NationStates Jolt Archive

I've submitted a proposal about abortion. It eliminates the need for fighting, because, it essentially says that, those who are anti-abortion, should not have the death penalty, and those who do should have abortion. It also provides a clause for a case by case process for those who do allow it, so that not all women who want the abortion can get it; only those who have a case wherein they could be harmed in some way by the pregnanacy.

The proposal is called: Right to Choice. Right now, it's on the top of page 19; check page 18 if it isn't there. I'd like to see this one pass.

This seems like a model of logical consistency.

That may be because we already follow the first option.

I think the proposal needs to be adjusted. It represents a good idea, but misses the logic inherent in Pro-life. The death penalty is too protect third persons, such as possible future victims, and seeing how a fetus is a third person needing to be protected, outlawing abortions while applying the death penalt is not hypicritical. If you want to make universal law, adjust it so that the two top platforms, right to abortion in case of risk of wevere injury or death, and the right to abortion in cases of rape, incest, or other acts of illegal sexual intercourse are the only two allowed to occur and that the government outlawing them can choose a fair punishment for those that don't follow them.

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. We need to protect all unborn children of this world, not appease murderers so that some unborn children have their lives threatened.

Here's my view: a women can do what she wants with her body and the government has no right to tell her otherwise. Why bring a child into a loveless marriage where it won't get the attention it deserves. Not to mention thisl legislation won't help over population. However in the case of the death penalty it is a brutal practice. In a society where we are taught that two wrongs don't make a right how can we have the death penalty. And what about the prospect of sending innocent people to death. It has happened.

And what about the prospect of sending innocent people to death. It has happened.

Well, obviously, DNA testing would have to be done. Along with, IMO, a lie detector test and solid evidence of their guilt (which could exist of only the two mentionned).

It's still a barbaric practice. I am suprised that Catholic Eurpoe would support the death penalty, but I respect your opinion. As far as lie detector tests they're not very reliable.

It's still a barbaric practice. I am suprised that Catholic Eurpoe would support the death penalty, but I respect your opinion. As far as lie detector tests they're not very reliable.

How is a barbaric practice? We kill by lethal injection (in most cases) which is very humane, and if the current resolution is passed, will be legalised.

The prospect of sending innocent people to jail is why there's the practices of Grand Jury, Jury, and Appeals.

Also, I support Catholic Europe's notion of dissapproving this proposal, I too agree it must be revised.

Also, I support Catholic Europe's notion of dissapproving this proposal, I too agree it must be revised.

However, you support Euthanasia!? :?

Also, I support Catholic Europe's notion of dissapproving this proposal, I too agree it must be revised.

However, you support Euthanasia!? :?
I see CE's point. It's hypocrisy to support the death penalty, but not abortion; it's hypocrisy to support abortion but deny Euthenasia. All take human life, innocent or not. They are there because it is a device to save humanity; to save women from a pregnancy that is because of rape/incest, because she might die if she does give birth; to punish the criminals who have wronged society; and to gran those who are in much pain and suffering unduly because they haven't been permitted to die because of medical science.

They are all very much alike, in some principles.

While this compromise seems somewhat logical, it misses the point. These two issues, while both dealing with the ultimate issue of life or death, are not comparable. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the crime of taking another individuals life. The death row inmate has been found by a jury of their peers guilty of murdering another person’s death and must be punished for their wrong to society. How does that compare to a woman who is simply housing a child for 9 months and her "right" to end that individual's life because of choice. You are comparing a woman’s right to kill the only innocent human beings and the Government’s right to kill persons found guilty of murder who will never be free again and who have given up their rights in society by killing another.

It would seem to me that the law should be written that a woman found "aborting" or killing her child while such child is in the womb is subject to criminal prosecution and if found guilty of "aborting" or killing such child for no other reason than convenience or without medical cause is guilty of 1st degree murder, punishable by death.

While this compromise seems somewhat logical, it misses the point. These two issues, while both dealing with the ultimate issue of life or death, are not comparable. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the crime of taking another individuals life. The death row inmate has been found by a jury of their peers guilty of murdering another person’s death and must be punished for their wrong to society. How does that compare to a woman who is simply housing a child for 9 months and her "right" to end that individual's life because of choice. You are comparing a woman’s right to kill the only innocent human beings and the Government’s right to kill persons found guilty of murder who will never be free again and who have given up their rights in society by killing another.

It would seem to me that the law should be written that a woman found "aborting" or killing her child while such child is in the womb is subject to criminal prosecution and if found guilty of "aborting" or killing such child for no other reason than convenience or without medical cause is guilty of 1st degree murder, punishable by death.

For the above and many more reasons, I cannot support such a proposal.

While this compromise seems somewhat logical, it misses the point. These two issues, while both dealing with the ultimate issue of life or death, are not comparable. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment for the crime of taking another individuals life. The death row inmate has been found by a jury of their peers guilty of murdering another person’s death and must be punished for their wrong to society. How does that compare to a woman who is simply housing a child for 9 months and her "right" to end that individual's life because of choice. You are comparing a woman’s right to kill the only innocent human beings and the Government’s right to kill persons found guilty of murder who will never be free again and who have given up their rights in society by killing another.

It would seem to me that the law should be written that a woman found "aborting" or killing her child while such child is in the womb is subject to criminal prosecution and if found guilty of "aborting" or killing such child for no other reason than convenience or without medical cause is guilty of 1st degree murder, punishable by death.

For the above and many more reasons, I cannot support such a proposal.

I have heard a lot from those who oppose it. How about from those who approve it...?

The Logarchy refuses to support this proposal. We allow the death penalty only on the battlefield; in our charter, we absolutely forbid the death penalty against the Poloi or the Aristoi. The allow the death penalty on the battlefield because sometimes the cowardice (true cowardice, not shellshock) or treachery of a serviceman can put the country and the forces of the Logarchy at immediate and unqualified risk. Under any other circumstance, we find modern maximum security labor prisons to be quite sufficient to keep dangerous people out of society, while paying for their own keep.

We also find abortion necessary. It is the official position of the Logarchy that a fetus, prior to 6 months, cannot be considered a human being. This is our legal and our philosophical view. As we feel that the soul is birthed in the body when consciousness is also birthed, we feel that medically prior to six months what is in the womb is not a baby, but a fetus- a six-month reenactment of the birth of the human species, as it were. For population control and the psychological well-being of our people, we require abortion.

OOC: This is my position in real life as well; I see no reason to treat a first or second trimester fetus as human. Unresponsive, unthinking flesh is hardly more human than a baseball. I would, however, feel comfortable with the regulation of second-trimester abortions- by that time most women seeking abortions have been irresponsible, and questions need to be asked. Heck, at that stage, considering that (in most cases) in the prior three months the woman had no problem with the responsibilities of pregnancy, I'm not sure I could object to requiring consent from the father.

We, Royal Highness Cucu of the young queendom of Cucu,

Strongly dissaprove of this proposal which we see as a treat to basic human rights.

Firstly because it bypass the illegality of the death penalty in our queendom: no human is able, has the wisdom or the power, to decide if another human being deserves death.
Seclusion from the rest of the society of persons found guilty of crime, by the laws of our queendom, is sufficient to prevent them from harming others and for them to make amend for their wrongdoings.

Secondly, not giving to every woman the possibily to abort goes against the right for all women and all men of our queendom to freely dispose of their bodies.

We specify that embryonic forms of life (under four months of gestation) residing in a woman's uterus are not considered as human beings in Cucu. This because we acknowledge the priority of the woman's right, a wholly formed human, on those of the life form, whose claim as a human being is discutable, she is bearing.
Thus, in our queendom, aborption is legal and accessible to all adult women bearing an embryonic form of life prior to four months of gestation. After this lapse of time, any abortion must be justified and approved by a medical authority considering the greater risk scale of such a chirurgical intervention - for the woman, the foetus and the medical party, after the four month delay.

We also specify that, to protect the right of the women to give life, embryonic forms of life prior to four month of gestation are considered as the bearer's material property, such as if harm caused by a third party comes to it ( i.e. in case of medical error, loss of the embryon following physical abuses), the bearer holds right to ask for reparation by engaging legal pursuits on the ground of psychological or/and material damage.

Her Royal Highness Cucu,
Queen of the very free Queendom of Cucu,
Chief Supreme of the Government,
First Commander of the Army.

(That was my first post and i had fun with it. Excuse my poor english.)

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. We need to protect all unborn children of this world, not appease murderers so that some unborn children have their lives threatened.

Twat.