and then if she still doesn't want it...put it up for adoption". Females as a rule tend to be more pro life as it's easier for them to empathise with being in the position. It must be hell...the baby's life would be too unstable - It must be awful to be unwanted...sometimes adoption turns out well but it raises chances of delinquency which is detrimental to the welfare of a nation.
If a baby is gonna be brought into the world it should at least be given every possible chance to succeed and be happy. It's all too circumstantial to have a firm view against.
Surely it should be the choice of the mother - who's conscious self will DEFINATELY be affected by being forced to carry a baby as opposed to the choice of govermental agents, completely removed from the situation and who are most likely men, who will never have to go through it?

Londana is a firm believer in a woman's right to choose.

Londana will not support this draconian, regressive, and simplistic proposal.

Londana would instead like to urge member nations to vote in favour of Googlymoogly's resolution "Allow State Funded Abortions" (currently on page 11 of Proposals).

So are sperm considered unborn children too? So every time someone masturbates, are they guilty of mass homocide? Your arguement is too vague.

I agree with you there. If sperm are considered unborn children, then even during intercourse, men are conductors of mass GENOCIDE. I mean, really. Even fathers have demolished entire nations when only saving one or two human beings, if you think about it. Though I'm not of the UN, I just thought I'd put in my two cents.

You both are idiots.

The Allied States of Xianoshi would support a ban on abortion.

how can you support something like that?
You can't ban something totally when it's so circumstantial!
It should just be closely monitered
I bet all you pro lifers are men

ABORTIONS FOR ALL!!!!!!

I support abortion in all its forms.

Though I would like to state that it should never be a political issue.
I NEVER vote for a candidate based on their views of abortion.

There are many other things we need to worry about, like healthcare and stopping terrorism.

:twisted:

I would support a ban on abortion when used as a contraceptive.

A woman's right to choose should occur long before the issue of abortion comes up.

Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control.

I am Pro-Life in every case. God formed that "fetus" in his own image, and therefore, no matter what, the mother should have the baby. How can anyone be so selfish as to kill an innocent being so they will live. It's purely sad and disturbing that anyone should even have the choice to do that. :cry:

My only point is that abortion cannot be banned until we have an infrastructure that is going to support that unwanted child.

Likewise, while a woman should have a choice of what to do with her body, I think it starts before she is pregnant. She is able to make the choice long before she gets pregnant. Abortion as a form of birth control is as immoral as murder.

I couldn't agree more. The woman does have a choice in what she does. The two people can choose whether or not to have sex, because they know the potential consequences going in. I'm submitting a proposal that would ban abortion with the exception of two cases. The first is when the mother's life is at risk, and the second is in cases of rape. Both of these cases enhance the mother's right to choose. If there is no risk to the life of the mother, and the sex was consensual, then it is a simple example of failing to take responsibility for your own actions when the woman has an abortion.

I am Pro-Life in every case. God formed that "fetus" in his own image, and therefore, no matter what, the mother should have the baby. How can anyone be so selfish as to kill an innocent being so they will live. It's purely sad and disturbing that anyone should even have the choice to do that. :cry:

Philipus, have you heard of ectopic pregnancy:
n. pregnancy resulting from gestation elsewhere than in the uterus [syn: extrauterine pregnancy, ectopic gestation, extrauterine gestation]

"God" created the human body to work in a certain way, this does not always turn out as intended. In these cases the mother can and typically would die due to maintaining the pregnancy long before the embryo could be sustained outside the body. Do you seriously believe there should be loss of both lives merely as to not end the one barely begun which has zero chance of survival in the first place? There are many other medical reasons which termination of the pregnancy is essential to survival of the mother, whereas the potential child would also have no chance to survive in any case, this is simply one example.

Furthermore, have you concidered that contraceptives do have a percentage of failure, even tubal ligation (n. A method of female sterilization in which the fallopian tubes are surgically tied.) and vasectomy (n. Surgical removal of all or part of the vas deferens, usually as a means of sterilization.) each have a failure rate and it happens more often than I'm guessing you would wish to believe.

I would have to vote for Choice!

Even if abortion was outlawed. That would give rise to black market abortions. There will still be a percentage of woman who do not want to have their child. Black market abortions will obviously be more risker to the woman.

If god created the image of a fetus after himself, then he gave it a spirit too. If the fetus dies than the spirit just returns to where it came.

You also have the instances of a mother who would be unable to support their child. This either leads to poverty of the child is sent to a orphanage. In either case the child is going to lead a very hard life that will undoubtly affect it in negative ways, which in turn will have an adverse effect on society when the child becomes an adult that is so used to having such a tough life that they don't care about anyone else.

Now I'm not saying that all poverty families and orphans are like this, but this does happen to many of them.

In any case, its the woman's choice. It's her body and energy that is being devoted to developing a fetus. And if they don't want to, then that is their choice.

Marlins, Please see the last point I made in my post. There are too many potential reasons that are not due to irresponsibility.

Everyone please read my proposal currently on page 21 of the proposals. It pertains to my above comment that abortion should be banned except in cases where the mother's life is at risk, or if the woman was raped. I ask that you please support my proposal so that it can be taken into consideration by the full United Nations. Something as sensitive as this should be voted on by the full United Nations instead of simply the delegates.

i don't think u guys realize how hard it it for the "mother to be" to make the decision to have an abortion. i don't think any one truley deep down wants to abort a baby, but for some reason... not matter WHAT it is she makes that CHOICE for the right reasons. I've seen people after the operation and they are sooo upset! it is NOT an easy choice to make. BUT it's her body, and she knows what is BEST for it. I don't think it is anyones place to tell someone what is right or wrong. you are not that person or in that position. so i guess i'm saying its her body her choice.

Catholic Europe supports all proposals that aim to ban abortion.

I can see civil liberties are real popular in this crowd.

We uphold civil liberties; we're ranked quite high. We simply extend those liberties to viable fetuses, or as some choose to call them, unborn babies.

Has this proposal gone to the UN yet? I hope not, because I know exactly how I'd vote.

"ProChoice: Because I'm not a MORON!" - My bumper sticker.

It isn't up to the woman to either have the baby or not. Every aspect of that fetus or egg was foreseen by a just and holy God. There is a reason for every conception, no matter how misconstrued us humans tend to make it. We are selfish beings and all we see is what we want to.

It isn't up to the woman to either have the baby or not. Every aspect of that fetus or egg was foreseen by a just and holy God. There is a reason for every conception, no matter how misconstrued us humans tend to make it. We are selfish beings and all we see is what we want to.

Ha! God! I find it hard enough to believe he exists let alone to believe he's just! I don't think much of his justice...
How can you ascribe the choice to God when his existence is so unlikely, as opposed to the mother who we can see exists and if the question of abortion has been raised in the first place, is probably going through hell! A woman being raped and then discovering she's pregnant is about as just as killing small children, which incidentally, should you believe he exists, he also does.
If we knew God existed I'd dispise him and his so-called justice. Luckily it's not an issue in my eyes.

It isn't up to the woman to either have the baby or not. Every aspect of that fetus or egg was foreseen by a just and holy God. There is a reason for every conception, no matter how misconstrued us humans tend to make it. We are selfish beings and all we see is what we want to.

if God has this reason for every conception doesn't God have a reason for every abortion? i agree there is a reason for everything, but why does this reason cause so much trouble! IT'S HER CHOICE!!! or some master plan she fell into look at it however you want

The Allied States of Great Romeo would gladley support this proposal, but only if women that raped to have the choice to abortion within 3 months of being told, or if it is a risk to her health in any way.

We at Loresong could not, in all good conscious, support a ban on abortion. To return to barbaric times where women were property, and had no say over their bodies is, well.. .BARBARIC. We live in over populated times to begin with. To take away this option means more children in the adoption mill (who, by the way, are out to make money, not to make people's lives better). Until we can answer the question of how to handle the people we have -- the children who have no homes and no families, such an action is not only short sighted but inhumane.

This sounds like a great, controversial topic...for a local government.
As I recall, the UN (the real one) was established after WW2 to ensure world piece, not to argue over petty issues like abortion.

And as for my stance, I am very pro-life. :)

Oh, God exists and he is more just than you could ever believe. He created you, so why despise him. He loves you and wishes you loved him too. It is only our selfish existence that defies that love given to us so freely. I'm very sorry you can't see the light. God loves you and wants you to believe in him so much. By the blood that God's son Jesus shed on the cross, we are freed of sin. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

As a strong supporter of the most fundamental forms of natural and human rights (regardless of what the computer assigned profile says), Burkonia will fully support this proposal as long as the term “abortion” or “human induced abortion” is clearly defined. Abortion must not include life of the mother cases that qualify as double effect; that is, cases in which the abortion is an unintended side effect. (For example, the actual act of directly killing the child to save the mother would be abortion. A procedure moving a vaginal tumor which would in tern kill the child would not be.)

We would even go so far as to suggest that this provision be added to the UN Universal Deceleration of Human Rights.

We do agree that whatever the deficiencies of some parents in properly caring for their children (and such deficiencies are abdications of basic, individual responsibilities, whether the parents “planned” pregnancy or not), children are innocents and deserve basic protections. We also realize that many parents do not have the means to properly provide for their children through no fault of their own. Thus, we would support some UN assistance to poorer states to provide aid, medical care, food, and education for the poorest children. We would expect that such aid be tied to tough laws that punished negligent parents and a plan to create self-sufficiency.

However, whatever social safety nets may or may not exist, we recognize that one of the primary functions of this body is to protect the most basic of human rights, and we fully support resolutions protecting the most fundamental right of life from conception to death.

The reality of the situation is: Abortion is here to stay and there is no way we can stop it, legally or otherwise. This happened when someone discovered a "safe" and effective way to abort a pregnancy via surgical methods.

There is no way to stop it, no matter if one is pro-choice, pro-life or pro-whatever. The only way forward now is to make the best of the current situation by controlling it. That means carefully crafting sensible legislation.

Let's think through the issue for the good of all.

[quote="Philipius"]Oh, God exists and he is more just than you could ever believe.[quote]
wow you really made a believer out of me!! when you put it that way how can i argue? idiot.

Oh, God exists and he is more just than you could ever believe. He created you, so why despise him. He loves you and wishes you loved him too. It is only our selfish existence that defies that love given to us so freely. I'm very sorry you can't see the light. God loves you and wants you to believe in him so much. By the blood that God's son Jesus shed on the cross, we are freed of sin. John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Hahahahahahahaha!
Oh you silly, silly Christians who can't see past the end of your noses
I really can't believe how ignorant you can be. I don't need to invent a God to take responsibility for my actions or to make me feel all cuddly and warm. We're alone. Get used to it.
But of course we must agree to disagree. I can't make you see sense and you can't change my mind - so stop spouting your christian propaganda and don't use God as justification for taking my right to do what i please with my body away
*consider's banning christianity in nation*

Unto Philipius: Please be advised that we of LoreSong are a religiously diverse nation and take great offence at your need to preach during a UN Discussion. This is highly irregular, and seems unsuited to the protocols of our organization. This is not the time to spew dogma, but rather discuss the real issues surrounding this question. For example, Sir, how will you and your country address the problem of orphans who already do not have proper homes, food, clothing and education?

I find it a rather interesting, though overplayed that every time abortion is brought up, so is religion, as if Christians/Catholics/etc cannot accept the fact that there are other people who dont believe in God. Oh my God. Of course they preach this and that about how God made our bodies for this and this, and how it is all of part of the big plan. For all we know, God may have had abortion in mind for part of the big plan. Gasp at that one.

Of course they fail to note the part where God does not speak directly to man since Adam and Eve screwed up and left Eden, or how he wasnt going to meddle (directly) in the affairs of man after he flooded the Earth after Noah’s boat time. In theory, he sends his angels and prophets. Last time I checked, not a single one of you has seen an angel and there hasnt been a prophet (A REAL ONE) in quite some time. Also, last time I checked, the bible hasnt really been specific about abortion. And it isnt like it didnt exist back then. I know that in the 1900’s it was done with clotheshangers.

So away from telling the religious zealots to go back to Sunday School or lock themselves in their room with the bible for a few more days, how about we get back to that abortion. I dont think the U.N. was made to decide on civil liberties that are so complicated and entwine so many. Last time I checked it was to promote peace and happiness and all that jazz.

So instead of preaching (which is what pro-life/pro-abortion is) to everyone your side of the issue, how about you let the PEOPLE of the nations decide. If in your nation, you dont like it, ban it. If in another nation you dont care, dont ban it. Dont bend everyone to someone elses views.

So instead of worrying about who is a good little Christian and preaching to conform people into Christians to make yourselves feel better, how about you look at facts. Abortion is viewed differently in different nations. To make ALL nations adhear to one nations view is tyranny. Is the U.N. all about tyranny? No. It isnt.

If you believe in God, leave the judging to him. If not, then do whatever your equivelant is. It pisses me off when some little goodie goodie western Bible thumper preaches about God loving this and that. God gets to judge. People are not going to convert unless they want to. So give it a rest and let the big guy do his job. If they dont see the light, then they go to hell right? Aint a single hair off your chest.

I still think it is a good idea to just put something in the water and then if you want a kid, get the anti-anti-kid fix and pop one out. Honestly. Think of the children.

I am not opposed to Abortion for medical reasons, but I am opposed to it as an alternative to lazy women who won't take the proper precautions regarding birth control.

There you go. Punish those lazy women! But what if the father wants her to get an abortion because he doesnt want the kid? I suppose everyone is going to say ditch the guy. How about those lazy fathers? What ever happened to the it takes two to mombo? It should take two people to have a kid, not just ‘the Mom’. How about all those dead beat dads out there.

To make ALL nations adhear to one nations view is tyranny. Is the U.N. all about tyranny? No. It isnt.

I agree with your stance on the UN, but as a "good little christian" there will be no abortion in Jucorel

JC of Jucorel

If you believe in God, leave the judging to him. If not, then do whatever your equivelant is. It pisses me off when some little goodie goodie western Bible thumper preaches about God loving this and that. God gets to judge. People are not going to convert unless they want to. So give it a rest and let the big guy do his job. If they dont see the light, then they go to hell right? Aint a single hair off your chest.

*nods* This except from Kaneadia brings to mind a concept from the very Holy book that most here are attempting to defend, which also states that we are not our brothers keeper... Reminding all that it is not each individuals place nor right nor responcibility to judge.

I'm sorry I got off the subject. I am entitled to my own beliefs and you are entitled to yours. I was not trying to "preach" to you all. The issue at hand is abortion.

On this issue I am Pro-Life and will keep my convictions to myself. I just hope you'll keep it in the backs of your minds.

No worries, and no offense when I say this, but I dont think anyone is going to take into consideration anything anyone has said here, because for the most part everyone has already made up their minds in their own views and are not going to even consider anyone elses. Thats why I find these forums arguing over such bombshell topics both amusing and annoying.

But hey, I half expected to get screamed at in responce for my own little rant (apologies extended for by the way). So far, I have seen some mature responces. That is saying a lot considering most people in the forums are not.. as we say, mature in the least.

Tomaa will never support a ban on abortion, ever.

I am of the opinion that if the roles were reversed, and MEN were the ones who carried the unborn children, abortion would never have been a question. It would have been legal since the beginning of time. Men would never stand to have their bodies ruled by people other than themselves, and women should think no differently. If a woman has made a personal choice to not have an abortion, that is fine. However, it should still be made available, in the event that a woman decides not to go through with the pregnancy

However, Tomaa's major problem with a ban on abortion is that we forsee a rise of illegal, black market abortions, which are not performed in safe conditions. Tomaa cares about the welfare of its citizens too much for that.

Blanket statements with reference to Christianity are as bad as any other blanket statements.

[quote]
can't see past the end of their nose
[\quote]

At any rate, an abortion proposal, were it ever to come to vote, should allow for the health of the woman involved.

Many years ago, as a nurse, I stood behind a gurney while a patient’s relatives screamed in the outer corridor. They were frantic to see her, even though they already knew that she was dead. The reason for the delay in admitting them was simple: I needed time to camouflage what had really happened. I required time to drape a sheet over her lifeless body and the gurney it was on in order to hide the instrument that caused her death…a common household broom, inserted so far into her vagina that it had pierced her heart and at that point, still protruding from her body. She had become pregnant, and her drunken boyfriend, in a fit of rage that she had spoiled his life, beat her into insensibility and then performed his own version of an abortion to rid himself of the offending fetal intruder. I also had to insure that I was standing directly behind that gurney and absolutely out of sight from the waist down, since I was covered in this poor woman’s blood to the point that my white stockings were bright red and my shoes actually squished when I stepped down.
More recently, a woman with six small children informed her husband that she was once again pregnant. His response, after the tirade about how she kept getting pregnant, as though she managed this feat alone and unassisted by him, was to leave her. In the depths of her grief and desperation, she blew her head off with a shotgun….but not before she murdered all six of those young children.
Now, I ask you: would these have happened if abortion were more available, and less stigmatized?

The embryo produced from the merging of human germ cells is human. And that means abortion is a destruction of human life. However, because it is inside a person's body and totally dependent on it for environment and nutrition, and because the costs incurred by the mother are severe, she is granted (by law) total control over it until it becomes viable (Roe v. Wade).

It's a sad thing, that it happens. I think it's a poor choice to make. But the choice must be offered. People who really don't want to be pregnant are going to end their pregnancies anyway - we might as well make it safer.

*applauds Fallen Eden* Fabulous debate point.

I'd like to reiterate that all forms of birth control (aside from abstinence) are fallible.

*applauds Fallen Eden* Fabulous point of arguement for the debate.

I'd like to reiterate that all forms of birth control (aside from abstinence) are fallible.

Sorry for repetition, it said my post did not exist. Mods please delete one?

*applauds Fallen Eden* Fabulous point of arguement for the debate.

I'd like to reiterate that all forms of birth control (aside from abstinence) are fallible.

Sorry for repetition, it said my post did not exist. Mods please delete one?

It would seem that abortion is a fairly infallible form of birth control.

Abortion attempts also have a small rate of failure.

Abortion attempts also have a small rate of failure.

technically, so does abstinence, according to the Christmas origins...

:D I don't think my last message went through(I hate dial up):
In it I wrote that I believe abortion should be legal in cases where its life threatening to the mother, in cases of rape, or in cases where there is a terminal illness involved such as AIDS, or Huntington's Chorea which is a genetic disease and in which the child has a 50% chance of getting it.
Since I am less inclined to think of a tiny cluster of cells (like a zygote) as a human baby, I believe that it is the ideal time to abort. According to the Guiness Book of Records, the youngest baby to be born, and survive was about three and a half months old. Therefore any "baby" to be aborted before then is not a baby (at least in my mind) because it could not possibly have survived an early birth. I don't believe that that doctor should have abborted that baby with the clubbed foot especially since it was twenty six weeks along, which would put it at six months... Plenty babies survive being born at six months... at five months they have already begun to develop fingernails and toenails...However, I'd like to reinstate that birth control does NOT always work ... and is it better to bring a baby into the world knowing that you will not be able to provide for it the way that you should and knowing that if you put the baby up for adoption you might be making matters worse? :evil: :cry: :x

technically, so does abstinence, according to the Christmas origins...Heh, I concede but will stick to proven statistics. :wink:

Quite honestly, this issue gets addressed from different sides.

From the side claiming it's murder, you get into a debate over when it is actually a life, what constitutes it as so, and why. There's little or no proof of much of anything when the child is in it's early development.

From the other side claiming that it's a woman's right to choose, no one ever denies that. Abortion may become illegal or stay legal, but it is still a woman's choice as to whether or not she will jump in the sack with some bloke unprotected and chance pregnancy.

The issue at hand is thus: Should abortion be legal as a measure of birth control?

Once this issue has been addressed, I will entertain a proposal on the idea.

Abortion may become illegal or stay legal, but it is still a woman's choice as to whether or not she will jump in the sack with some bloke unprotected and chance pregnancy.
The issue at hand is thus: Should abortion be legal as a measure of birth control?
Once this issue has been addressed, I will entertain a proposal on the idea.The only problem with that is there is no way to regulate the reported reasoning for the abortion. Those who decide this is their choice for their situation will find a way to do so regardless of legalization clauses. It remains in these womens best interest to have safe medical attention readily available for this procedure.

...as long as it cuts both ways. How about we vote on this:

Either abortion is made illegal in all UN states, or if that fails, abortion is made legal in all UN states, and must be funded and made available by each government.

See, democracy is a double edged sword for the moralists. Will you allow and fund abortion in your nations is that is what the UN decides? If not, then don't try to force your morals down our throats.

...as long as it cuts both ways. How about we vote on this:

Either abortion is made illegal in all UN states, or if that fails, abortion is made legal in all UN states, and must be funded and made available by each government.

See, democracy is a double edged sword for the moralists. Will you allow and fund abortion in your nations is that is what the UN decides? If not, then don't try to force your morals down our throats.

...as long as it cuts both ways. How about we vote on this:

Either abortion is made illegal in all UN states, or if that fails, abortion is made legal in all UN states, and must be funded and made available by each government.

See, democracy is a double edged sword for the moralists. Will you allow and fund abortion in your nations is that is what the UN decides? If not, then don't try to force your morals down our throats.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I wasn't aware that murder is a moral thing. Ask around, we Catholics arent the only ones who say that murder is wrong, and last time I checked, murder is defined as the deliberate taking of a person's life. It doesn't say of a person who has been born, or of a person who is below a certain age(Euthanasia). It doesn't say that murder is okay if the victim commited a crime. No, it says that murder is simply killing someone else. Therefore abortion is murder.

I would be quite interested to hear your definition of person...

The fact of the matter is, people die every day, not all of them of their own will. That doesn't change the fact that many of those that have died was the cause of someone's decision.

A doctor has to choose to let people die every day.

A judge does the same.

you speak of murder of ending the life of a person, where in some countries there are animals that have a higher status than people. Is it murder to kill one of those animals?

Burkonia wishes to address some of the arguments offered against an abortion resolution.

A number of states have made religious based arguments for banning abortions, and several pro-abortion states have held that such arguments constitute enforcing morality. We would like to make clear that our own position is not based in any religious convictions (though we fully respect our citizens’ rights to hold such convictions and act on them individually) but on rational ethical argumentation.

Our first proposition is that human life begins at the point of conception. Conception is the key moment at which an individual’s personhood is formed in a way that no other single moment can so affect. Viability is meaningless. A sixty-year old on a respirator and heart machine is hardly “viable,” but we would not deny her standing as a human person. Moreover, due to variations in medical technology, viability may change from place to place or time to time. Poor nations might not have the technology to support earlier births, while in wealthier nations, a child might be able to survive being born months earlier. Thus, the same child could change viability status depending on location – viable in France, but unviable in Ethiopia. It then becomes irrational to tie viability to personhood. Personhood is an internal trait to the person, ontologically completely independent of outside surroundings such as location.

It is for this same reason that we reject birth as a criterion. While we recognize that the child is dependent on the mother while in the womb, such dependence is ontologically independent from the child’s existence and status. A child seconds before birth is in no way internally significantly different than one second after birth. Again, the only change is location.

At the point of conception, however, the child as a being comes into existence in such a way that its entire future development until death will be continuous. Though development rates may vary, and there is far greater difference between months one and six than between years twenty and thirty, there are no being changing sudden jumps, but instead continual development. Just as we do not find a forty-year old more human than a ten year old, we do not recognize that same being was less human when it was one week out from conception than a month after birth – at a different stage of development, but not less human.

This position in itself is not a moral, but an ontological one.

Our political and moral principal derives from John Stuart Mill’s harm principal, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” While we believe that Mill goes to far, we think that his principal sets up a minimal baseline which demands government intervention. In cases in which one citizen to another does harm, government must intervene, and abortion is clearly one such case. Even Mill’s principle, the strictest and most libertine of criteria, mandates government intervention in the case of abortion.

We sympathize with horror stories such as those in the state of Fallen Eden, but we suggest that such states deal with the problem by either providing social programs to reduce the burden of pregnancy or punishing wrongdoers such as the man who murdered his mother and unborn child. We do not accept that the mother who killed her children did so because she could not obtain an abortion, but because she was either in a mental state in which she was unable to make rational decisions or because she was a murderer intent on doing evil.

We accept that intelligent, right intentioned people can disagree on this issue, but alone that is not a reason to withhold action. Such augmentation is pure cultural relativism of the type that rendered this body useless in the opening years of Balkan genocide and the Hutu/Tutsi slaughter, and not far off from the moral reasoning that allowed Germans to slaughter Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, slaves, and other social outliers by the millions while the world stood by fifty years ago. Disagreement about moral issues is not an excuse for murder, and the blood will not be on our hands.

Again, we would like to see abortion regulation that would limit induced abortions only to cases of double effect, though we would be willing to vote for partial solutions with fewer restrictions as temporary solutions until support for better proposal could be gained. It would be better to save some lives than none.

Why must it be an all or nothing proposition? Let each nation choose according to their cultural heritage, ideals, and beliefs and live accordingly. Why must the UN nose into people's bedrooms and doctor's offices?

Aside from the comment about moralism, you ignored my question. I'm not a delegate, but if I was I would support your resolution. I'm perfecty willing to vote on -- and abide by -- a UN resolution on abortion. My question is are you? Are you willing to have abortion protected by a UN resolution if that's what the voters want?

As for abortion as an issue, I'm sorry to hear your issue was rejected. I think it should be up there as an issue.

Abortion is outright murder. It's plain and simple. There is no question in my nation that abortion is banned. I can't believe I'm not allowed to express my views and debate them freely without being bashed. It's a shame that I am blamed for tyranny. I only speak the truth and nothing else. It hurts me inside to think that many can't share the same belief in a loving God.

Pro-Life

No Philipus, you speak your vision of Truth as have other people in this forum. We must accept that even in a RPG this is a highly charged issue that is going to cause some flaming. My suggestion is - if the issue matters to you strap on your aesbestos undies and keep posting knowing full well that there WILL be those of us, including the Nation of LoreSong who I represent, that simply do not believe as do you.

The real world and the virtual world are not a neatly closed system. We have great diversity of peoples and ideals, and for one group to feel it can become the moral authority for the whole is not only unrealistic, it's egocentric. Typically the drive to do such a thing is for emotional comfort - so long as people don't challenge your POV, you can say, "see I'm right" -- but when constructs are challenged, we must THINK and REASON and not simply fall back on dogma.

It hurts me inside to think that many can't share the same belief in a loving God.

Pro-Life

Philipius, many of us do share your belief, but you are on a forum with many other nations, some with very different religious backgrounds from your own. There may be Islamic, Buddist, or agnostic nations here as well. You do not have the right to impose your religiously motiviated beliefs on them. That does not mean that you cannot oppose legal abortion. But the primary reasons you provide must stem from logical reasoning, and not faith, if you expect them to pursuade people making leglislation.

Some people define murder differently than others. You feel that is wrong to kill a cluster of cells, but I suspect that you would have no problem eating a hamburger. There are people who believe killing ants is murder. There are people who won't even eat carrots because carrots are a root vegetable and when you take the root of a plant you kill it.
However, people DO eat hamburgers, and people DO for one reason or another abort children. Even before abortion was legal, women would often use herbs or fall down stairs in order to miscarry. And whhether you are willing to believe it or not, the women most likely to not want their pregnancies known and therefore abort thier children were nuns. Dig behind an old church sometime and see how many baby skulls turn up. :twisted: :!:

My country offers a vast array of contraceptives/birth control, so unexpected pregnancy is not a problem.

i agree with Philipius on this issue. the mother has a choice in most cases weather to have sex or not and i belive that if she chooses to than she also chooses the responsibility of parenthood. now i know what you are going to say you will say "what about the women who are raped" well i belive that just because the mother didn't choose the father doesn't mean that it justifies killing an inocent child. after all the mother is still killing her flesh and blood. it is not just a tissue you kill it is killing a future doctor, teacher, husband, or wife. and if you think about it you are also killing future joys such as that child's first day of school or their graduation day or mairage. even if you aren't pro-life look around and see the joys of children and tell me having a young life that you, your mate, and {in my beleifs} god created and tell me you wouldn't feel an over powering sence of love and compassion for that little life that you wanted to kill. but you say "what about the babys that were going to die anyways what is wrong with aborting them" well i can speak from personal encounters that sometimes life can find a way to survive. i know a person that ,when he was in his mother's womb, the doctors said that he wouldn't make it and that she should have it aborted. the mother couldn't bring herself to have it done. after he was born the doctors told the same thing and said he wouldn't live through the night. when morning came he was alive but still in horrible condition. the doctors continued to tell the mother that he wouldn't live. well 14 years later the doctors still cant see how the boy lived through that first night. although he did have numerous birth defects including partial deffness and spinabifida, he is now the manager for the football and basketball teams and is always the first person to tell you hey and give you a big hug. now if his mother wouldn't have made the decision to save his life than he wouldn't be one of my best friends. i apoligize if i offend any of you by mentioning god in my reply. but i only write what i belive and i will spare the scripture for now because i dont want to offend anyone too badly the first time i write.

word! 8)

very excellent argument

The Great Nation of Putergeeks does not support this proposal, believing instead that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor and that women have the right to choose.

The Republic of Dovaan strongly supports the sentiments of Philipius and Ceiara in opposing abortion.

It is the Empire's postion that abortion shouldn't be completely outlawed because there are many reasons to keep it for example:

*if a woman was in danger during child birth, an abortion could be used
*if a woman was a victim of rape, an abortion could be used
*if a teenager was going to have a child, an abortion could be used

abortions shouldn't be completely outlawed, however, it is a good propositon if you just change some of the details. If you did change the act to include some of the reasons above, the Empire would support this act.

I really wish people would leave religion out of it. They act almost as if everyone sees things their way and that they are always right. I mean, I am relatively religious and I am not preaching about God, murder and babies and how they go together, proving it can be done.

The point is, that this argument is about a U.N. proposal. The goal of the U.N. is to promote and ensure peace. You can (believe it or not) have abortion and still have peace. Since that is the case, I do not see the right of the U.N. to enforce this law (if it passed) on its countries because it does not jeapordize or endanger other countries.

The truth is with the abortion jazz is no one knows where to draw the line and the record of keeping the already-alive folk in decent living conditions are not that great. All this bitching about the yet to be born and none about the Homeless or diseased. What about them? What about their right to life? How about a mandate to a DECENT life be created. Right now a lot of weight is being put behind unborn kids. How about some weight behind the already living that are in the gutter. They have just as many reasons or issues that may have put them there.

When we can start taking care of the people dependant on their own blood and lungs who no one gives a s*&$, then I think we can worry about the people coming to replace them.

A baby's brain begins working a little into the second trimester.
Now, to be considered alive, you have to have a working brain (yes, I know plants don't have brains, but that's not the point). If you don't have a working brain, then you're considered dead.
So, if the baby is aborted before its brain begins to work, then they were never alive, and therefore cannot be killed.
The definition of murder is taking someone's life without their consent (assuming you're not the state). You cannot take what was never there, even if it would otherwise appear there later.
So, if the baby is aborted in the first trimester or early second trimester, then it can't be considered murder.
Thank you, good day.
_________________
http://www.cutandpastescripts.com/cgi-bin/randomimages/randomimages.pl?username=blacklakesig

Alot of people say that abortion should be legalized so they can do with their bodies as they wished, but last time I checked, that baby is not part of their bodies, but it's own.

Alot of people say that abortion should be legalized so they can do with their bodies as they wished, but last time I checked, that baby is not part of their bodies, but it's own.

well, unfortunately, the pro-muderers say that they baby is not it's own but rather part of the mother, therefore allowing them to justify the cold-blooded killing of innocent children.

As Ambassador of my Country I state that abortion is murder. It is not a matter of a mother and her doctor! Where does the child get any say in the matter? What ever happened to unalienable rights? LIFE? LIBERTY? and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Should not that child be entitled to life too? I completely agree with several nations above. Maybe you should read the warning label before having sex. There are some special side effects.....like pregnancy. So if you think you are ready to have sex, then you should be ready to be a parent. And besides that even if you could not give the baby a home, then put it up for adoption, give it a good life with a family that will love and care for it. And I know I may not know what labor is like, but that may be the price for premaritable sex. God made sex for a special purpose and that is for marriage only. But of course that is a whole other topic.

Some people define murder differently than others. :!:

And some people did not define the gas chambers at Dakow and Sobibor as murder. And you can go behind many churches in Rwanda and find the skulls of full-grown adults because some Hutu and Tutsi tribesmen did not see the others as more human than you see a cow.

What is your point?

The goal of the U.N. is to promote and ensure peace. You can (believe it or not) have abortion and still have peace. Since that is the case, I do not see the right of the U.N. to enforce this law (if it passed) on its countries because it does not jeapordize or endanger other countries.


And here is the crux of the matter. The UN’s primary role, indeed any governmental body’s primary role, if it is a legitimate government, is NOT peace, but justice. Peace is a great good, but a good that should only be pursued after the requirements of justice have been met, even if justice requires less than peaceful means.

The world learned what peace as a primary governing principal leads to over sixty years ago. Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace. He also was a man with blood on his hands – the blood of Poles, Jews, Slaves, Frenchmen, Catholics… Perhaps some of us haven’t learned, but for those of us who have, if it is peace without justice and without basic human rights (i.e. the right to life), then we wish no part of it.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a document primary crafted to bring peace by promoting cultural relativism and the “you can’t legislate moral absolutes in my culture” mentality. It states certain rights that are moral absolutes, truths not subject to cultural or personal opinion, which must be observed in any legitimate state, and it leaves the door open for the possibility of more such rights.

The UN could have best served peace in the Balkans by staying out (as much of Europe did when it abdicated responsibility in its own backyard). Eventually, Melosivich and his thugs would have slaughtered the Muslim population, and there would have been a peaceful homogenous population. That would supply your peace.

Justice requires the protection of basic human rights, of human life, and of the innocent. We will stand with justice over a hollow peace.

The People and HRH, Monarch of Burkonia

Alot of people say that abortion should be legalized so they can do with their bodies as they wished, but last time I checked, that baby is not part of their bodies, but it's own.
well, unfortunately, the pro-muderers say that they baby is not it's own but rather part of the mother, therefore allowing them to justify the cold-blooded killing of innocent children.
Actually, we say that due to the massive, permanently altering and occasionally damaging demand that hosting a larval human entails, and due to the fact that said larva is inside the body of, and totally dependent on its mother until the third trimester, that abortion should be allowed until then, as per Roe v. Wade.

At the time of viability, perhaps induced childbirth followed by care for the preemie with the best of our technology and care would allow women who did not feel capable of sustaining said fetus for a full term to abort without actually killing it. As incubation/preemie-care technology advances, those who feel they cannot sustain pregnancy would be able to end it earlier, and the embryo/fetus would continue to live - whether in legal care of the parents or as a ward of the state.

The one exception which trumps all arguments against abortion, however, is the case of high risk of crippling injury or death to the mother. Some injuries that could be sustained in childbirth would leave a woman paraplegic, or incontinent, or sexually dysfunctional. No humane legislator would move to stop an obstetrician from saving a woman's life or human dignity.

Abortion is always a choice, in the same way that suicide or deliberately chopping off one's own hand is a choice. It's the wrong choice. But individuals must be given the opportunity to make the right one - preventing the choice from being made, making the choice for people, does more damage than allowing it.

Abortion is always a choice, in the same way that suicide or deliberately chopping off one's own hand is a choice. It's the wrong choice. But individuals must be given the opportunity to make the right one - preventing the choice from being made, making the choice for people, does more damage than allowing it.

Whether you legalize it or not, it will happen anyways. There will always be back alleyway abortions. Nothing will change that short of watching every single pregnant woman. As for the ’you cannot enact laws against my country’ mentality, that is what protects me from you, you from me, me from the government and me from myself. My country will fight for its freedom, even from a stupid arguement such as abortion rights. (I am neither for or against abortion)

My beef is, that this proposal will be telling my country what it can and cannot do, no matter what the circumstances and I have a problem with that. Comparing Abortionists to Hitler and Milosovich does not work convince me otherwise. Even for the sake of arguement, if killing unborn children is murder, it is not brought out by hate like the murders of the millions of people in Europe.

Abortion, used for simply for birth control is stupid. If you didnt want the kid, dont have sex. Of course there are exceptions such as a child concieved in the act of a crime (rape, incest) and the health of the mother. But because it is inconvienient is stupid. Use the f*cking pill or wear a f*cking condom. With birth control now a days, it is pretty lazy of someone to get knocked up without paying attention. They even have a neat little thing called the Morning After pill. Note, the morning after pill DOES NOT work on an egg already fertilized and attached to the womb.

Ladies, I am sorry that it comes down to us again (as usual), but since we are the ones that get pregnant and not the guys, we are going to have to take the extra step to prevent it because we all know how guys are. Like to talk about things they know nothing about. So PLEASE, just get them to put on their rubber or take the stupid pill, or wear the stupid patch, or JUST NOT OPEN YER LEGS if you dont want a kid. Sex = Kids. That is what it is for.. God or not. With the intelligence level of human beings, you think they would be able to keep themselves from having kids they didnt want.

Abortion isnt a black and white issue though. It needs to be circumstancal, just like pregnancy. Instead of making a blanket no-procedure-period law, make it indepth and interactive. Make a review panel, do something to make sure it is fair.

:idea: Orrrrrrrrrrr.......... put something in the water that makes people temporarily sterile. If they want a kid, then they need to take that extra step (which can be whatever floats your boat, medicine, a liscense, etc) to get one. Then all those rabbits out there can quit breeding like them. :o

There have been several very good points made by various deligates. Perhaps the UN should be talking about finding ways of extending various methods of birth control (on which most of us seem to agree) as opposed to trying to legislate other countries and women on the issue of abortion.

From what we've seen here, this is a highly charged issue that will cause major problems if the UN tries to be iron fisted. I forsee many countries leaving because they feel one way or the other (opposite to whatever the UN may choose to do). This loss would NOT be in the best interest of world peace or justice.

So, may I propose an alteration in our thinking to supplemental birth control and education especially among struggling peoples whose access to health care and schools is limited?

Thank you! That is what I have been trying to say. The problem:

People using Abortion as Birth Control (Only 7% of all abortions are for health related to the kid and/or mother, rape, or incest reasons).

Solution that I could live with:

New forms of Birth Control that would be more desireable than Abortion that lets me leave my laws to be shaped by my people instead of the U.N.

Good idea... except that it will never pass because the UN is full of too many bigots who are too blind to understand how an unborn child is still a human.

I think abortion should be legal until it is a full grown baby inside you.
What you should be worried about is when people have induce labor and then the baby comes out alive and the dies a few days later. They suffer because the woman couldn't make up her mind fast enough and at the last minute they decide to suck an actual baby out and oops it's alive or oops i pulled it's head off. oh well atleast it wasn't me! please. :x

i think abortion should be allowed, its not murder on account of the fetus cant feel anything yet -_-

:idea: If pregancy is from rape of is threating the life of the mom it should be allowed but if she knowing got pregnant she shouldn't be allowed to abort. Also offten evn if it is threating her life doctors can make it premature still saveing the baby. :idea:

So... remember that I'm pro-choice, here. A child of rape is inherently worth less than a child of consensual sex, making it okay to abort it where aborting a child resulting from consensual sex is okay?

What I see here is the desire to punish people for having consensual sex.

Like I said before, the choice whether to abort a pregnancy or not is just that, a choice. Sometimes it's the right choice; usually it's the wrong choice. But keeping people from making the choice does more harm than allowing them to choose for themselves.

Abortion is chold murder nothing more, nothing less. My nation will not accept this and will violate the U.N sanction if it is enforced. My nation will never allow this kind of butchery within it's borders.

Whether a woman has an abortion or not shouldn't be a political matter. It should be up to her...hands down.

Want a few facts about abortion go to

http://www.abortionfacts.com/history/history.asp

My dearest Shadow, the facts of abortion in the past or even in the present do not, for freedom-thinking leaders, justify a ban. Making choices - making the right choices, hopefully - is a critical part of a full and human life. Allowing your citizens the opportunity to make the right choice means that a few of them may make the wrong one - but the majority will choose the correct path, and be that much more complete in their humanity for it.

Facts are relevent, otherwise it is simply a matter of legislation by emotion.

Exactly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

We of LoreSong (a Nation that stresses education) would note to all reading that Heritage House is hardly a neutral research or reporting group on this matter. We would encourage any uncertain nations to likewise review this group and their leanings before accepting Heritage House's website on this matter.

Rule One: don't just link - THINK

The difference between 'murdering the unborn' and 'aborting a fetus' is simply whether or not the child was wanted.

A person who kills a pregnant woman is charged with double homicide, even if she is on her way to an abortion clinic. Does anyone not see the irony of that?

Abortion, as it is now, is simply a form of birth control that women are employing because they don't have to worry about remembering a pill, or wondering if the condom will hold.

Remember a few years back when a girl had a baby in her high school restroom and dropped the baby in the trash can? She was charged with attempted murder, yet 4 hours earlier she could have had the fetus aborted with no crime (the baby was a premi)

Our inconsistencies (at least in the US) are incredible.

Shouldn't an abortion be left up to the parents of the embryo . Why do you all think you should be the holders of someone elses future . :twisted:

Reiterating: any proposal that goes before the UN should focus on funding sex education and birth control options. Anything beyond that will cause a huge uproar in many countries who will feel that we are poking our nose (and rightfully so) not only into cultural beliefs, but personal affairs.

i agree with Philipius on this issue. the mother has a choice in most cases weather to have sex or not and i belive that if she chooses to than she also chooses the responsibility of parenthood. now i know what you are going to say you will say "what about the women who are raped" well i belive that just because the mother didn't choose the father doesn't mean that it justifies killing an inocent child. after all the mother is still killing her flesh and blood. it is not just a tissue you kill it is killing a future doctor, teacher, husband, or wife. and if you think about it you are also killing future joys such as that child's first day of school or their graduation day or mairage. even if you aren't pro-life look around and see the joys of children and tell me having a young life that you, your mate, and {in my beleifs} god created and tell me you wouldn't feel an over powering sence of love and compassion for that little life that you wanted to kill. but you say ...
i apoligize if i offend any of you by mentioning god in my reply. but i only write what i belive and i will spare the scripture for now because i dont want to offend anyone too badly the first time i write.


I am slightly offended (but not just by you), because you sound like a person that does not know anyone who has been raped and become pregnant as a result. Yet you assume you know what is best in such a case. Rape is an incredibly violent crime, anyone who has not known someone that has been raped has no idea what it does to a person physically and emotionally. Sure you see it on TV, you read about it in the newspaper and in books, and even talk about it, but you really do not know.
I have known three women that were raped. I use past-tense because one ended up pregnant, HIV positive and in a wheelchair unable to control even the simplest bodily functions. Her life changed drastically in 20 minutes, a change she could not take, and I'll tell you it was not made any easier by people who assumed they knew what was best for her. She did not want the baby because for her it was another reminder of what had happened. She was one of my best friends (so yes this is a touchy subject for me) and I buried her not even a month ago because her parents could not do it, they could not bring themselves to her grave.
I strongly suggest all those who do not know someone, or who have never been raped themselves to keep their mouths shut on that part of the debate because you simply do not know what it is like for those people, or what is best for them and have no bloody right to think you do. The issue is not as simple as many would like to think it is, and it pisses me off that they refuse to see the whole picture.

I wonna suggest you the obliged abortion of borning stupids. Any pregnant waiting for a future stupid baby must be obliged to abort. Eugenetic end of human stupidity is the goal. Remember: now the mother of stupids is always pregnant.

I assume you're referring to babies born mentally retarded, but that can be hard to predict. However, there's something to be said for babies born with empty cavities in their skulls where their brains would be...

i think abortion should be allowed, its not murder on account of the fetus cant feel anything yet -_-

Not very good logic. There are people in temporary comas that do not "feel" anything. Should I be able to kill them? The reality is that, however unlike you or I in physical appearance, the fetus is in the very gradual and slow process of human development. From conception on to infancy, childhood, adulthood, and death, one living human being exists, however it develops and changes. There is not another point that marks a radical change into being and coming into existence as conception does.

Anything beyond that will cause a huge uproar in many countries who will feel that we are poking our nose (and rightfully so) not only into cultural beliefs, but personal affairs.-_-

It caused a huge uproar when NATO unseated the Serbian régime. So what? We poked our noses in other's cultural beliefs when we condemned persecution of minorities in Germany and South Africa, the gulag in the Soviet Union, or forced female circumcision in Africa. We are not complete cultural relativists, so none of that bothers us much. Sometimes human rights trump traditions and cultures.

Shouldn't an abortion be left up to the parents of the embryo ..-_-

Shouldn't infanticide be left to the parents of the infant? No. And for the same reasons, neither should abortion.

For the People of Burkonia,
HRH, Monarch of Burkonia