NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates of NationStates, please look at my friend's resolution (he has a problem and cannot submit proposals at the moment) and seriously consider approving of it:

To see the resolution (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/22918/page=UN_proposal/proposal=69/vote=for/start=65), scroll to the bottom of the page.

Thankyou.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint already has laws on the books which mirror pretty closely this proposal, we will ask our UN Delegate to approve it.

Frankly, with all the liberal, left-wing whacko nut-jobs present in the UN these days, I doubt it'll pass.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

there is no way I would ever support this proposal.

it is simply not an international affair.

and it's way too extreme and specific. tell your friend he has one vote for NFW.

And just for those of you that care to read it:


Definition of Abortion Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Bethnal Green
Description: WHEREAS an unborn child is dependant on its mother while in the womb and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS it is STILL dependant after born for the first few years (at least) and cannot live on its own.

WHEREAS rape and the potential death through birth are special cases.

WHEREAS the choice of unprotected or minimally protected sex is a conscious decision and the very small potential defect of birth control methods must be accepted.

BE IT RESOLVED that NO distinction is made between an unborn and born child aside from it as a human being.

BE IT RESOLVED that, in the case of battery of a pregnant women in which the unborn child dies as a result. The criminal is charged with Manslaughter.

BE IT RESOLVED that partial birth abortion (the act of having the baby delivered feet first to be cut up the spinal cort with scissors and crushing the skull) is unnecessary and be considered murder, any who practice it must be charged accordingly.

BE IT RESOLVED that nations can still decide on abortion in the case of rape or potential death to the mother.

BE IT RESOLVED that the abortion of a child after the first trimester be illegal in all nations, unless in the most extreme cases in which death may occur.

(By The Armed Republic of Crissia)

Approvals: 2 (Bethnal Green, Alalalalalah)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 145 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Feb 15 2004

Let's just put aside our own interpretation of morality for a moment. I don't believe a resolution this specific on such a sensitive issue can possibly be the responsibility of the UN.

As for Greenspoint's contribution - we have a great deal of respect for you, despite the clear divergence of our political beliefs, etc. That's why I'm very disappointed that you chose to dismiss the generally pro-choice/pro-abortion/however-you-wish-to-describe-us community as "liberal, left-wing whacko nut-jobs". That's inaccurate and foolish as you well know. You may be repulsed by a different moral perspective but it has nothing to do with being left-wing or a nut-job.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare

Sadly, such rants are typical of those who know themselves both to be in the minority and the wrong.

Comrade Moore
Delegate for Liberal, Left-Wing Wacko Nut-Jobs

As for Greenspoint's contribution - we have a great deal of respect for you, despite the clear divergence of our political beliefs, etc. That's why I'm very disappointed that you chose to dismiss the generally pro-choice/pro-abortion/however-you-wish-to-describe-us community as "liberal, left-wing whacko nut-jobs". That's inaccurate and foolish as you well know.

We admit to the use of hyperbole in our comment, and apologize for letting our comments get out of hand, and for any offense that might have occcurred. We admit that our particular political views seem to be in the minority within the framework of NS, but I doubt that East Hackney can honestly say he feels we believe we're "...in the wrong." Obviously if we didn't think we had the right of it, we'd change our views.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

"it is simply not an international affair.

and it's way too extreme and specific."

was what 49% of the UN said about prostitution and euthinasia.. so I figured I'd throw in an extreme right wing view with all the left wing garbage being passed.

naaah mean?
gotta rep hard for the RW! What What!

Many thanks, Greenspoint.

Crissia - what left-wing 'garbage' has been passed by the UN? When did legalisation (right or wrong) of prostitution become an issue of wings (no inappropriate comments, please)? It's a measure that has legalised the sale of sexual favours. That's more capitalist than socialist.

So no, I don't naaah y'mean.

it doesn't matter if it's too extreme or specific. it matters if it reaches quorum. the key is *marketing*-- how well they sell the issue.

anyway, the roman inquisition will have to support the proposal, although out of character i'm horrified. horrified! do you know how gruesome abortions get when they're illegal, under the radar, done in unsafe rat-holes with unsafe equipment and unskilled pseudo-doctor quack-things looking to turn a penny alongside their lucrative business of tooth-pulling without anesthesia? it's ugly. really ugly, and potentially fatal.

all right, you say, so what-- isn't that what they deserve, the murderous bitches? and if we're tight enough on controlling it, and make sure we kill anyone suspected of performing abortions too, won't the assumption that abortions will still happen be eliminated?

urrrfff. there's a lot that can be said on either side. so, random thought: is an unborn baby under state jurisdiction at all? here's the thing. the state exists to guarantee the life of its citizens . now-- the state can guarantee my life because it provides the framework within which i live. i have obligations to the state, and the state has obligations to me, but ultimately i exist *in* the state. directly. i'm there. the state can let me live by letting me work my ass off to earn my own money, or the state can use me as slave labour and provide me with just enough food and water to live. the point is that the state *directly* affects me. there's no buffer. the state can guarantee my life against my would-be killers because it provides the framework for my alternatives.

with an unborn baby it's different. consider, for instance, the case of a child that has already been born, but happens to live in a fucked-up home where one day its mother just... drowns it in the bathtub. this is a crime. why? because you've taken a life? no. because the state can support this life independently of the mother. the state has institutions, orphanages, foster homes, counselling, concerned relatives, child-support laws, all sorts of things, by which it can guarantee this child's life. the mother is just a default option-- there exist others (albeit for extreme circumstances, but they exist). thus the state can say, "yes, i guarantee the life of this child, because i can keep this child alive." but with an unborn baby, [i]the only way the state can get at the child is through the mother. there are no other options. the state cannot guarantee the child's life unless the mother complies-- or unless the state sets up hi-tech "redemption clinics" where unwanted embryos can get sucked out of the mother and raised in test tubes or something. fundamentally the child doesn't exist in the state-- it exists in the mother. so, while the mother exists in the state-- and you can make up all sorts of rules governing her behaviour-- saying that she should not kill her child is just like saying that she should not, say, smoke weed or whatever-- you *can* make laws like that, and you *can* enforce them, but they're laws on behaviour, *not* a guarantee for a life. because this life is still beyond the reach of the state. it can't be touched, except through the mother.

or maybe i'm just on crack.

love always,
brother felix hortensio
chief inquisitor

Even if you are on crack you've made some really good points there, thank you.

Many thanks, Greenspoint.

Crissia - what left-wing 'garbage' has been passed by the UN? When did legalisation (right or wrong) of prostitution become an issue of wings (no inappropriate comments, please)? It's a measure that has legalised the sale of sexual favours. That's more capitalist than socialist.

So no, I don't naaah y'mean.
huh? let me rephrase..
Capitalism is aside from the point.. China is even down with capitalism... but they're... communist..
I should specify as Liberal and Conservative...
the legalization of prostitution/euthinasia are a viewed as a bit liberal as opposed to conservative? Many of the current reso's have been written from a bit of a liberal standpoint, I would like to see a more conservative one drop by for voting sometime.

I would like to see a more conservative one drop by for voting sometime.
Not a good enough reason. Just because the preponderance of over-reaching proposals have been more liberal than conservative, there is no reason to let yet another overreaching intrusive bit of legislation out of the gates.

No. No way. No chance. This is a national issue, not an international bit of legislation. Even if I agreed with every portion of the proposal, I would vote against. This has no business in the UN.

No. No way. No chance. This is a national issue, not an international bit of legislation. Even if I agreed with every portion of the proposal, I would vote against. This has no business in the UN.

I agree wholeheartedly with Frisbeeteria. How a nation deals with abortion is an internal issue, not an international one.

The nation of Sophista must agree with the representative from Fisbeeteria on this particular issue. All politics and morality aside, this is simply not within the realm of international policy. The United Nations is a body centered around cooperation and ending conflict, and to force an issue that is so inherently divisive and culturally-based is in direct contravention of of those goals. If you are opposed to abortion in any form, so be it, but to assume that those laws should be forced upon every single member nation is arrogant and against the nature of this body.

We strongly encourage any nation opposed to such a flagrant misuse of the United Nations resolution system. To the more liberal, oppose it on the basis of your morals and soveriegnty, to the more conservative, I beg of you to respect the rights of other nations to chose their own course.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Lubria is offended by Crissia's assumption that all issues must be either liberal or conservative in nature. Such binary thinking is unwelcome in a system of two dimensional politics. Lubria is furthor offended by Crissia's insinuation that liberal minded thinking is offensive in some regard.


lib•er•al adj.

-Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
-Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


sounds like a very positive and beneficial viewpoint, doesn't it?

The Confederacy of Caligatio, though holding a more radical viewpoint than this resolution proposes, does not support this bill in any way as a proponent for national sovereignty on moral issues.

We also find the negative connotations attached to liberals and conservatives ridiculous and find both viewpoints equally valid.

And, just for the sake of countering the nation of Lubria... :D

conservative adj.

- averse to change and holding traditional values
- favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Yes, It's an amazing reason..
especially in the cases in which sex is a choice and pregnancy is a risk.. you don't want kids.. don't do it.

this is a game.. and I want it to go a bit more in my direction especially after being forced into allowing the horrible and immoral act of prostitution to become legal..


Crissia.. Reppin' hard for illegal abortion in 2004.
nahmeanyaheard?

still reppin hard on feb 13

Oh dear the PROPOSAL HAS BEEN DELETED? Why???

Oh dear the PROPOSAL HAS BEEN DELETED? Why???
I sent a telegram at the time. Pro-life proposals (which is what this one boils down to) are better-classified as "moral decency".

Ah yes, abortion, the third rail of polotics, touch it and you will die...

Heh, I am not gonna go near this... perhaps this is a case where an N.S. issue would be more appropriate compared to a U.N. resolution. IS there already an issue for this topic? Should there be?

A Rep of Komokom.

I don't know of an issue, and it strikes me as something that's crying out to be dealt with - preferably in a way that won't have the forums coated with a fine sprinkling of topics on "baby killing" and the like.
That said, if nations want to propose anti-abortion (or pro-life) resolutions, they're within their rights to do so, as long as they do so as a "Moral Decency" thing, rather than a "Human Rights" one. There are reasons for this, but they're almost as controversial as the debate itself can be, so I'll only post them if people are desperate to hear them.