NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok while we've debated Abortion to death might as well do it for the sake of debate

I'm pro-choice for the most part. I'll allow abortions in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, however by the 3rd trimester the baby IMO is too mature to just abort.

I will make an exception for the 3rd trimester in the case that the baby has some disease which will take both the baby's life and the life of its mother.

While I would rather the pregnant person just bear the baby and give it up for adoption, I'd still give Choice to those who do not wish to. Plus, before abortion was legalized there were all these illegal underground (and hazardous) clinics

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

If I had to label my opinion it would have to be pro-choice.
While I could not make the decision to abort a fetus personally, I respect the right of indivuals to make their own choice, just as that would be my choice.
I would also agree that third trimester abortions, except in the case of illness or a danger to health of mom and baby, should be permitted.

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

Couldn't one make the same argument for say murder. It happens all the time, so you may legalize. Heck, you could make this arguement for any crime, since the whole reason why a law is a law is because people do it and the government wants to stop it. So I will vote in favor of any bill designed to end abortion. Smilarly, I will vote no on any bill designed to legalize abortion

abortion is necesary if a disease threatens to kill the baby and its mother then abort. why wouldnt you. whats wrong with abortion. anybody who has a problem with it should think about what they are saying.

1) Pro-Choice !

2) Will vote yes.

3) About bloody time, if the writer holds still too long, I might just kiss them.

:wink:

- T.R. Kom
Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
<- Not A Moderator, Just A Know It All.
" Clowns To The Left of Me ... Jokers To The Right, Here I am ... "

Our government believes that abortion is a highly complex moral issue. We believe that, with regard to the essential decision as to whether abortion can be justified, the government is no better-equipped to make this moral decision than the individual concerned would be; we therefore take a pro-choice stance. However, we recognise that many governments may not concur with this position and believe it would be divisive to force this change upon them.

As previously pointed out, we would prefer to reserve the right as a government to forbid third-trimester abortions and anything not carried out by an accredited doctor. This proposal would make it legal to offer coathanger abortions at five bucks a pop.

We will therefore be voting against this. We would, however, support a much more limited bill guaranteeing women the right to abortion if her life was at risk - a right not all nations grant.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei

We are dismayed that this divisive and by no means clear-cut issue will come to a UN vote. Ecopoeia's position on the matter is similar to Rehochipe's. Insofar as a government should get involved in the matter, ours adopts the pro-choice position simply because whether or not a woman has an abortion is not our business.

However, we recognise that the 'rights and wrongs' of abortion are possibly indeterminate. Lines that are drawn are almost arbitrary. We also recognise that this resolution would be devastating for many nations that find themselves unable to contemplate legalising abortion. We do not agree with them but we respect their position on the matter because the case for/against abortion has not been proven.

We implore pro-choice nations to reject this resolution in support of harmony in the UN and in respect of national policies on issues of indeterminable 'morality'.

Black and white are shades of grey.

- John Boone
Speaker for Rights & Wellbeing
- Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health
The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia

Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia

In my nation, citizens are allowed to choose whether or not they wish to be parents. This is why men are not required by law to pay child support, and why women are allowed to have abortions.

We plan on support this proposal.

We are agreeing with the representative of Ecopaia and Rehochipe.

In our nation this issue is fiercly discussed and there are deep divsions. Our government tries to find a way of handling this issue that is not deepening those divisions.
Abortion is illegal in our country, but if it is done within the first three months after an advisory talk (of a government or private institution to which the woman has to go and talk about this situation. The institution offers help to show her a perspective to chose in favour of the child. But after all: the woman has the free choice after this talk: she receives a notice that she went to this advisor) it is not punished. However it is NOT LEGAL. We just do not punish it if above mentioned conditions are met. Health insurances are banned from paying for the abortion.


Abortion in cases where the life of mother and child is at risk is legal.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

Couldn't one make the same argument for say murder. It happens all the time, so you may legalize. Heck, you could make this arguement for any crime, since the whole reason why a law is a law is because people do it and the government wants to stop it. So I will vote in favor of any bill designed to end abortion. Smilarly, I will vote no on any bill designed to legalize abortion That's true, altough I also think that if you ban abortion it will happen illegaly. This will cause a lot of unprofessional abortions, which is bad for the health of citizens. I'm also pro-choice cause I see it as a choice a women should have the right to have. When women have an unwanted baby it's bad for the mother and the child. The mother most likely won't be able to take care of the child, if that's the reason she wanted the abortion.

This is actually a very siimple matter. The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint recognizes that life begins at conception, and that an unborn baby is a human being and a legal person. As such, all human and civil rights apply, among these being the right to life, such right being inalienable except through due process. Therefore abortions are not legal. In the event that a medical situation arises where a choice must be made between either the life of the mother or the baby, then the mother will get precedence.

If a couple does not want to be parents, they must make that decision before engaging in sexual relations, and practice contraception then. Waiting until the 'morning after' is too late. Contraceptives must prevent conception. Any other form of birth control is murder.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs

Your all psychopaths, its the nations right to choose what to and not allow, not the UN!

This just will enforce that the UN will become more and more powerfull, rather than letting the nation decide.

I hope one day the game mechanics can allow for the UN to be split in half. One half can go out on the fringes and just die for all I care, while the sane people stay within their own place!

Could you Imagine any communist, facist, even democratic nation accepting world law on this scale?? Most of them would leave the UN to have such laws forced on them!

Abortion is death
The UN is ruled by women

This proposal, if it passes, is a blatant violation of national soverignty. The UN was not created to dictate laws to it's memeber states.

It's pretty funny most anti-UN nations would really shut up and support the UN if it passed one pro-gun law or banned abortion. I really think you would. So we'll add one pro-gun portion to the res. to make the crazy conservatives happy.

Abortion is death
The UN is ruled by women

I'm a man and I support it. Considering that nation state players have a choice of being in the UN or not, you could quit and stop worrying about the "women" who "rule" it. Note UN=a democracy(even if it is dominated by socialists). To rule you need to be a dictator. Maybe you're to much of a woman to pull out because you r afraid you can't vote or something, eh? Just so you know I'm a right-leaning conservative, and I don't support many resolutions coming through, but I can accept them because I joined it and I could leave if I wanted. You aren't forced to accept this. You can leave and not have to deal w/ the "women" at any time, and stop being prude.

Also unwanted pregnancy is the top cause of child abuse. And, who will keep the adopted children parents don't want and give away, assuming you could actually ban and enforce the ban on abortion? If we men could be pregnant, would you ACTUALLY give birth to it? Yeah, right!

Our Government is run by our beloved King. He has asked his subjects, polled them if you will and concluded that our people find Abortion to be an abomination to the human race, and should be abolished.

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

Couldn't one make the same argument for say murder. It happens all the time, so you may legalize. Heck, you could make this arguement for any crime, since the whole reason why a law is a law is because people do it and the government wants to stop it. So I will vote in favor of any bill designed to end abortion. Smilarly, I will vote no on any bill designed to legalize abortion

No you couldn't say the same thing for murder. Murder is quite different. To claim they are the same(along with any other crime) is quite stupid. By definition murder is very different.
murder: n 1. the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought 2: something unusually difficult or dangerous

abortion: a premature birth occuring before the fetus can survive(on its own)[thus third trimester abortions could be debated as murder; also an induced expulsion of a fetus
(The merriam webster dictionary)

Thus there is quite a difference between the two. Most abortions, I think, do not invlove malice or hatred before or during the procedure. Abortion is not a bloody or violent procedure. It is not something that should be done regularly, in my oopinion but should be an open option. Also, by banning abortion, you make it dificult to abtain one, thus making it murder. Also, banning never works, here is some empiracal evidence:

1) Previos abortion bans- rusty coat hungers for "5 bucks a pop"
2) Guns- can't get rid of every one, never was possible
3) DRUGS- This is the best one. Not one nation can or ever has completely banned drugs, that is to say, has banned but couldn't make it happen. In my world, I see drugs daily. Marijuana, hashish, heroine, mescaline, crack, cocaine, designer drugs, and cut drugs, which are even more lethal. To say they've been banned is stupid. We couldn't stop 'em if we had to.

Plus, black market abortions only worsen the situation as they are cheaper, and it would be harder for your prudish friends to protest them. But it COULD make for a more peaceful world. W/O all the hate mail from zealot idiots, people might be more happy. And don't forget the abortion clinic bombings, you know we have to save those poor babies. (so lets kill the mothers and fetuses in there w/ a bomb, to save the fetus, uh, yeah...)

Also, see my def. of abortion. Do we punish natural abortion(like miscarriage), and what if the women use cocaine to abort it(this happens more often than you think), or start using natural herbs to abort it(there are several which cause this to occur, and their impossible to totally effectively ban, beinng small and difficult to ID)?

It's impossible to ban, if you could it would cause child abuse and unecesaray stress on mother, and did I mantion impossible to ban? Why don't we divert th money that would be spent to ban it and work on catching those who kill mother and fetus, (a radical yet popular form of abortion formed by prudes) abortion clinic bombers?

This is a UN issue because issues pertaining to a certain degree of morality(immoral to ban abortion) belong in it.

I know wish to steal a qoute from Komokom:
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am..."

Signed by Dictator LG

Here's a better list of empiracal evidence that proves banning doesn't work:

1) Several countries have banned marijauna, heroine, mescaline, meth, hashish, cocaine, crack and other drugs. Notice that they are totally unable to completely remove it all from their country. In fact, it can still be harvested in those countries.
2) Some countries have banned abortion, but rusty coat hangers thrive.
3) Banning fishing, but fishers will do near anything to get fish, even fishing in MPAs.
4) Illegal immigration. Immigrants often go through borderlines unnoticed.
So, you don't solve because banning empiricaly doesn't work.
5) War crime laws. Militaries often abuse prsioners, kill innocents, etc. and break the Geneva convention.

We the Confederation of Polish Warriors will give full support on this issue.
We believe in the right to free will and realize that no one NO ONE!! OWNS A PERSON'S BODY. Sure people make really stupid decisions and yes they should pay for them but bringing a child into the world with parents or PARENT that are not ready economically, socially, and maturity wise (as so shamefully happens far too often); is really causing the child problems down the road. If the child is raised when the parent or parents are not ready/worthy then it's a bad deal for everyone; most importantly the child. We do not beleive that abortion is murder if the choice is between death of an uncontious fetus or a life that is less than fruitfull or happy. We are in agreement with Rehnochipe on this issue and stand firm.

Saying that banning something will stop it is not true. As we've heard in the case of drugs, murder etc... HOWEVER it does drastically cut down on the number of incidences occurring.

If Marijuana was legal, it would be used much more heavily. If murder was legal, alot more people would kill that teacher that pissed them off, or that neighbor whose dog keeps crapping on your lawn. Kids would come in to school and kill everybody that made fun of them on an almost daily basis.

Since these things are illegal, people are much more weary of doing them. Banning something will never be 100% effective, but it will stop a large number of people from doing it.

--But that's completely off subject, we can come back to that when it is a "Ban Abortion" bill.--

This law takes away national sovierenty. It is too large and too controversial to have an international ruling on. This is something that the individual cultures should decide. Some cultures may be perfectly okay with it, others would never think of doing it, yet others are split almost right down the middle.

Those of you who say, "If you don't like it you can just quit" don't understand democracy. We are in the UN in order to make a difference. When a anti-sovierenty law like this come up, we must STAND and defend ourselves.

Give us rulers our rights.

Please---Please, let this one go to the Nations. Vote against this proposal, preserve your ability to rule over your nation.


Holy Emperor Pio Magnus

1) there is no nation or peoples who base their goverment or personal opinions/views based on biblical/religious basis who could support banning abortion. choice is the basis of the bible. if you belive in the bible or any derivitive then you support abortion.

2) if you belive that abortion is murder then do you prosecute and jail females who use birthcontrol? you do realize that all feminine forms of birth control involve either killing the mothers eggs or stop the fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. both methods of which would be murder by the "life at conception" view. condoms and the rythem method are the only acceptable forms of birth control under this view.

Also unwanted pregnancy is the top cause of child abuse. And, who will keep the adopted children parents don't want and give away, assuming you could actually ban and enforce the ban on abortion? If we men could be pregnant, would you ACTUALLY give birth to it? Yeah, right!
So rather than let a child live a potentially impoverished and abused life it's best to get rid of it just in case. Clears the conscience?
The only people who can be happy are of course people born into planned families where the family budget can accomadate the demands of the child. :roll:
And just so you know I'm a bit of a commie :P

hi I wrote the resolution

Abortion should be legal for the following reasons:

1) The government has no right to own someone's body.
2) The government should not be able to prohibit someone's freedom to discontinue their pregnancy.
3) It will continue anyway (through unsafe attempts by women to perform the procedure themselves and illegal clinics)
4) In cases such as teen pregnancies and rapes, it is often necessary to terminate the pregnancy.
5) A woman might not be able to afford to care for a baby.
6) The fetus might have a terrible disease or fatal illness that might otherwise cause the baby to have a short and miserable life.
7) The parents may not want the baby and will give it up for adoption where the child will live as an orphan.
8.Or the parents keep the baby and the unwanted child is beaten, abused, neglected because of their parent's unwillingness to raise them.
9) Conservatives often want to bring religion into the debate, and as religion hasn't been proved as valid, it is not good to use that in their argument. Many don't believe in God, like atheists and agnostics.
10) The mother might not be able to have the baby and she will die during the pregnancy.
11) To make abortion illegal would just put innocent doctors and women in jail.

But whether or not you believe abortion should be legal, you have to admit that this proposal is a violation of national soverignty. By definition, soverign nations have the right to govern themselves.

Every nation should vote no on this proposal if for no other reason than that the UN is taking away your right to self-government. What if ultra-conservatives gain a majority in the UN someday and use it to dictate their laws to your nation?

I believe that abortion is a great moral evil, and I wish everyone would vote no because of that. Even if you disagree with me on the morality of abortion, vote no because you have a right to govern yourself instead of having the UN govern your nation for you.

if you belive in the bible or any derivitive then you support abortion.

The last time I saw a pile of horse manure this big I started digging into it, cause I knew the only way to get that much crap into one room, there had to be a horse buried in there somewhere.

I believe in the Bible, I do not support abortion.

The basic question of the whole debate about abortion is this: "When does life begin?" I'm the father to 3 children and having watched their mother go through each pregnancy, I know that life begins at conception. No other logical answer exists.

If life begins at conception, there is no justification in the world that would morally allow abortion.

If life does NOT begin at conception, there is no justification in the world needed to allow abortion.

I always hear the argument that no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body, but it's not her body we're dealing with here, it's the baby's. She gave up her 'choice' of whether or not to have a baby when she engaged in sexual relations. In the question of rape, that choice was taken from her. That's tragic, but why would you kill the baby just because the father was a rapist?

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint

But whether or not you believe abortion should be legal, you have to admit that this proposal is a violation of national soverignty. By definition, soverign nations have the right to govern themselves.

Every nation should vote no on this proposal if for no other reason than that the UN is taking away your right to self-government. What if ultra-conservatives gain a majority in the UN someday and use it to dictate their laws to your nation?

I believe that abortion is a great moral evil, and I wish everyone would vote no because of that. Even if you disagree with me on the morality of abortion, vote no because you have a right to govern yourself instead of having the UN govern your nation for you.

Hear Hear! Well said.

I'm the father to 3 children and having watched their mother go through each pregnancy, I know that life begins at conception. No other logical answer exists.

My. I'm amazed that fatherhood gives you the magical ability to determine complex metaphysical questions. I'd better start sprogging fast if I want to improve my philosophical abilities.

I believe that life isn't an absolute on / off state; it accumulates gradually. You don't have to believe that, but you have to accept it's a logically consistent answer. Be a little less absolutist, please; if you think that your particular circumstances give you a position of complete authority, you're sadly mistaken.

My. I'm amazed that fatherhood gives you the magical ability to determine complex metaphysical questions. I'd better start sprogging fast if I want to improve my philosophical abilities.

I believe that life isn't an absolute on / off state; it accumulates gradually. You don't have to believe that, but you have to accept it's a logically consistent answer. Be a little less absolutist, please; if you think that your particular circumstances give you a position of complete authority, you're sadly mistaken.

Nothing magical about it, it's just experience. It's not authority, just knowledge. Saying that life isn't an on/off state and that it 'accumulates gradually' is asking to be ridiculed. So you're saying that a person isn't ever absolutely dead or alive? At what point does a life begin? When does it end? That point defines the on/off state. Much as some people wish to deny it, there ARE absolutes in life.

Nice of you to redirect your focus on belittling me and my fatherhood from debating the point, though. Classic example of an ad hominem attack. :)

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint

Greenspoint, your claim to know where life begins purely on the basis of being a father was claiming an authority you don't have. Rehochipe wasn't making an ad hominem attack, he was pointing out your logical fallacy. Being a father doesn't make you an expert on human biology.

And the idea that life accumulates gradually is perfectly defensible. If you wish to draw a line and say "life begins here," where do you draw it? At conception? But the foetus can't survive outside the mother and is incapable of existing separately from her. At some point during pregnancy, the foetus becomes a living human being capable of independent life and thought. But we can't identify where that happens, since life isn't an absolute state and there's no really clear definition of it.

Saying that a fetus cannot survive outside the mother is not a valid reason to deny the baby is alive. There are thousands of people in hospitals around the world that can no longer survive without the help of manufactured machinery, does that mean they're no longer alive? You're right, we cannot pinpoint the exact moment a baby is 'alive', yet folks do it all the time. Claiming that abortion is allowable through the 2nd trimester or even until birth is doing exactly that. My point of view is since we can't subtantially set this point other than arbitrarily in the best cases, we MUST morally and ethically err on the side of life and pick the ONE point we know is NOT arbitrary, the point of conception. Any other point is purely a point of convenience on somebody's part, and I don't think we can allow someone's convenience to dictate whether or not someone else will die.

James Moehlman
Asst. Mgr. ico UN Affairs
The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint

Every nation should vote no on this proposal if for no other reason than that the UN is taking away your right to self-government. What if ultra-conservatives gain a majority in the UN someday and use it to dictate their laws to your nation?

But by this logic,every UN resolution passed and enforced in NS is a violation of national sovereignty,so why have a UN at all? The reason the UN exists is much like the reason a federal government exists - to promote the general welfare of all nations,and to protect them from the excesses of other nations (e.g., invasion and occupation),and in order for the UN to work properly,it has to run on majority-rule democracy. Granted,the system is vulnerable to tyrrany-of-the-majority situations,but for the most part,it works better than any other system of government that has been tried,especially when rules order and protections for the minority are present and enforced.

But whether or not you believe abortion should be legal, you have to admit that this proposal is a violation of national soverignty. By definition, soverign nations have the right to govern themselves.

Every nation should vote no on this proposal if for no other reason than that the UN is taking away your right to self-government. What if ultra-conservatives gain a majority in the UN someday and use it to dictate their laws to your nation?

I believe that abortion is a great moral evil, and I wish everyone would vote no because of that. Even if you disagree with me on the morality of abortion, vote no because you have a right to govern yourself instead of having the UN govern your nation for you.

Hear Hear! Well said.

When you joined the UN, you gave up some of your 'national sovereignty.'

The point of conception is equally arbitrary; at this stage, the foetus doesn't have a great many of the defining features we would expect of a living human individual. It doesn't have identity, for one thing; the foetus can split into two individuals, (and then reform back into one individual) for a long time after conception. Unless you want to say that your left arm's a different person than you are, the foetus doesn't have the same status as a human individual.

My belief is not that there is one point at which a foetus becomes 'alive' but we're just not able to pinpoint it; it's that there isn't any one such point. Death is similar; when's a man dead? When his heart stops beating? Once his brain stops functioning? (Neurone activity can fade out gradually). When there's no longer any available adenosine triphosphate in the blood? That's what hard chemical biology would have us believe, but generally we'd call the guy dead long before. Life and death are not on / off states; most of the time they look like that, but this is really just a convenient shorthand. So any point you place it at is going to be arbitrary, conception included.

So you're saying that a person isn't ever absolutely dead or alive?

No. I'm saying there's no absolute distinction between the two. There's no point in the colour spectrum where purple stops and red begins. That doesn't mean it's impossible for a colour to be 'absolutely' red.

If this debate could be settled on pure logical grounds, as you seem to believe, it'd have been over long ago.

In any case, this draws us away from the issue at hand. I don't want to see this proposal pass either, partly because it's awfully worded and partly because I think it oversteps sovereignty.

Nice of you to redirect your focus on belittling me and my fatherhood from debating the point, though.

I never ridiculed your fatherhood; I ridiculed your belief that fatherhood conferred special moral perceptive powers upon you (that any number of pro-choice parents mysteriously failed to acquire).

Our public, leaders of the scientific/religious community, and government support this view point steadfastly

" http://www.gellyfish.com/amodest.html "

Although encompassing many subjects, abortion is one covered, and smartly done at that.

Dr. Swift is genius in by all accounts and his recommendations although overturned by his native government, have gone into affect as of May 23rd, 2004 in our soviergn nation of XYZPDQ. Hunger, homelessness, abortions, and our government funded brothels all have received positive benifits. We have predicted gains in other areas as well, but as yet too soon to claim.

humbly,
el Thomas

Saying that life isn't an on/off state and that it 'accumulates gradually' is asking to be ridiculed.

Surely you've heard of Shroedinger's Cat before,right? BTW,what prevents someone with a terminal illness from being classified in that indeterminite point between life and death? What about someone in a coma? They're hovering between life and death as well.

So you're saying that a person isn't ever absolutely dead or alive? At what point does a life begin? When does it end? That point defines the on/off state. Much as some people wish to deny it, there ARE absolutes in life.

Hardly. Once a person is born,the "switch" is most definitely set to on and that person's death sets the "switch" permanently to off. That's readily apparent without any technology. However, states such as a coma or prior to birth cannot definitively be defined as absolutely alive or dead,thus the "switch" is somewhere in the middle,creating a Shroedinger's Cat situation. We currently have the technology to determine the status of a person in a coma,but since a fetus cannot survive on its own until sometime in the third trimester,it's status is logically indeterminite. Furthermore,there are some categories of ethics (most notably Kantian ethics) that state that for ethics to apply to an organism,it must be capable of "acting as a moral agent" to borrow Kantian terminology. Whether or not you agree with such theories of ethics is up to you,but your agreement/disagreement does not validate/invalidate them. Much as some people wish to deny it,while there are many areas of ethics that are "black and white," the either/or division does not apply to all areas of ethics,and to assume otherwise would indeed be a logical fallacy.

The question of reproductive rights is a very complex one, and it is one that the Queendom of Mezzenrach has taken a very serious look at for some time. Her Most Serene Majesty, Queen Mezzen, has made her own, personal opinion known on several occasions, but she has also stated that in this instance, she will not impose her own ideals upon the women of Mezzenrach.

While one individual may disagree with the idea of abortion, and would not choose to have one, it is the belief of our Sovereign Majesty that the ultimate choice must rest with the woman dealing with the pregnancy at that time. The sole exception of the case would be where the woman in question is in a coma, and the continuation of the pregnancy would constitute a clear and present danger to both the health of the mother and the fetus. In such a case, the legal guardian of the woman [husband/spouse/partner/parent/etc.] would be charged with making the decision as to whether or not to continue with the pregnancy to term.

We believe that denying access to 1st and 2nd trimester abortions increases the risk of abuse, as well as sub-standard medical practice. Mezzenrach has begun a proactive program educating young people of the importance taking responsibility for contraception, in the hopes that there will be a further decrease in the teenage pregnancy rate. Since the inception of this education plan, the pregnancy rate in teenage girls (aged 13-19) has decreased 7%, and the number of respondents indicating that they used contraceptives during their "first time" increased from 21% in 1995 to 76% in 2001, and 93% in 2003.

Education is the key: condemnation will get you nowhere.

For Her Most Serene Majesty, Queen Mezzen,
Kia Nevkor, Minister of Health and Human Services

The Republic of Tekania is not pro-choice. The moral coded into law of this nation, is that the only legitimate reason for abortion is where their is absolute medical necessity where the birth could lead to the death of the mother AND/OR infant. I will vote no to this proposal if it comes up.

Also there seems to be a problem with this proposed resolution, within the confines of the UN, I was not aware that the UN's place was to legislate morality or immorality, but to codify peace around the globe... Should not decisions such as this be left up to the sovereign powers of each member nation, rather then one nation forcing its internal moral opinions upon the other as law?

The point of conception is equally arbitrary; at this stage, the foetus doesn't have a great many of the defining features we would expect of a living human individual. It doesn't have identity, for one thing; the foetus can split into two individuals, (and then reform back into one individual) for a long time after conception.
It exists.
How can you say there is no human life here?

I didn't.

I said it lacks many of the features we expect of living individuals, while having others. My entire damn point was that saying a just-concieved foetus isn't alive is false, and saying it's fully alive is also false.

Let's say your nation gives individuals the right to vote and full responsibility for crimes committed at 18. The justification for this is that one should be bright enough to make informed decisions and consider the consequences of your actions before you're given these responsibilities. Does that mean your nation believes that on your 18th birthday, Moral Responsibility suddenly blossoms forth in your brain where none was before? Of course not; it's just putting an arbitrary value on an ongoing process.

Similarly, it's my belief that life isn't some Mystic Force that suddenly springs into existence at the moment of conception - or, indeed, at the onset of the third trimester. While you don't have to share this belief, and other beliefs are also consistent, you can't pretend that your belief is the only logical one.

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

No, there have been and most likely always will be so-called "black-market abortions." Example: If someone of a high-enough social status doesn't want a chance of ANYONE finding out they got pregnant, they may still resort to having a "back-alley" abortion. It has happened. It's been statistically proven that although abortion has been legalized, there has still been a steady amount of back-alley abortions.

It's unhealthy either way. Fatality rates in either the clinic or the cellar are too high to be ignored (for long).

I've brought this issue to Chief Minister Rhys. He left only a note.

"World too populated. Go for it."

As such, it is with personal choice (although I'm sure I will be punished for it) that I decline the idea of the Wesperosphere supporting this, whichever way it goes, pro or anti-choice. Yes, the UN is a democracy for the world, basically. And as much as I enjoy control, I only enjoy it within the confines of my own nation. It is really not my (or the CM's) place to decide the rights of other nations.

Well, at least not on an issue so delicate.

-Secondary Minister James Allen Pope, DTW

The Patriarch of TheOrthodox holds with our Tradition that life, whether born ar waiting to be, is still life. The fertalized egg is still human. It still has life. To kill it is to kill a human.

What of the mother's rights to her own body. The majority of abortions do not involve a child conceived in rape. Why should the child pay with her life for the mother not being willing to abstain or to at least practice what has been called "safe sex." If the mother is old enough to make the choice to have intercourse, she surely knows the possible consequences, and chooses those consequnces when she chooses to have sex.

This IS NOT an issue for the mother only. A father also exists. He made the same choice and should participate in the consequences of rearing a child. Lets protect our weakest and most silent sisters, our babies. Vote No!

I'll just say that the abortion issue has been addressed before in the UN.

It's better when left an addressed.

One has to keep in mind that a ban on abortion is a law proposed by the rich for the rich. The reason being that if abortion is illegal in a country, it is bound to be legal in a different one. Anyone with the ability to pay for the abortion and the round trip plane trip can afford to vote "morally" if thats what you want to call it. Therefore the Principality of Marklund, Realizing that not all people have the money to do such a thing, is pro-choice. Although we are not a member of the UN yet, we urge the member nations to follow suit.

Life is a tough thing to define, if you think about it. How can you include things like bacteria and viruses while also excluding proteins and rocks? There still isn't a good, accepted definition for something as basic as life.

As Rehochipe said, things like the third trimester are just arbitrary. Just as the Greenwich Meridian isn't actually the middle of the Earth and a new day doesn't actually start at the International Date Line, it's just an arbitrary convenience.

So it's impractical and just wrong to be saying something like, "Oh, you can have an abortion before the 180th day, but if you do it at 12:01am on day 181, you go to jail."

And I don't think that we should start moralising or quoting religion here. Morals and religion feel good, but make for very bad laws.

Fetuses certainly have the potential for life, but that doesn't mean that they are alive, or that they will become alive, in the normal sense of the word. Miscarriages can happen; lots of other things can happen between conception and birth. A new business can have potential to become a success, but it doesn't mean that it is a success, nor does it mean that it will become a success.

But at the same time, it's ridiculously stupid to suggest that fetuses are dead. They move and kick around, which is not what you expect of a corpse. So if they aren't alive and they aren't dead, what are they? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, but I can safely say that anyone who believes firmly either way is wrong. It's a shades of grey thing.

So because fetuses are not conclusively alive, nor are they conclusively not alive, we should stick to the rights of those we know for sure are alive before giving them to those whose status is debatable.

Also, keep in mind that if abortions are illegal, those who want them will get them anyway. Better to let them get one in a hospital, done by professional doctors accountable for malpractice, than by an out-of-work surgeon in a back alley.

Life is a tough thing to define, if you think about it. How can you include things like bacteria and viruses while also excluding proteins and rocks? There still isn't a good, accepted definition for something as basic as life.



fool...

Viruses are not defined as alive, they do not reproduce on their own, they need a host. Same as pirons.

Bacteria is alive because it eats, it also spawns new generations on its own without needing to invade a cell, and it contains its own code in a semi-organized way.

Rocks as living? Are you insane! Of course its not alive, rocks dont reproduce other rocks that grow! Protiens??? Protines dont reproduce unless they are told to by DNA! Protine is a simple bulding block, not something alive!

Life is defined as such.

Self Reproduction.

Meaning if it can make more of itself it is alive, excluding viruses because they do not contain organelles or a system to reproduce. they must hijack other cells.

The meaning of life is not ssome glorious service to a higher power, ITS TO MAKE BABIES!

There it is, the whole meaning of life!

Abortion is copmpletly against that code in our very existance. Its probably because of the genetic defunct codes that are wreking havoc on everyone making them act like insane fools, going out and getting drunk with no values or principals in life. Most animals with some social structure have some kinds of rules that they follow that insure the survival of the species.

our species is messed up people! we are the most self destructive in all of the kingdom of life on this planet. only Ants and Bees have wars like us, AND THEY ARE MEER INSECTS.

The reason we have moral laws is principal. just because a nation tries to outlaw drugs and fails doesnt mean it made a bad choice, it means the people have no moral values or principals! its not the laws fault, its the peoples fault! There is nothing wrong with many of the laws, except people cant follow them because people are lacking something which is killing our species. Sure 6 billion, great, but soon we will lead ourselfs into greater wars, because people are stupid! Im stupid too! I just choose not to show it as much as some of the rest of you!

man you people make me mad. If i could I would talk to god, if there was one, and ask him WTF!?

of course the god most of the world prays to would smite me and babble on about some great purpose because is god was truely powerfull and almighty THERE WOULDNT BE WAR. God muyst be a SICK SADISTIC FREAK! he made use like an Ant hill! "Lets fry some ants, release some chaos here and watch them run around".

That is certainly no god of mine, because i dont have one. now i know some of you neo-cons and rightous liberals are both hating me right now, you and your god with his glory, and you others with your culture of death and anti-relegion. you both can go meet your maker for all i care because you both impose your systems on others with no thought that others MAY NOT CARE and want to be LEFT ALONE.

This proposal is a friggen JOKE! common people dont give a damn! common people just want to live out there lives alone in peace, its all you left wing nuts and right wing radicals who want to cause chaos! Thats why I will never be a libby lump nut or a righty tight wad, Ill just be a happy capitalist trying to make money and insure the survival of the species core values.

I accept full responsibility for spelling errors because i dont care.

hi I wrote the resolution

Abortion should be legal for the following reasons:

1) The government has no right to own someone's body.
2) The government should not be able to prohibit someone's freedom to discontinue their pregnancy.
3) It will continue anyway (through unsafe attempts by women to perform the procedure themselves and illegal clinics)
4) In cases such as teen pregnancies and rapes, it is often necessary to terminate the pregnancy.
5) A woman might not be able to afford to care for a baby.
6) The fetus might have a terrible disease or fatal illness that might otherwise cause the baby to have a short and miserable life.
7) The parents may not want the baby and will give it up for adoption where the child will live as an orphan.
8.Or the parents keep the baby and the unwanted child is beaten, abused, neglected because of their parent's unwillingness to raise them.
9) Conservatives often want to bring religion into the debate, and as religion hasn't been proved as valid, it is not good to use that in their argument. Many don't believe in God, like atheists and agnostics.
10) The mother might not be able to have the baby and she will die during the pregnancy.
11) To make abortion illegal would just put innocent doctors and women in jail.

We understand and to some extent agree with your comments. However, we maintain that this issue is too ambiguous - both ethically and scientifically - for universal legislation to be applied by the UN.

We fear the consequences of this resolution being passed. The hours a person works or degree to which a nation's markets are open - these are divisive issues, yet they are unlikely to trigger a crisis in the UN. A few nations will leave, yes, but the UN remains and the nations within it are able to absorb the worst effects of bad legislation in these fields. However, this issue is a timebomb ticking at the heart of the UN. It is clearly absolutely unacceptable to many nations and for reasons that are, we believe, more justifiable than the objections stated to, for example, equal rights for homosexuals.

This has nothing to do with left and right. This is simply a case of bad, inappropriate and inflammatory legislation that demeans us all.

John Boone
Speaker for Rights & Wellbeing
Ursual Kohl
Speaker for Health

Viruses are not defined as alive, they do not reproduce on their own, they need a host. Same as pirons.


Most people consider viruses as alive. It's equally valid to say that they're non-living, but most people, even biologists, would tell you that viruses are alive.

And going by your reasoning, babies born by IVF or using a surrogate mother shouldn't be considered alive.

You have to understand that it dosn't matter if you consider the fetus alive or not, in all countries around the world today it is illegal to kill an endangered speices, and they don't start when this animal is born. If you were to harm an bald eagles egg in the USA you can get sent to jail for 5 years and get a fine of about 50,000. Isn't the egg the same form the fetus is in technicly speaking when the abortion is taking place?

The Emirate of Ilcaris votes no.

Ilcaris already have laws which protect 'pro-choice', though we have experianced that it is still a hot and divisive political topic. We currently have very conservative restrictions on when abortion is allowed, as well, seeing the need to applease our anti-abortionists.

That we have these laws, and to some extent support the resolution in spirit at least, does not mean we wish the United Nations to interfere with our domestic and very violative debate. We awknowlage that this is a grey subject, in which 'right and 'wrong' very quickly loses any meaning, and subjective opinions of morality and faith quickly takes over.

We understand the view of other nations, and other people, and have respect for their cultural beliefs corresponding to an anti-abortion position. The Emirate of Ilcaris does not wish to impose it's view on this matter on the rest of the United Nations.

Esteemed Members,

The arguments with regard to abortion are clearly highly emotive and understandably so. The UN community here are made up of a large number of different nations whose very constitutions will make it impossible for them to remain members if this resolution is passed.

I am not going to argue the merits or non-merits of abortion in this debate since I feel this should remain an issue of national government, simply because of its emotive nature. My concern with this resolution more so is the long-term effects it may have on the NS UN. If ever, there has been a resolution that could cause a large number of members to leave, more so than any other, this is it. With almost every other resolution one can argue right and wrong, but this is imply too dualistic. Every argument can stand up either way and you find yourself searching your conscience for answers.

Since this is such a matter for conscience and the fundamental religious aspects some nations adhere with regard to this, can we really as an international body begin to legislate for all in this area?

I am not saying abortion is wrong, nor am I saying it right, but I am asking if it is right for us to be making a decision on this subject for everyone. I cannot see how nations who have strong views against this resolution will suddenly change their views simply because it passes. It is simply too emotive and too fundamental and as such they will leave.

For this reason my government is taking a stance against this resolution, in hopes that is does not pass. At least in that case it will remain a national issue and each nation can legislate according to their own fundamental principals.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

You have to understand that it dosn't matter if you consider the fetus alive or not, in all countries around the world today it is illegal to kill an endangered speices, and they don't start when this animal is born. If you were to harm an bald eagles egg in the USA you can get sent to jail for 5 years and get a fine of about 50,000. Isn't the egg the same form the fetus is in technicly speaking when the abortion is taking place?
False comparison - endangered species laws are to protect the continuation of the species, not the rights of the individual eggs. Unless you consider humanity in danger of dying out through underpopulation, your analogy misses the point entirely.

We reiterate our earlier point, however: despite being pro-choice, we're not certain that legislating on abortion falls within the UN's remit, and even if it does this is a really, really bad document that makes amendment extraordinarily difficult. We urge all delegates to vote against.

As scientific data has proven that long before a baby is detectable without a pregnancy test it has brain activity and a heartbeat, and as such is truly alive and a human being with rights and protection under the law, Hyarnustar cannot support this resolution. I urge any nation that does not intend to approve of murder to vote down this resolution. It cannot be allowed to pass.

Jhon Ben, President
The Republic of Hyarnustar

Eutorians are of the opinion that abortion is murder of a human, and that abortion rights counteract the rights of a living human being.

A resolution does not need passed on this issue. Birth control should be promoted by governments if anything, but our republic does not believe it moral to strike down a life which has not been given a chance.

As stated in previous posts, the UN is to maintain peace around the globe. This should definitely be left up to the individual nations. Imagine if this issue was passed in real life in the real world. Would the Vatican then have to allow abortions because the UN said so? No. That would never happen because it should be left up to the sovereign country where certain morals govern. I like to keep my Nationstates country with good morals, and outlawing abortion is one of those things.

As a Catholic, I believe that the person is alive at the moment of conception. I will not condone murder in my country, especially if I am being forced to by the UN.

Horseriders though not subscribing to any religion are of the opinion that abortion is murder.

When joining the UN we were aware that we may have to accept rules with which we do not agree. However a rule that makes what we regard as murder legal would be a step too far. We could no longer remain a member of any body which seeks to impose abortion.

abortion is necesary if a disease threatens to kill the baby and its mother then abort. why wouldnt you. whats wrong with abortion. anybody who has a problem with it should think about what they are saying.

I support abortion if the life of the mother is in serious, proven danger of being harmed/ended. That's the only exception I can morally make.

But as for "psychological harm" abortions -- look at all the loopholes there'd be there. I mean, morning sickness, fatigue, birth pains, etc. -- all natural -- would be just cause. :|

i only support the abortion where mother and baby both would die to complications. I personally disagree with abortions, however, see it as a thing individual countrys should have the right to make. i saw this debate on a regional message board... dont remember which one it was, so forgive me... but one person pointed out the fact that if a country were a catholic theocracy, then they would still have to abbide by this, totaly getting rid of whatever laws the church had to say about the issue. while they could, of course withdraw from the UN (heheheh, had to put that in there for you komokom) it would take away from their standing in the world govt. also, i believe in the fathers input in the situation. if the father wants the baby, then there should be no right of the woman to abort it. just because the woman happens to be carrying it around for the time, doesnt mean the man has no choice as to what happens to his child.

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

Couldn't one make the same argument for say murder. It happens all the time, so you may legalize. Heck, you could make this arguement for any crime, since the whole reason why a law is a law is because people do it and the government wants to stop it. So I will vote in favor of any bill designed to end abortion. Smilarly, I will vote no on any bill designed to legalize abortion That's true, altough I also think that if you ban abortion it will happen illegaly. This will cause a lot of unprofessional abortions, which is bad for the health of citizens. I'm also pro-choice cause I see it as a choice a women should have the right to have. When women have an unwanted baby it's bad for the mother and the child. The mother most likely won't be able to take care of the child, if that's the reason she wanted the abortion.

Abortion has always and will always continue to happen illegally. Back-alley abortions continue to exist even after Roe v. Wade passed. Some people will stop at nothing to make sure word doesn't get out.

Adoption.

This proposal, if it passes, is a blatant violation of national soverignty. The UN was not created to dictate laws to it's memeber states.

Exactly my opinion. The UN was formed to help contain strife, not create it. Such major issues are best left to smaller organizations rather than a large beurocracy that more often than not leaves a sizeable minority out of the picture. We all know how inefficient beauocracies can be.

Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia

In my nation, citizens are allowed to choose whether or not they wish to be parents. This is why men are not required by law to pay child support, and why women are allowed to have abortions.

We plan on support this proposal.

You know, there's a pretty good way to decide whether or not to be parents: Deciding whether or not to "do it" in the first place.

Sure-fire method of staying away from parenthood is abstinence from sex. Condoms fail, as do diaphragms, the Pill and RU-486, but keeping away from sex is the only method proven to 100% "protect" you from pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. If you don't want another mouth to feed, don't do the deed.

Another pretty-good method of birth control, the second and last "natural" option, is the "rhythm method" -- keep track of the woman's period and avoid sex during the time most likely to result in pregnancy. But abstinence is still the only method with 100% success rates.

There are abortion rights within the New Commonwealths. However, we cannot support this UN resolution. This matter should be left up to the individual states, and no nation should have a law forced on them that they feel is wrong.

Those nations that support this resolution most likely already have abortion rights within their borders. No one is attempting to restrict those. We should respect the laws of the other nations, their religions, customs, etc, and not force this law upon them.

I am imploring the other member nations of the UN, please vote against this law.

DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT IF ALL THE STUPID PEOPLE ABORT THEIR BABIES, THERE WONT BE ANY STUPID PEOPLE EVENTUALLY? :?:

BRING MOM MY WAY & I'LL ABORT THAT STUPID BABY FOR FREE! :twisted:

My opinion on Abortion is irrelevant in the discussion of this resolution. Countries MUST maintain their right to decide on this issue for themselves. Some people call abortion murder and other people call it women's rights; on an issue this big there would be civil unrest against the UN if this was taken out of a nation's hands.

If this resolution passes I'll be forced to resign from the United Nations.

I'm not real fond of abortion, although in some cases I do support it. And that's not only for medical reasons.

You say that when you don't want children, you shouldn't have sex. Nonsense. The pill and the condom are for 99% safe, if you wouldn't do something cause there's 1% of it going wrong, there's lots of things you'll have to drop! Ofcourse, when you did inform yourself about these stats, there's more chance you're older and more responsable to take care of the kid.

And what about teenage mothers? I can't see a 13 year old bringing up a child. It wouldn't have a father, the child should have to be brought up by the grandparents, if they want to accept it. Not even spoken about the morals a teenage kid has to pass on to her kids.

Abortion is mostly done when the child hasn't developed really far. I have no idea if a foetus can think/feel already. I know it will when it's further developed, but if it's just a bunch of cells clinging together?

I live in a country where abortion is legal, and I'm glad it is.

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

You must also realize that leaglizing or supporting abortion you are in effect supporting murder. In today's world babies can live if they are born 5 months into the pregnancy. It may even be possible for babies to live before that. I am not a doctor but have researched this issue a little. It seems to me that if a baby can live and grow into a fully functioning human being that early in a pregnancy then if you abort it you are committing murder. I cannot disregard my religious beliefs on murder so easily. Another thing you have to realize is that it takes a man and a woman to create that baby and by giving the mother sole say over whether she wants to abort the child or not, you are taking the rights away from the father of the child. Although the father doesn't physically carry the child to term, that child is a part of him as well. That my friends, cannot be so easily dismissed. What would you say if the mother didn't want an abortion but the father did? Would you say that the father should be giving his wish? That is what you are saying now only vice versa. If the mother wishes for and abortion and the father doesn't then the mother gets her wish, correct? The issue cannot be moralized in any way. I do, however, agree with abortion in very very extreme circumstances.

Thats a good thing to realize. By banning abortion you just cause a large wave of black market abortion, meaning there are still abortions. There's really no reason to abolish abortion.

You must also realize that leaglizing or supporting abortion you are in effect supporting murder. In today's world babies can live if they are born 5 months into the pregnancy. It may even be possible for babies to live before that. I am not a doctor but have researched this issue a little. It seems to me that if a baby can live and grow into a fully functioning human being that early in a pregnancy then if you abort it you are committing murder. I cannot disregard my religious beliefs on murder so easily. Another thing you have to realize is that it takes a man and a woman to create that baby and by giving the mother sole say over whether she wants to abort the child or not, you are taking the rights away from the father of the child. Although the father doesn't physically carry the child to term, that child is a part of him as well. That my friends, cannot be so easily dismissed. What would you say if the mother didn't want an abortion but the father did? Would you say that the father should be giving his wish? That is what you are saying now only vice versa. If the mother wishes for and abortion and the father doesn't then the mother gets her wish, correct? The issue cannot be moralized in any way. I do, however, agree with abortion in very very extreme circumstances.

My opinion on Abortion is irrelevant in the discussion of this resolution. Countries MUST maintain their right to decide on this issue for themselves. Some people call abortion murder and other people call it women's rights; on an issue this big there would be civil unrest against the UN if this was taken out of a nation's hands.

If this resolution passes I'll be forced to resign from the United Nations.

I concur. I will resign as well.

While the metaphysics of this question are fascinating, they are also tangential to the real issue, which was brought up by our Ecopoeian and Rechopian colleagues earlier: this resolution is too vague to support. No intereference means no interference, making all forms of abortion legal, regardless. This simply cannot be tolerated; the resolution is overbroad and applies a chainsaw to an issue that requires a scalpel.

Were the resolution to read, 'States must have facilities capable of performing abortions,' we would support that resolution, as it allows each state to determine when abortions, a legitimate medical procedure if the mother's life is in danger, are legal. If a nation does not want abortions legal then that is their priviledge as the state, and since there is no clear right answer on this issue, the closer we leave this question to the country the better.

SeOCC has voted against this resolution and implores all nations to do likewise. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, this resolution does not give this highly sensitive issue the time and thought it deserves.

SeOCC UN Delegation

I think this is too important, even if you are for abortion, to force ALL UN nations to support a choice that you make. It's our country not yours. The UN should regulate things to make sure the world is peacful, not be some all prevailing law machine. Whether or not YOU think abortion should be legal or not is not enough reason to say that EVERYBODY should. I vote no.

I first of think abortion is morally wrong, and I believe it should be banned from every nation. I think this legistlation should not be passed for the entire UN. This is an issue that should be addressed to each country seperately. On this particular issue the UN should not decide where we we stand morally. The UN is not designed to make such nit-picky judgments. Even if you believe in pro-choice you shouldn't force other nations to have to follow what they beleive to be murder. The UN needs to focus on what it was designed for, and not to conform all nations to be the same.

This is a faulty resolution. I refuse to vote for or against it.

I am PRO abortion if the mother is at risk for death.

I am AGAINST abortion if it is just some teenage high schooler that got knocked up by her boyfriend who said using condoms is "un-natural."

Too bad, it has potential, too.

If the UN Resolution had broadened its horizons a little more to NOT punish a woman at risk of death... because really, why is she to be forced to die to give birth to a child? NOW look whos the murderer here. Not only are the anti-abortionists murdering the woman by not giving her a chance to save herself, but they are also forcing a child to be born into a life without a mother.

Thats my take on it.

So I mean, the resolution has no leniency. Its either COMPLETELY BAN ABORTION or COMPLETELY ALLOW IT. If there was a middle-grounds or some room for exceptions, maybe then it would carry more significance to Civil Rights.

Maybe after this resolution, though... someone will come up with a NEW Abortion resolution allowing mothers-at-risk to abort the baby if they choose... :? and maybe tighten the laws against those who are aborting because they just arent ready for adulthood.

Most abortions that occur in RL (in America, at least), still happen illegally. This leaves the women at a great risk.

There are no provisions for a humane death for the fetus, and no humane treatment for the woman.

There's no guarentee of a qualified doctor.

Overall, I don't even think that this should be a UN issue, but now it is.

I urge a vote against this.

If it's a faulty resolution, then WHY stay neutral?

And why does the left typically feel that all these anti-conservative resolutions--to legalize gay marriage, to legalize abortion--be forced upon conservatives in the UN?

An alternative would be to pass a resolution saying the UN cannot make a ruling on morally controversial grounds like abortion, and that UN member states should follow their own conscience on them, and not waste everyone's time making resolutions to victimize certain political and theological viewpoints. This way leftists can have the right to choose, while conservatives can similarly guard their right to be pro-life, and not force any particular worldview on anyone.

Here are some arguments to add fuel to the fire of "pro-choicers" who have several of these criteria for how an "embryo isn't a baby"

Can a baby even on the outside of the womb take care of itself without the mother? NO
Can the newborn baby feed itself? NO
Is the baby totally reliant on it's mother? YES
Is the child still developing? Most certainly....
Just as it is in the womb.
So you tell me what the difference is... there is none.
Am I
Anti-Abortion?
You can bet your life.....

Can a baby even on the outside of the womb take care of itself without the mother? NO
Can the newborn baby feed itself? NO
Is the baby totally reliant on it's mother? YES
Is the child still developing? Most certainly....
Just as it is in the womb.
So you tell me what the difference is... there is none.

A baby has differentiated brain tissue, neurological activity, consciousness, individual identity, the ability to carry out any number of essential metabolic and organic functions independently... all of which the embryo lacks at one point or another.

Well.... as a real life issue sorta dealie, I think abortion is okay in certain cases, but most of the time I'm against it.

Generally what are the main reasons for an abortion?

Because they decided to go get laid without thinking about the consequences.

Because they were raped.

For the second reason I think it's fine, most other reasons are variations of the 1st one.

Actions should have consequences... when you do something, you should have to deal with the consequences.

As to the sanctity of life? Unless you don't eat or kill anything period, don't talk about the sanctity of life. Human life is worth no more than like say, a dolphin's life or something (I just picked dolphin cuz that's my fav animal :p but the same idea goes around)

Those nations that support this resolution most likely already have abortion rights within their borders. No one is attempting to restrict those.

Exactly! The question is why do others feel the need to impose this on all the other UN states?

Each of the five major world religions teach against abortion. Though there may be dissenters within each religion, for the most part this is an affront to all Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu states.

I believe abortion is wrong because it brutally kills the fetuses and have the people voting for this resolution EVER HEARD OF ADOPTION!!!

The UN should not force this brutal law into effect. The birthrates of almost every developed country in the world is not enough to sustain their populations. By instituting global infanticide we are making worse the coming depopulation crisis.

Propasals like these that are absolute yes or no are problematic. Everyone has mentioned specific cases where abortion can be considered right by most, such as when it is medically necessary for the mother to abort to save herself. Does this mean abortion is correct 100% of the time, as the proposed resolution seeks to allow? Of course not, nothing is proper all the time. Should a woman without the mental capacity to make a sound judgement be able to choose to abort or not? This case against is especially significant with the woman's ability to forego an abortion despite what might be best for her, which this proposal also encompasses.
Simply put, like most any other proposal, I can not allow such a general and absolute resolution to have my support, and I request that it will not have yours.

I most certainly agree, it's a national issue, And this reasolution is so broad as to even create problems in countries that allow abortion. (Note, this resolution would eliminate ALL restrictions on abortion, including juvenile restrictions) Not even parents would have a say over their teenage daughters pregnancy situation. It is quite clear, and trust me, very distastefully have to say that the person(s) who wrote this resolution and the Delegates who endorsed it, are quite clearly incapable of rational thought. Any delegate who endorsed it should have first indidcated to the author of the proposals over-broadness. I mean the resolution pretty much says no gov't can regulate abortion rights, this means that, even the nations in the UN with abortion right laws, can't even legislate abortion requirements... effective it would even negate laws licensing abortion proceedures to qualified medical personel.

Ummmm I don't know what you're talking about, currently it's predicted the population will double within like I think it was 25 years.... I don't see how that's going down...

Anyways, still, I agree with people who said there's no reason to impose this on nations. If you want to have it in your own country, so be it, stay out of mine....

It seems alot of people are voting for rather than against... I'd really like to know why.... I mean in this thread there seems to be just as many against as for, if not more against....

My kingdom is not for Abortion. There are elements of our society that are in favor of it however, I do not feel it is right for the UN to force all countries to allow abortions. what do others think. We have not decided how to vote yet

a·bor·tion, n

1
a) Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus.
b) Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

2.
The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.

3......

----- snip ------------------

The proposal as it stands is far too unrestricted to be passed into law. This proposal grants the right to abort a perfectly healthy featus during a healthy pregnancy right up to the moment of natural birth.

Any nations wanting to vote for pro choice should consider if the situation described above is really what they want.

Personally I think that a woman should have the right to abort during pregnancy up until the second trimester.

Even though I'm pro-choice I'm going to vote no.

I'd vote yes to a proposal that UN nation states guarantee the right of women to abort pregnancy up until at least the end of the first trimester.

This would allow nation states wishing to extend their own freedoms to do so while allowing those more conservative nations that still want to support pro choice to do so.

just my two cents....

From the looks of it, every single ethic and moral reason has been stated already. I didn't read all five or six pages of debate here but I got the general idea.

Here's an arguement for RP's sake (sorry, die-hard gamer here... :P ): What if someone's nation is a theocracy and abortion is against their religion? Would refusal to follow this bill (since it looks like it's going to pass) be grounds for expulsion from the UN?

There should be a corollary or correction of this resolution that states that this resolution is optional for nations to accept. We should be operating on the basis of popular sovereignty.

I don't think there's anyone in this forum who knows exactly when an unborn baby becomes a sentient being or can feel pain. Even if you are pro-choice you just shouldn't take the risk. You can't be absolutely certain that the unbron baby can't feel it's body being brutally destroyed. It is your responsibility as a decent human being to make sure no child dies a hideous death that you can prevent, and you can't be absolutely certain that the unborn baby isn't really a child.

Also, there are no restrictions at all on this legislation. Should a baby be able to be killed 30 seconds before he or she would be born, or while he or she is partially born? What if the baby survies a very late term abortion attempt? Could the infant then be slaughtered outside of the mother's body?

All of you pro-choice mothers out there: if you could, would you go back in time and abort your child? What if having that child were to become extremely inconvenient? Would you kill your kids?

All you pro-choice sons and daughters: If your mother could go back in time and abort you and decided to do so, would you support her decision? After all, she'd just be killing a fetus, right? Of course not. You deserve the life you have now and unborn babies deserve the lives they could one day have. They deserve to feel love and happiness and joy. That should NEVER be taken away.

And would you pregnant women have abortions if you could see how your children would turn out?

I request that all of you vote "no" on this legislation because it is unfair and has no restricitons. It is a dangerous bill.

From the looks of it, every single ethic and moral reason has been stated already. I didn't read all five or six pages of debate here but I got the general idea.

Here's an arguement for RP's sake (sorry, die-hard gamer here... :P ): What if someone's nation is a theocracy and abortion is against their religion? Would refusal to follow this bill (since it looks like it's going to pass) be grounds for expulsion from the UN?

That's actually a good point... I'm not a theorcracy but I'm a Holy Empire.... hmmmmm it'd be even more pressing in a theocracy... very good point from a game standpoint.

While I would tend to agree with some of the leaders on this thread in that the bill (as it stands) is far too broad spectrum in its definition of an abortion, I would argue that to make abortions illegal would cause far more misery than to pass a bill that needs amending.

Consider first an argument brought up many times in this thread - namely, that, if abortions are made illegal, desperate to-be mothers will seek black market clincs - putting their own lives in jeopardy with amateurs and unsafe operating conditions. Even if they don't die as a result of the operation, it would also be possible for irreperable damage to be done to their bodies in the process. Either way, a "no" vote on this bill could cause misery and harm in this manner.

Secondly, consider a woman who is in a situation where she cannot afford to keep the child, but will not put it up for adoption. Any situation could then turn miserable. She could abandon the child, where it would die a slow wasting death of starvation and/or exposure, rather than a quick, merciful, and (in all likelihood) unpercieved one. She could keep the child herself, and both would starve, be poorly off for the duration of the child's youth, if not longer, and the child would begin life in a dead-end situation with little hope of improving.

So, despite my misgivings over the generous wording of the bill as it stands, I will have to petition my representative to vote "Yes".

Even if you are pro choice by passing this resolution you are banning the choices of nations. This is the most ridiculous resolution ever. If you are pro-choice, then how can you justify taking away the choice of nations over this topic. This SHOULD NOT BE a resolution. If you are pro-choice, fine. So be it. You are more than free to have it in your own country. But to pass this resolution would be one of the most gross violations of civil rights ever.

Since I hold to a sort of evolutionary system, let me pose this to some of the pro-choice nations.

It is true that if you removed a fetus from the mother's womb, let's say three months into the cycle, it would certainly die. IN some of my classes at school, I have heard peope justify abortion as not killing a life because the fetus would "die" because of the obvious chance of death.

However, as I see it (and millions of others), the fetus is in a sort of evolutionary stage. A mere glance through books on this subject will allow you to view the stages of the infant's growth.

As we know, dead things do not evolve; it's impossible. Since an evolution is occuring, the fetus (who's size or chance of death outside of the womb any given day is irrelevent) is alive; it is a living organism, which will eventually become a human. How can its termination not be considered some sort of infanticide?

As for myself, since I am not a delegate, I would vote no, to this proposal!

I am not saying that the future mother of this child has no rights. However, she, (the Mother), has other options too.

She can give the baby up for adoption.
She can let another family member raise the child.

To me, the "unborn child", is still a person.

I do not think the "Mother" has a right to kill her child. Just because it's, "My Body". The "Mother" is the "Vessel". For another life.

That's just the way things are.

Cheers!
NapaMac...uh... istan

The resolution appears to be an attempt to dictate our morals and values to us instead of each of our countries having our own morals and values. We are a very pro-choice nation, but we do not believe the United Nations should force moral opinions on the whole body of nations.

Instead of abortion we should make adoption a very good option. With more funding we could do it. MAYBE to stop illegal, dangerous abortions, we should allow VERY early ones in VERY limited circumstances. These should be legalized ONLY if after examining all research collected about abortions it is determined to be the LEAST evil option. But we shouldn't vote for a proposal like this which has not restrictions at all.

ABORTION IS JUST MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG AND I COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH IT!!!!!!
God Bless - maybe He can do something about people who are for it
-Newton2

And no one should EVER be encouraged to have an abortion.

sry, I think I am missing most of the views placed here
it is a good debate...

here is my view, adopted from my speech teachers view on abortions
Women have the right to choose. it's their body, not our(our=men) body, so who gives what they do with it.

no one should be forced to do abortion comment
I agree, but abortion is not the only choice, there are adoptions, and surrendering your baby to a local hospital...
But abortion should be left as a choice anyway

I would more likely encourage public awareness of abstinence
but yeah, what happened happened
no matter who's fault, the choice should still be there

my view
=P

I am against abortion personaly, since abstenance is the best prevention against it, as well as that is playing god, and a right that most people would agree we do not have.

A life is a life, weather it is sentiant or not, it will still become so. And until we are able to create that life with out tampering with the natural fabric of life, than we have no right to take it.

Should I shoot a man, becuase I think he is wrong, or an inconviacne, do we kill the underprilidged to suite the countries needs, do we allow mentaly ill people to be hunted and killed? Abortion is murder simple and out right. If you aide or agree to that, than you are guilty of second degree murder and the ending of a life that never had a chance to prove anything. how do you know that the life you take, may not hold the key to a cure for cancer or another illness?

I understand that pregancy is a life altering issue, but as I stated abouve abstenacne is the best prevention, just becuase accidents happen is no reason to kill an unborn child. I say we ban abortion and make it illeagle for any kind of abortion to take place, and if it does the party should be brought up on murder charged. Thank you for your time.

I am against abortion personaly, since abstenance is the best prevention against it, as well as that is playing god, and a right that most people would agree we do not have.

A life is a life, weather it is sentiant or not, it will still become so. And until we are able to create that life with out tampering with the natural fabric of life, than we have no right to take it.

Should I shoot a man, becuase I think he is wrong, or an inconviacne, do we kill the underprilidged to suite the countries needs, do we allow mentaly ill people to be hunted and killed? Abortion is murder simple and out right. If you aide or agree to that, than you are guilty of second degree murder and the ending of a life that never had a chance to prove anything. how do you know that the life you take, may not hold the key to a cure for cancer or another illness?

I understand that pregancy is a life altering issue, but as I stated abouve abstenacne is the best prevention, just becuase accidents happen is no reason to kill an unborn child. I say we ban abortion and make it illeagle for any kind of abortion to take place, and if it does the party should be brought up on murder charged. Thank you for your time.

I can't believe this resolution has come to vote. This is ridiculous! The Rogue Nation of Jerktitude has voted against it, and if it passes, then we are withdrawing from the UN. I simply cannot allow this abomination of a law to be passed in my country.

[quote="Kelssek"]Fetuses certainly have the potential for life, but that doesn't mean that they are alive, or that they will become alive, in the normal sense of the word.


This is written by one who does not know of what he speaks. An unborn child does feel. As the abotioninsts tools begin to suck the limbs off the child, it withdraws, tring to save it's own life. When not endangered, it peacefully will sit in the womb sucking it's thumb, scratching an itch, moving to make itself more comfortable. It's brain gives off electromagnetic fields that can be measured. A child born several months early can still survive. It is NOT potential life, it is ALIVE.

This is an insult to every member of the U.N. that has any love for their sovereignity. We in Ascensia define the status of life medically, if any being has a heart that beats without emergency mechanical assistance, they are legally human beings and citizens of Ascensia, with all rights guaranteed by that status, including the right to personal safety and survival, as defined in Article I of the Ascensian constitution.

The U.N. has no right to tell its member nations how they define between living, unliving, and dead. There are undoubtedly theocratic member nations like ourselves, who see this as a blatant act of tyranny against our rights, and there are undoubtedly communistic member nations who see nothing wrong with aborting pregnancies up until and during a woman's labor begins.

Communist or Theist, Tribesman or Diplomat, we all must hold one thing above all others when dealing in the international arena, our nation's sovereignity and well-being. We must never allow the United Nations to engage in an action which violates the sovereignity of any member nation. I would defend the rights of Communist nations just as vehemently were the United Nations to try and outlaw the practices pertaining to their style of government.

This bill cannot be allowed to pass. If this bill does pass, Ascensia will not abide by it. We will not abide by any international order to surrender our sovereignity, ever. Only when covered in the blood of every last member of the Ascensian military will this law or any law like it ever be enforced in our land.

We in Ascensia value our freedom, our right to choose how we will conduct our affairs in our state. Do the rest of you value your sovereignity as much? Decide. If you wish to submit to the domination of a foreign power, vote for this bill and others like it. If you wish to be a sovereign nation that controls its own destiny, vote against it.

I can't believe this resolution has come to vote. This is ridiculous! The Rogue Nation of Jerktitude has voted against it, and if it passes, then we are withdrawing from the UN. I simply cannot allow this abomination of a law to be passed in my country.

His Royal Highness has delievered to the Ministry of State a very clear message as to the position of His Majesty's Government. The States of Stephenson will withdraw from the United Nations if this motion is going to pass on the day before the voting closes. Should the motion pass, His Royal Highness will decide then if the States of Stephenson will re-apply for membership in the United Nations. The United Nations has gone too far with this motion and has no right to decide this issue. The mere notion is ridiclious (no matter what the particular issue is.) If other nations of the world have this problem, please join us in resignation from the United Nations. When the world seeks to solve the problems of individual nations then each nation must decide if it is in their best interest to be dictated to by other nations. Democracy is subverted if the people of our nation cannot make our own decesions. If other nations are making all the decesions, then what is the need for the Crown? (Or any other government for that matter?) In this case, we must dissent.

Prince Andrew III
States of Stephenson Minister of State

Abortion, except in the case when a woman's life is in danger, is murder any way you effing slice it! It's not the woman's body...it's the child's body! Does a woman have four arms, four legs, two noses, or a penis? No! Just because the child is at its most vulnerable, doesn't give you the right to kill it.

I am pro-choice...pro-choice for the baby. I'll bet if you ask any child whether or not they want to be dead, they'd say "no."

My opinion on Abortion is irrelevant in the discussion of this resolution. Countries MUST maintain their right to decide on this issue for themselves. Some people call abortion murder and other people call it women's rights; on an issue this big there would be civil unrest against the UN if this was taken out of a nation's hands.

If this resolution passes I'll be forced to resign from the United Nations.

We feel that the current UN resolution is simply Vistadin attempting to control our own internal policy, and we shan't stand for such shenanigans.

The resolution as worded is much too broad for us to stomach. "(N)o member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion" at or up to what point in a pregnancy? Immediately after conception? Immediately prior to the onset of labour? Where does this "right to have an abortion" even come from? Many of the Artoonian people, for example, happen to subscribe to a Natural Law theory of rights, which makes the above a nullism (even the United States Supreme Court has never recognised, Constitutionally speaking, a "right to have an abortion"). And what if a nation's constitution has a sanctity-of-life clause? Does this resolution trump that? Frankly, this resolution is the most horribly thought-out one we've seen yet, and we have thus voted against it.

In the end, however, legislation by proxy may make little difference within our borders, as no self-respecting Artoonian doctor would willfully perform a non-medically necessary abortion.

/seal/ His Majesty's Government
/s/ Damo Orabela Pipro, Ambassador to the UN

If anything, this resolution, like so many before it, is too vague. I think there is a time for abortion, and there is a time when it should not be done. This resolution just says that it can be done, period. What if a woman wants an abortion 1 month before the baby is to be born? A baby could survive born only 1 month early. Heck, it could survive at 2 months early, and even sooner with todays technology, and live a normal healthy life. This is the second resolution to pass in a row that was way to vague (assuming it will pass because it looks like it will). The United States of Brandons South will withdraw, as it almost did when the last resolution passed, if the current resolution on abortion rights does pass.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't like the way the resolution is written.

For example, the way it's worded, a woman could have an abortion right up until labor.

Also, voting against this resolution is not the same as banning abortion.

ElJefe votes against this resolution.

Why, or shall I ask, HOW did this resolution even come up to vote? This is one of those highly debated topics that force a very broad, sweeping policy onto every single nation. Everlight recognizes such writing as...

...HIGHLY UNETHICAL as it tramps upon the beliefs of people politically, ethically, morally, and personally in a very real way.

...FULL OF CONCEIT AND ARROGANCE, for it lauds the People's Republic of Vistadin if it passes and does no harm if it is defeated. Vistadin most obviously does not care for the nations that hold the opposite view.

...FORCING A HIGHLY DEBATED ISSUE onto nations, where the power of their vote has been severely diminished.

...A WAY TO USE THE UNITED NATIONS AS A WEAPON, for it is clearly evident the People's Republic of Vistadin expressed its own view on this issue, with the support of a mere 150 votes, and wishes to trample Vistadin's opposition by bringing to vote in the UN.

As a result, the Holy Republic of Everlight...

...OFFICIALLY CONDEMNS the actions of the People's Republic of Vistadin and its supporters.

...IMPLORES the People's Republic of Vistadin and it's supporting nations to seek understanding in the vileness of their arrogance.

...IMPLORES all NationStates, large and small, to defeat this abomination of a resolution before nations such as Vistadin jump on the bandwagon and seek to force their views upon us all.

The Holy Republic of Everlight has not adopted a stance on such a debateable issue. FOR AN ISSUE SUCH AS THIS, THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT DECIDE ON IT, NOT HEADS OF STATES.

Everlight will make it a mission to make sure all NationStates are informed beyond the People's Republic of Vistadin's simple worded propoganda disguised as a resolution.


May the Light shine upon all your NationStates.

Keiran Everlight, The Holy Republic of Everlight
"Where there is darkness, we shall bring Light."

You apparently missed the point on my last post.

again.

A baby in a womb IS NOT A CELL OR A VIRUS.

my god you people have some brainwashing in you

IF A CELL IS ALIVE< IT IS ALIVE!

If it is an egg, the moment it splits into 2 cells it is a viable life and is cpompletely alive!

A VIRUS DOES NOT SPLIT INTO TWO, A VIRUS HIJACKS A CELL AND THEN TELLS THE CELL TO MAKE VIRUSES, A WOMANS BODY DOES NOT TELL THE MATERIAL IN THE WOMB TO DO THAT YOU MORON.

Now that I have explained myself continue on your ingnorant brainwashed argument.

I would think it dreadful to see this "abortion on demand" resolution pass.

This simplistic blanket resoltion not only denies the rights of the unborn child - a great backdoor to further abuses in the form of advanced experimentation, designer babies and other fast emerging scientific realities. By enshrining this as a principle firstly every nation - willing or not is launched down a slippery slope to "progress".

From another angle however the order "not to interfere" would actually prevent the use of state funded councilling services. For many women the circumstances and issues surrounding what has led to this situation will have been hard and stressful. By casting out the mother from possible state help this resolution in one neat sentence manages to create the worst of all possible worlds. No rights for the baby, no support for the mother.

ElJefe makes a good point above on the timing of abortion - by voting for this resolution we undermine our own soveriengn right to enforce abortion , the different services and support implemented in different countries would be fatally undermined and in my view can only serve to rebound on us all - pro or anti abortion.

We agree with Eljefe.

We vote against BUT ...

We of Githania are FOR abortion.

We voted against it, because the resolution does
not give any rules...

Abortion should be permitted, under strict conditions !

This resolution does not have ANY conditions.


If I take the resolution literaly then ANYONE could perform this abortion,
even the women in question herself.
It also means that abortion could be done at any time ??!!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the UN,
We of Githania haven't issued a resolution yet but you need
be a bit more specific and detailed.

And religion, especially the parts about God's Gift , do not
apply to incidents such as sexual violation or incest which impregnates
women without their consent.

It's also the reason why we do not participate in this discussion any further and hope this resolution is declined and replaced by a improved version.

Cardinum Daniel
Spiritual Leader and Court-Philosophy Rep.

Ok, there is so much in this topic that I am not going to read it, and this post is simply going to be just here as my opinion.

I am urging people to vote AGAINST this proposal, not because I am against abortion but because the current proposal is too vague. It would allow any women to simply abort their child for whatever reason they like, maybe they are going on holiday in the summer and dont want a baby quite yet. Well, that isn't a valud proposal. In some cases, rape for example, it would be ok, but just because you don't want a child quite yet isn't on. Also, I propose that men should be given a larger say in their partners choice to abort, Psychologically speaking the father has as much emotional attachement as the mother during the pregnancy.

In conclusion, I urge you all to vote against this proposal until such a time that a more precise law is proposed. One that set's down some rules.

My region is currently drawing up a revised proposal. In the mean time vote against this proposal.

If anything, this resolution, like so many before it, is too vague. I think there is a time for abortion, and there is a time when it should not be done. This resolution just says that it can be done, period. What if a woman wants an abortion 1 month before the baby is to be born? A baby could survive born only 1 month early. Heck, it could survive at 2 months early, and even sooner with todays technology, and live a normal healthy life. This is the second resolution to pass in a row that was way to vague (assuming it will pass because it looks like it will). The United States of Brandons South will withdraw, as it almost did when the last resolution passed, if the current resolution on abortion rights does pass.

I agree. Whilst normally I would support abortion on the grounds that an early abortion probably doesn't terminate a consciousness, this motion effectively legalises *infanticide* as long as the mother has her baby terminated while in the womb, since what difference is there between a baby about to be born and a newborn baby? I'd say none, at least psychologically.

If this does pass, we'll have to produce an ammendment clarifying things to prevent hideous abuses of human rights from the vagueness of the motion's wording that most people seem to have missed or ignored.

A child born several months early can still survive. It is NOT potential life, it is ALIVE.

Would you rather the baby be carried to term and then killed, or left abandoned? If the mother doesn't want the baby she'll get rid of it anyway.

Many say that "oh, she had unprotected sex, so she deserves it," or "she has to face the consequences." To be frank, that's a very sexist way of thinking. Similar to saying of a rape victim, "she dressed like a slut, so she deserved it."

If abortions are illegal, those who want them will have them anyway. Even if I were against abortion, I would still recognise this. And since abortions will happen whether legal or not, I say it's far better to have them done properly, aboveboard, by qualified professionals.

A child born several months early can still survive. It is NOT potential life, it is ALIVE.

Would you rather the baby be carried to term and then killed, or left abandoned? If the mother doesn't want the baby she'll get rid of it anyway.

Many say that "oh, she had unprotected sex, so she deserves it," or "she has to face the consequences." To be frank, that's a very sexist way of thinking. Similar to saying of a rape victim, "she dressed like a slut, so she deserved it."

If abortions are illegal, those who want them will have them anyway. Even if I were against abortion, I would still recognise this. And since abortions will happen whether legal or not, I say it's far better to have them done properly, aboveboard, by qualified professionals.
People will use harmful drugs even if it's illegal. Should we help them? People will rape and murder even if it's illegal, should we help them?

Responsibility is not solely a concept for women you know, it applies to men too. Everyone should be required to take responsibility for their sexual choices.

To think what happens when you leave the game for a week...

Okay, I really don't think this is something that the UN should have control over. However, it does. So we may as well do the best we can.

I've skimmed through the arguments, which really don't seem to have changed much from the arguments I've seen on abortion threads both in NS and seperate from it. I am pro-choice until the third trimester, which is when I have been informed the nervous system develops.

The baby cannot survive seperate from the womb before this stage. By this reasoning, I do not consider the baby to be 'alive'.

The current resolution is deeply flawed, and under normal circumstances I would vote against it. But I've just been appointed Delegate, and as such will abide by my region's decision.

Our government believes that abortion is a highly complex moral issue. We believe that, with regard to the essential decision as to whether abortion can be justified, the government is no better-equipped to make this moral decision than the individual concerned would be; we therefore take a pro-choice stance. However, we recognise that many governments may not concur with this position and believe it would be divisive to force this change upon them.

As previously pointed out, we would prefer to reserve the right as a government to forbid third-trimester abortions and anything not carried out by an accredited doctor. This proposal would make it legal to offer coathanger abortions at five bucks a pop.

We will therefore be voting against this. We would, however, support a much more limited bill guaranteeing women the right to abortion if her life was at risk - a right not all nations grant.

PDK Orthmann
Ministry of Wu-Wei
The government of Frigben agrees completely with the gentleman from Rehochipe. Frigben as the regional UN delegate for Kortania will be officially opposing this resolution strongly as an infringement of individual nations' rights. It is one thing to rule on things with global affects such as ballast water (which could be harmful to another nation's ports) or the use of a standard system of measurements (to facilitate easy communication between nations). It is another thing to decide the domestic internal policies of a nation. Frigben strongly urges all sensical UN members to oppose this resolution. It is not a betrayal of the right of a woman to oppose such far-reaching legislation. Rather, supporting such a resolution breaches the rights of an individual nation and clearly self-sufficient individuals such as infants approaching full-term. Once again, Frigben is 100% against this resolution and despite our pro-choice policy shall spare nothing to see this clear infringement of rights defeated.

This is not just the mothers decision!! What about father? They're left in the back!! I'm against abortion!!

We are dismayed that this divisive and by no means clear-cut issue will come to a UN vote. Ecopoeia's position on the matter is similar to Rehochipe's. Insofar as a government should get involved in the matter, ours adopts the pro-choice position simply because whether or not a woman has an abortion is not our business.

However, we recognise that the 'rights and wrongs' of abortion are possibly indeterminate. Lines that are drawn are almost arbitrary. We also recognise that this resolution would be devastating for many nations that find themselves unable to contemplate legalising abortion. We do not agree with them but we respect their position on the matter because the case for/against abortion has not been proven.

We implore pro-choice nations to reject this resolution in support of harmony in the UN and in respect of national policies on issues of indeterminable 'morality'.

Black and white are shades of grey.

- John Boone
Speaker for Rights & Wellbeing
- Ursula Kohl
Speaker for Health
The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia

The region of Taggland supports this view point and has rejected this resolution. We feel that this issue is not something that should be dealt with by the UN.

This proposal is not about abortion rights, its about a nations right to choose what their laws will be.

The UN has no right to dictate morality to sovereign nations.

People will use harmful drugs even if it's illegal. Should we help them? People will rape and murder even if it's illegal, should we help them?


My view is that all drugs should be legal and people should decide what they do to their own bodies, even if harmful, so I can't argue that point. But as for rape and murder. You're talking about clear-cut, black and white things here. No one debates that rape and murder should be criminal. Abortion, on the other hand, is a shades of grey issue, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

Responsibility is not solely a concept for women you know, it applies to men too. Everyone should be required to take responsibility for their sexual choices.

Yes, I agree that people should take responsibility, but the problem is, not everyone does. You may think of abortion as dodging responsibility, but it isn't. It can be regarded as a form of taking responsibility - she got herself into a mess, and she cleans it up. And even if it IS dodging responsibility, much better to be dodging it during pregnancy than when the child is born.

And for those who say "they should've used contraceptives" or "they should've abstained", when an egg cell is unfertilised, it dies and gets flushed during menstruation. The egg cell is also potential life, so should menstruating be a crime? Sperms also carry DNA and potential life, should a man masturbating be liable for murder charges?

Women carry ~30,000 eggs in their ovaries, and most are destroyed because they never become fertilised. So I guess, if abortion is murder, we should put all women in jail for life.

Perhaps that's not too convincing because it doesn't involve a fertilised embryo. But many pregnancies end in miscarriages. Some women also are infertile because the fertilised egg is unable to "stick" in the uterus, with the result that the embryo dies. Isn't that just natural abortion? And, going by anti-abortionists' arguments, isn't that murder?

And wouldn't it be much worse if, denied legal abortions, people had unwanted children, whom they then neglect? Don't say that the parent(s) will adjust and come to love the child - even "legitimate" children suffer from it. If everyone who had a child automatically loved it and took responsiblilty for it, there wouldn't be such a thing as child abuse.

I guess I am the only one left on the planet with morals. Abortion is a no- brainer, it is wrong. You don't just some how become pregnant, it is a result of a decision made to be invovled in the human recreation practice. If you become pregnant and your life is at stake, you should go down with the ship. No one has the right to decide who lives, and who dies, abortion is Euthanasia, face it, it is. The only exception I will allow to this rule is if the baby is the result of a rape. If this is the case, the parent has the right to make the decision. Lets not all forget that babies are the purest of pure humans, I would sacrifice a million crack-heads, pimps, hoes, and drugies for one child. Children are the future, the can be shapen, but everytime we kill them, we restrict their posssibilities, we kill off future presidents, or "Einsteins". I am and will forever be Pro-Life, to be Pro-Choice is ignorant and uncivilized. We are not a world of murderers, therefore our policies should reflect that. The final thing I would like to address is "back alley abortions." We care so much about illegal abortions, but if these people "kill themselves" in the process of killing a helpless child would not the world be a better place. If the trash of society, the unmoral, unsophisiticated, unwanted kill themselves in an endevour to perform this hideous act, so be it. Death, hardship, and pain are all that come from abortion. Do not think of it as a right, think of it as a burden.

Bollocks to all you moralists, abortion clinics getting fire bombed and doctors being assasinated is where your moralising gets you! Its a womans body at the end of the day she can do with it what she sees fit! What if the woman was raped? or a 16 year old child who is the victim of rape? are you going to force her at gun point to produce a child (that may kill her in the way out) becuase its 'god's faring'?? you god freaks make me sick sometimes. :evil:

The Commonwealth of DataGenesis believes not allowing women to make their own choice and removing civil rights is an illogical step.

Allow choice, and those that do not believe in the choice need not undertake it.

Early voting trends seem to show that this resolution is going to pass :D

For such a sensitive issue as abortion, this resolution is shockingly vague and lacking in very important provisions, e.g. an abortion at 8months would be allowed?

Our government is not anti-abortion, but this Resolution, if passed will lead to nations withdrawing abortion clinics and doctors, to get around the resolution.

My nation has a government and parliament to pass laws, it is not for any nation making a proposal to dictate what my nation's internal laws will be.

We have a wide range of contaceptives easily available, it is no good saying you don't want a child when you have one. Take responsibility for your actions, if you were too stupid to use contraceptives, shame. Face the consequences and responsibility.

I am in favour of strictly controlled abortion, but not in favour of my nation's government being dictated to.

If you have voted YES, please reconsider your vote on two grounds,
1. This Resolution dictates to your government, rather than letting your government make its own internal laws.
2. The resolution is far, far too vague.
Also, hundreds of nations will withdraw from the UN if this passes, that cannot be a good thing.

We are not voting as to whether a woman can have an abortion or not. We are voting as to the options available. For a woman to have to choice to abort a baby for any reason is in my opinion wrong, but there are exceptions. By voting NO you are not saying noone can have an abortion, just that there must be valid reason behind it!

It is a shame that such an issue has come to be put before us to vote on. This is a divisive subject and, as many people have pointed out, we as governments are often unable to make a reasonable decision on it as many people disagree on the factors which will influence this vote.

In my country it is felt that in some circumstances abortion can be justified
when the baby or mothers life is at risk by carrying on with the pregnancy, or if it is the result of a rape.

What we will not support is the abortion of a baby that is a result of a one night stand or if it is unwanted by the lady in question. We have superb adoption procedures if a woman would for some reason not want a baby she is carrying, but we will not support the ending of life because of a mistake.

We as UN nations should look to fund comprehensive sex education in our populations rather than throw money at a problem caused by miseducation.

I will be voting "NO" and would urge you all to think about what it means for any woman to have an abortion at any time. It is something we in the Borderlands of Pocahontis feel very strongly about.

ABORTION IS JUST MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG AND I COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH IT!!!!!!
God Bless - maybe He can do something about people who are for it
-Newton2

Exactly. THis is a topic that I get really heated up on, so I will apologize in advance. Abortion violates all five of the world's main religions. As a Christian, I believe that there is never a time when abortion would be right. Even if the child is projected to die at birth, there is always, ALWAYS a chance that the doctors could be wrong. It happens all of the time. There is no way to be entirely certain that a baby or a mother will die at birth, so there is no reason to kill the baby. Here are some counter arguments for you pro-choice people:

Rape--This may be a valid point. The mother may be too young to care for a child, not have enough money, etc. This does not mean that the mother should kill the child. People should recognize that even though a woman is impregnated against her will, there is still a human lif at stake, which should be preserved. The woman can always put the baby up for adoption.

Death of Baby/Mother at Birth--I already mentioned this one, so you alrady know how I stand on that

Woman not intending to become pregnant--I to burst your bubbles, guys, but it was her choice to get laid and the consequences of this include pregnancy. The baby is not to fault here, and so there is no reason to just kill it.

You also may say that a fetus under a certain age is not . Why, then, can a criminal be brought up on double charges of if he/she kills a pregnant woman? Does it make sense?

Here is one of my favorite arguments: A woman can do what she wants with her own body. My argument? ITS NOT HER BODY! ITS THE BABY'S BODY! Who speaks for the baby? Sure, the mother can choose, becuse, after all, she has the right to. But does the baby get to choose? I do not think so.

Obviously there is no way I will ever convince most of you to think like me. This does not mean, however, that a bill should be passed forcing all nations to be pro-choice. SELF-DETERMINISM, PEOPLE! A country should be able to choose what domestic policies they want to take. This bill is wrong, and I urge you, even those of you who are pro-choice, to vote against it. This does not mean not to follow your views, but you should not force them on other people. VOTE AGAINST ABORTION RIGHTS.

Thank you for listening to my opinion

SocialistPortugal

This is yet another resolution which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the NSUN and should never have made it to quorum. Every nation has the right to decide for itself whether or not to allow abortions. The UN cannot force this issue, especially since it could go against the religious, spiritual and ethical beliefs of a nation, which in turn.

Description: Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.
:roll:
The resolution is vague: the UN cannot guarantee the way people in a country act towards women who have abortions.

I guess I am the only one left on the planet with morals.

Morals are subjective and they change. At one time, torture was considered completely moral, and adultery was punishable by stoning.

abortion is Euthanasia, face it, it is.

No, euthanasia implies assisted suicide due to unbearable pain from a disease, normally terminal. But even if it was, so what? I'd think you'd find euthanasia a lot more moral than abortion...

Children are the future, the can be shapen (sic), but everytime we kill them, we restrict their posssibilities, we kill off future presidents, or "Einsteins".

Research shows that nurture plays a much bigger role in a child's development than nature. But keep in mind that we are talking about fetuses, not children, and if they aren't born, that's completely academic. Don't spin fantasies about how someone might discover a cure for cancer except he got aborted. To suggest that, for example, no one would have discovered the principles of motion if Issac Newton wasn't born is ludicrous.

If the trash of society, the unmoral, unsophisiticated, unwanted kill themselves in an endevour to perform this hideous act, so be it. Death, hardship, and pain are all that come from abortion. Do not think of it as a right, think of it as a burden.

People who get abortions come from all classes of society, not just the lower classes. Okay, yes, depending on your stance it might cause death, but where does hardship and pain come in unless there's no anaesthesia (which is doubtful, since even backalley doctors give anaesthesia)? Aren't you just making subjective, sweeping statements which have little factual basis? And you seem to have a lot of moral indignation for someone who doesn't care that people die.

This proposal is not about abortion rights, its about a nations right to choose what their laws will be.

The UN has no right to dictate morality to sovereign nations.

agreed...i think the resolution is NOT specific enough on the guidelines...this resolution is not precise on when it is TOO late to have one, etc...hence, i am voting against...

The nations of the Devils Glorious Parallelagram believes that the UN does not have the right to impose this sort of moral judgement on soverign states. This resolution does not impact world, or regional affairs, in a matter that requires an international organizational intervention. We do not want to voice an opinion on the moral issues revolving around abortion and a woman's right to choose. We simply deem this resolution to be an overstepping of the rights and privelages ordained to the United Nations by member nations.

Please, vote no to this resolution.

Note: The DGP is not a United Nations member. Application for membership is contingent upon the current and future actions of the United Nations. The DGP currently has 8 memebers and forsees a positive growth trend of approximately 25% in the next 30 days.

Assistant Diplomatic Liason to the DGP Regional Founder and Voice: Ron Jeremy.

This abortion rights proposal is a travesty.




"FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO"

Just a short note here...

Is it just me, or do all of the pro-choicers use the same arguments? , endangerment of the mother/baby, "it's the mother's body," "natural abortion" (What the frick is that?!)? I mean, seriously, there is a counter for each of your agruments. Besides, even if you could come up with one with no counter, the legislation is far too vague and it restrics nations, as I said before, from self-determinism.

SP

Thank you.



All this relativism subjectivism post-modernist nonsense is a stinking pile of intellectual cow crap.


Edit -

The United Nations has no place determining Truth. Assemblies do not write "Truth", they write opinons on what they think Truth is.

Leave this to the Church and society.

Thank you.



All this relativism subjectivism post-modernist nonsense is a stinking pile of intellectual cow crap.


Edit -

The United Nations has no place determining Truth. Assemblies do not write "Truth", they write opinons on what they think Truth is.

Leave this to the Church and society.

Ditto that.

"natural abortion" (What the frick is that?!)?

If you look at my post again, this is what I said:

"Some women also are infertile because the fertilised egg is unable to "stick" in the uterus, with the result that the embryo dies. Isn't that just natural abortion? And, going by anti-abortionists' arguments, isn't that murder?"

Looks like I have to walk you through each step.

1. Abortion is the premature termination of an embryo.
2. When an egg gets fertilised, it becomes a zygote and begins to develop into an embryo.
3. The embryo can only continue developing if it sticks to the wall of the uterus (http://science.howstuffworks.com/human-reproduction10.htm). Some infertile women cannot become pregnant because the embryo cannot implant in the uterus.
4. If this happens, the embryo dies. It is prematurely terminated, thus it is aborted.
5. This occurs without human intervention, therefore it is natural.
6. Therefore is is valid to say that this is a natural abortion.

I was using this as an example of how many "potential lives" are destroyed by natural processes, so don't go out-of-contexting me.

My main argument is that if a foetus has not yet achieved a semblance of consciousness, then why should it be wrong to end its development? Alternatively, since a chicken shows more signs of intelligence and emotion than a foetus, by the same reasoning, the meat industry makes the WWII Holocaust seem like a drop in a very large ocean, with tens, if not hundreds, of billions of deaths each year of potentially conscious meat animals. To give a non-sentient bunch of cells in someone else's body more consideration than a living, breathing, pig, say, which are shown to be more intelligent at least than a dog or cat, is insanity, put simply.

Hence I support the choice to have an abortion up to the point where it's feasible that a foetus may have developed sentience, etc, to the point that it can exhibit signs of pain, etc. However, since this motion is vague to the point of allowing any pregnancy to be terminated at any time, I reject this motion on the grounds that it does allow the destruction of consciousness.

Our nation strongly encourages the pro-choice option. In reply to The Militant Mercantile Alliance of Greenspoint's quote

"If a couple does not want to be parents, they must make that decision before engaging in sexual relations, and practice contraception then. Waiting until the 'morning after' is too late. Contraceptives must prevent conception. Any other form of birth control is murder."

we do wish to emphasize the point that as for now there is no 100%efficient birth control (excepting sterilization and other permanent solutions) and that therefore no woman should be punished for getting pregnant.
In addition to this not every sexual relation happens in mutual agreement. In case of rape, for instance, it would not be just to force a woman to conceive a child she does not want.
An issue that might seem less grave in comparison to the before-mentioned is of a financial matter. No matter how well-off a country is, there are always people living below the minimum and some women state that they do not wish to raise a child for the baby's own good, because they would not be able to provide it with the basics.

We do agree that abortion should not be underestimated. The psychological damage especially young women carry with them for the rest of their life is often not taken into consideration.

We therefore suggest nations to
a) allow abortion, but
b) only after consultation of a physician and/or psychologist (to inform them of exactly what consequences this act will have for them.)

Sincerely,
Simone Eberle,
Judicial Council of the Republic of Alinania

It is very clear from the early voting trends that this resolution is gong to pass, VERY UNFORTUNEATELY. It is also clear from the voting trends, that the majority of the UN is incompetent, and unable to think reasonably on what exactly they are voting for. This resolution, even for many of the pro-choice nations who have been talking, is far to non-specific to be acceptible on this issue, and the Republic agrees. More or less, the resolution is so tiny and vague, it would remove ALL controls nations would have over abortion (including any legislation they have controling the personnel allowed to perform such a task).

As for the trend, further. If this resolution is passed, the Republic of Tekania, in the interest of protecting the welfare and wellbeing of her people, will be forced to resign from the UN in protest, of the fact the UN is no longer capable of carrying out her purported task and responsibilities in the world, and will seek, to the rest of the nations a complete removal of and revamping of the current UN, or the formation of a new system to replace it.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

I am shocked and dismayed that this resolution will likely pass.

This resolution has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to do with the sovereignty of each individual nation.

Many nations, the Republic of New Commonwealths included, have laws respecting the right of a woman to have an abortion. Those rights are not being threatened by any body, particularly those nations that do not have laws allowing abortion. This is such a controversial issue, every nation must be allowed to choose it's own path regarding this, based on their own moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. They should not have these beliefs violated.

By voting for this resolution, you are not only voting to, wrongly, impose your morality and beliefs upon other nations, you are voting to violate the sovereignty of every nation, including your own. We have here the beginnings of a slippery slope. If we allow this own violation of our respective nation's sovereignty, slowly the United Nations will begin chipping away at each nation's freedom.

Those of you who support, and voted for, this resolution, think of this: sometime in the future, a day will come where a resolution, that goes against your moral, ethical, and religious beliefs, will be proposed and voted on. How will you be able to stand against it, when on this day, you stood for this resolution?

With the introduction of this resolution, the UN has suddenly forced itself into irrelevency with it's rather shocking disregard for the diversity of nations. The moral issues (and it is not one issue) of abortion aside, the resolution betrays the UNs core values of respecting diversity, of creating a quorum among nations rather than handing down incongrous resolutions, shoving square peg resolutions into round peg holes.

Clearly, many countries will leave the UN because of this resolution. The Dominion of Kilbey remains, and will introduce a resolution that the UN dissolve and reform, perhaps with a clearer charter and more respect for it's member nations.

My main argument is that if a foetus has not yet achieved a semblance of consciousness, then why should it be wrong to end its development?

The fetus is in an evolutionary stage, a living cycle. That's why it is also wrong to end its life.

Alternatively, since a chicken shows more signs of intelligence and emotion than a foetus, by the same reasoning, the meat industry makes the WWII Holocaust seem like a drop in a very large ocean, with tens, if not hundreds, of billions of deaths each year of potentially conscious meat animals.

Unless you are alternately a cannibal and a regular herbivore, this argument is objectively irrelevent. Also, comparing one of the most horrendous slaughter campaigns in the history of humanity to a food processing plant (however, some of the ways may be gruesome to the human stomach) is an amazing insult. I had family which went through the horrors of the Holocaust (in the Balkans), so I personally resent that comparison.

Constantine, president of the UC

With the introduction of this resolution, the UN has suddenly forced itself into irrelevency with it's rather shocking disregard for the diversity of nations. The moral issues (and it is not one issue) of abortion aside, the resolution betrays the UNs core values of respecting diversity, of creating a quorum among nations rather than handing down incongrous resolutions, shoving square peg resolutions into round peg holes.

Clearly, many countries will leave the UN because of this resolution. The Dominion of Kilbey remains, and will introduce a resolution that the UN dissolve and reform, perhaps with a clearer charter and more respect for it's member nations.

Please note the passage of Universal Freedom of Choice:

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations: a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; <b>where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies...</b>"

While this above passage seems to support this proposal, the passage of abortion resolution contradicts rights given to member nations by above legislation. If a member nation chooses to label abortion as violence or physical damage toward a human being, then its legal system is responsible for pursuing charges. Yes, the choice to abort lies within the individual, but the consequences of that action should be defined by individual states. The clause "The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies..." directly allows member nations to determine whether "others" implies a fetus.

This proposition is thus in direct violation of existing law, and should be withdrawn.

Please note the passage of Universal Freedom of Choice:

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations: a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; <b>where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies...</b>"

While this above passage seems to support this proposal, the passage of abortion resolution contradicts rights given to member nations by above legislation. If a member nation chooses to label abortion as violence or physical damage toward a human being, then its legal system is responsible for pursuing charges. Yes, the choice to abort lies within the individual, but the consequences of that action should be defined by individual states. The clause "The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies..." directly allows member nations to determine whether "others" implies a fetus.

This proposition is thus in direct violation of existing law, and should be withdrawn.

Please note the passage of Universal Freedom of Choice:

"5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations: a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; <b>where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies...</b>"

While this above passage seems to support this proposal, the passage of abortion resolution contradicts rights given to member nations by above legislation. If a member nation chooses to label abortion as violence or physical damage toward a human being, then its legal system is responsible for pursuing charges. Yes, the choice to abort lies within the individual, but the consequences of that action should be defined by individual states. The clause "The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies..." directly allows member nations to determine whether "others" implies a fetus.

This proposition is thus in direct violation of existing law, and should be withdrawn.

Attorney General of DGP: Samantha Litigatopolis

Sorry about that triple post.

I will make an exception for the 3rd trimester in the case that the baby has some disease which will take both the baby's life and the life of its mother.



I dare you to give me one truthful example in which an abortion saved the life of a mother.

Save your self some time. You won't.

Being that my country is socialist my people are probably pro-choice. However, abortion kills unborn infants. It violates natural rights ( LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Instead of abortion we should make adoption a very good option. With more funding we could do it. MAYBE to stop illegal, dangerous abortions, we should allow VERY early ones in VERY limited circumstances. These should be legalized ONLY if after examining all research collected about abortions it is determined to be the LEAST evil option. But we shouldn't vote for a proposal like this which has not restrictions at all.

I said this earlier, but I feel that I have to say that I am very uneasy even with very early abortions. I just don't now the facts well enough to be certain what the right choice would be, but I think that providing childcare and financial aid to mothers and making adoption a better option is probably the best choice. We would also have to make it very clear to everyone that illegal abortion would not be a good option, especially considering the above (adoption, financial aid). Perhaps free contraceptive devices would also be a good choice because they could eliminate the need for abortion (although that raises more moral issues-but surely even the most morally conservative people would admit that it's better than abortion). But as I said, all the information should be examined in real society. Since this isn't a realy society and we don't have the resources to do that we just have to do our best.

The Armed Republic of Jorgeland will not honor this resolution. Our experts are in the midst of finding loopholes and we feel very certain that we can get around this resolution.

It is our view that the UN does not have the authority to dictate nation sovereignty. Instead of fleeing the UN, we will just enact new laws that will offset this resolution.

Excerpts from Law 1.2 of the "Life for All Act of Jorgeland" will state:


A) All living beings shall be granted the right to life and shall not have it terminated under ANY circumstances unless authorized by the government of Jorgeland.

F) Any physician who helps in the murder (ie. abortion, uthenasia, etc.) of any fetus, child, baby, human, or other worldly origin shall be arrested on grounds of murder.


This will stop most doctors in Jorgeland from carrying out the abortion and hopefully deter any women from doing it. It also will carry consequences for any women who might go through with any such murder in Jorgeland.

This along with the Universal Freedom of Choice Act shall make sure the Abortion Rights Act never comes into play in Jorgeland.

The UN will not dictate to TAROJ!

Clearly, many countries will leave the UN because of this resolution. The Dominion of Kilbey remains, and will introduce a resolution that the UN dissolve and reform, perhaps with a clearer charter and more respect for it's member nations.

I fear that even if the UN were to dissolve and reform, we will run into this same issue, one that threatens the sovereignty of all nations.

Perhaps those of us concerned about the sovereignty of our States should form a bloc/region to fend off any attacks on our sovereignty.

You know, I'm going to be honest. I have not read all 9 pages of responses here... everyone is saying the same thing.

Yes, I believe a woman has the choice... and she made that choice when she engaged in the activities producing the baby. That was her choice. Grant you, it's sad but many women are raped and then get pregnant. But that only accounts for a minimal amount of abortions... MINIMAL! And yes, there are times where the baby's or mother's life is in jeopardy. But again, that's only a minimal number. And besides, if the baby is unwanted, there is always adoption. There are many families desperately wanting a child and cannot have any who would be more than willing to adopt a child.

Life begins at conception. There is a heartbeat, there is movement, there is growth... it is a life. And what right does anyone have to take that life? It is murder... as was described earlier, murder is the premeditated taking of a life. And abortion was described as the expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it can survive. Now, explain to me how the expulsion of a fetus before it can survive, explain how this is not the premeditated taking of a life? The only difference is that abortion is specifically targeting an unborn child whereas murder is applied to all ages.

The Commonwealth of Alexia Avonlea is NOT supporting this resolution. To support it would be to support murder. Yes, we understand about the "Back Alley" abortion clinics, and that should be a crime convictable on the same level as murder.

I believe that embryos have as much a right to personhood as adults. I do not believe that an act of killing must be motivated by malice to be considered murder, indeed i do not think that motive should factor in any laws at all. Killing my best friend for material gain might not be done with malice but it would still be murder.

abortion is murder, life is sh1t, and if god exists then he is one really sick fukker.

Compulsory vasectomies for all males i say.
I will withdraw from the UN before i see this proposal implemented in my nation.

I've always been pro-choice. Making it illegal merely serves to anger the female population that it would affect... Not to mention the obvious "black market" doctors performing them.

From the looks of it, every single ethic and moral reason has been stated already. I didn't read all five or six pages of debate here but I got the general idea.

Here's an arguement for RP's sake (sorry, die-hard gamer here... :P ): What if someone's nation is a theocracy and abortion is against their religion? Would refusal to follow this bill (since it looks like it's going to pass) be grounds for expulsion from the UN?

That's actually a good point... I'm not a theorcracy but I'm a Holy Empire.... hmmmmm it'd be even more pressing in a theocracy... very good point from a game standpoint.
Thanks, man. :D

truthfully from a scientific point of view the child is only half her body. Halfd the chromo. are the mans so even though i hate abortion and will never condon it if you ppl are going to allow it at least include the man in the decision

truthfully from a scientific point of view the child is only half her body. Halfd the chromo. are the mans so even though i hate abortion and will never condon it if you ppl are going to allow it at least include the man in the decision

truthfully from a scientific point of view the child is only half her body. Halfd the chromo. are the mans so even though i hate abortion and will never condon it if you ppl are going to allow it at least include the man in the decision

Abortion... no

We all have our own choices but, if you wanna have sex go ahead, if you get pregnant it's your own fault. So don't take it out on the child that was created from your doings. Children, if not wanted, and be the consequence of having sex. Letting people abort babies because they dont want to have them is wrong, it could possibly teach people that there aren't consequences to what you may or may not do, and thats entirely untrue.

Of course, if there is some life threatening disease that could take the life away of both the mother and child if it's born, then abortion in that case is understandable, or if the disease could kill the child and it is 100% likely for that to happen, then an abortion could be legal. But from what this resolution says, I'm going to have to say no.

Abortion... no

We all have our own choices but, if you wanna have sex go ahead, if you get pregnant it's your own fault. So don't take it out on the child that was created from your doings. Children, if not wanted, and be the consequence of having sex. Letting people abort babies because they dont want to have them is wrong, it could possibly teach people that there aren't consequences to what you may or may not do, and thats entirely untrue.

Of course, if there is some life threatening disease that could take the life away of both the mother and child if it's born, then abortion in that case is understandable, or if the disease could kill the child and it is 100% likely for that to happen, then an abortion could be legal. But from what this resolution says, I'm going to have to say no.

Constantine of Slavotopia: I apologise for any offence caused by my possibly ill-considered example offered earlier. It was not intended in any way to seem distainful or disparaging towards the suffering experienced by those who experienced the event, and was in all probability a bad example to pick to illustrate what I meant.

The point was simply that if animal life is conscious life in some cases, and hence has value, then the meat industry, which according to the statistics I have, ends 10 billion lives each year, then it itself is a large-scale massacre, often ending lives that have been led in cramped and poor conditions. If you feel that animal life is worthless, or you feel that as long as you only eat free-range meat you don't care about the death of a happy animal, then of course the argument's initial premise renders the rest of the argument invalid in your eyes.

The whole thing, of course, was secondary to my main point, and was simply to provide a counter-argument to those who argued in favour of a non-conscious entity (the foetus) inside another human being, and called those who supported the right of the human being to terminate the not-yet conscious entity amoral.

My main point is that even pro-choice people should vote against the motion. Under this motion, abortions may be carried out whenever a mother decides to, including during late stages of development when the baby is probably conscious. Under a strict reading of this motion, it would be possible to terminate a pregnancy immediately prior to birth, which would result in the death of an almost-certainly conscious entity.

The nation of Peaceotipia is one that guarantees its citizens all the essential freedoms and then some, but we voted against this resolution.

Why?

Because it is simply too broad.

Abortion is a moral issue, and government has a very gray area to work with when it comes to this subject. On the one hand, abortion is merely the choice of the mother to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that would inconvenience her and her family, that might very well be a disastrous occurence for her. On the other hand, it is terminating the life of an unborn child. As it stands, Peaceotipia allows abortion in cases of rape, incest and when birth will harm the mother, in any other case, we have an excellent adoption program that puts these babies into good homes.

All the above has been said once or twice before ( I couldnt bother myself to read the 9 pages of debate) but the underlying factor is that the United Nations has no role in forcing governments to accept this social issue otherwise, we would be but provinces for a global government. Social issues should be left to the individual nation, where they are vested in the first place.

Let the United Nations not forget its mission, the prevention of conflict through debate, not the bullying of nations under threat of sanction and isolation.

This proposal merely says that abortion would be legal. Until when? the ninth month of pregnancy? right before the water breaks? As an alternative to condoms and other preventive devices?

It is simply too broad, and I hope my fellow UN members can see this and not be blinded by their Pro-choice stance. Your sovereignty is at stake here as well.

I thank you for your time and patience, as Im sure my comments have been mentioned more than once in this rather hotbed debate.

Arthur Salazon
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peaceotipia

Abortion is wrong, in essence abortion is murder of your unborn child. Abortions should be just as illegal and just as severly punished as murder. If you have sex you must be prepared to accept the consequences. It is the most selfish thing to take the life of an innocent before its born to maintain your lifestyle.

On the subject of the child having a birth defect, would you not agree that every second of life is precious? No matter what that child has a right to see the world even if it will be only for a short while. The fear of being hurt by its death is again a selfish reason its not about you its about the child.

On the subject of rape it is of course very tragic when after having your child one can only see the face of their attacker. In this case again if you decide to abort or in other words kill it you again wouldn't be any better then that attacker.

All creatures have the right to live no one can take that right away.




High King Of Azreal :D

Im withdrawing from the UN.. this is such crap, u people give me no choice but to leave, couldnt you find a better resolution that didnt push my moral buttons? ... o yea and Catholics rule

this is retarded... i cant believe you baby killers are FORCING abortion on my people.. if this resolutions passes (which it looks like it will) im withdrawing from the UN because its all a bunch of crap anyways, couldnt all you murderers have chosen a proposal which didnt push my moral buttons? I beg all those with some sense to join me and pack up for good when this resolution passes, not because abortion is wrong (which it certainly is), but because they are taking our freedom as rulers away, which makes this game no fun. we should start our own awesomer UN or somthing, o yea and Catholics rule..

3 hours after conception a fetus has a heart beat. How can you justify killing something with a heartbeat? You people are truly animals if you legalize this abortion thing, and if you try to force me to legalize this in my country I say screw the United Nations and I encourage all others who disagree to follow my lead. This should not even be an issue!!

Everyone who is considering leaving on this issue, please reffer to my new thread before consideration. I want to work on an amending resolution restricting the broadness of the current one on the table, given it's likelihood of passing.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacam Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

The argument that women would be "forced into dangerous back-alley abortions" because of anti-abortion laws is rediculous! Women aren't forced to kill their babies illegally... they CHOSE it!! If a woman is so desperate to kill her child that she's uses a rusty wire hanger, she deserves any and all the damage she does to herself.

If a woman is denied the right to buy cocaine, and has to go to a dangerous back-alley dealer to buy it, should we make it legal to "keep her out of harm's way?" NO!

We keep forgetting that the child is the victim of back-alley abortion...not the woman.

Ah, but what is the concept of "back-alley abortions" - the fact is, they WILL happen if abortions are outlawed. They are dangerous, but they will happen - for a million reasons, health being one of them. Abortions happen, have always happened, and always will happen, no matter what overly moralistic, right-wing and interfering governments try to do about it. It's the woman's body... it's her decision. It isn't murder before the child is born... it is definitely a lot less bad than capital punishment, any way you look at it... AND it's none of anyone else's right to deny anyone this liberty in the interest of imposing thier own hotly debated moral believes on someone else.

I think pro-choice represents progress and conservatisism is, once again, automatically associating progress with evil.

If a woman is denied the right to buy cocaine, and has to go to a dangerous back-alley dealer to buy it, should we make it legal to "keep her out of harm's way?" NO!

Uh... Actually, the answer is yes, and that is one of the main arguments pro drug decriminalisation.

i cant believe you baby killers are FORCING abortion on my people..

We're not forcing people to have abortions. We aren't going to round up pregnant women and abort their babies. We are just making you legalize it so that IF they want to, they can. If they are against it, they can just NOT HAVE AN ABORTION.

t is the most selfish thing to take the life of an innocent before its born to maintain your lifestyle.

More selfish than bringing a helpless, unwanted and unloved child into the world out of warped moral compunction? It costs a lot of money to raise a child, and that's just the basics, like medical and food costs. What about poor people who cannot afford to provide for the child, but because they don't want to risk an illegal abortion, or can't afford even that, have to raise the child in the gutter, or just abandon it?

There have been many cases of unwanted babies being abandoned outside hospitals or police stations, or worse, being born in public toilets and just abandoned there. Not just by lower classes, but also by rich teenaged girls who don't want their father to find out. And there have also been cases where prostitutes have their babies kidnapped by their pimp and sold into sexual slavery. Isn't that much, much worse?

3 hours after conception a fetus has a heart beat. How can you justify killing something with a heartbeat?

If you have ever eaten any meat, or any vegetable grown on a farm which uses a tractor, you are indirectly responsible for killing things with a heartbeat, whether it's a cow having a bolt driven through its head or a field mouse being crushed in the blades of a combine harvester. You seem to justify killing those things with a heartbeat just fine.

The whole point of Nation States is to see how a nation would develop if you were in control, based on your opinions.

This resolution limits this way more than it should.

I feel that this resolution is bad, no matter what your stance.

It has no safety provisions for the women.

I feel this issue should be left to the nations to decide for themselves, and must urge all to vote against.

(Writer's Note: For the record, abortion is still legal in the Terran Coalition if coming to term would threaten the mother's life. The established life takes precedence in such a case.)

Uh... Actually, the answer is yes, and that is one of the main arguments pro drug decriminalisation.

Just because it's the "main pro-drug decriminalization argument" doesn't make it right.

Ah, but what is the concept of "back-alley abortions" - the fact is, they WILL happen if abortions are outlawed. They are dangerous, but they will happen - for a million reasons, health being one of them.

My point is that I know it WILL happen, but it will be much harder to get it done. I don't want the murderous women to be all comfortable and safe in a doctor's office. If she wants to kill her baby the Terran Coalition is going to make it as hard and as dangerous as possible for her, in order to discourage it. Ultimately, if she commits murder, she deserves whatever consequence that comes of it, be it death from complications in the back-alley procedure, or life in prison by the state.

Just because it WILL happen, doesn't mean we should let it. Just because drunk driving WILL happen, doesn't mean it should be legal.

Just because it's the "main pro-drug decriminalization argument" doesn't make it right.

Obviously, you believe it's wrong and I believe it's right. But that's not the issue, so let's drop it.

Just because it WILL happen, doesn't mean we should let it. Just because drunk driving WILL happen, doesn't mean it should be legal.

Once again, comparing a black-and-white thing with a shades of grey issue. Drunk driving is an apple and abortion is an orange, you can't compare them. Few would debate that drunk driving is wrong, but as you can see, there is much debate about abortion.

Greetings from the Commonwealth of Volosh.

My fellow Delegates and Representatives, are we to allow this barbaric law that is tantamount to murder? One abortion, means that there is one less worker in your workforce, one less teacher in your classrooms, one less soldier in your military, one less scientist in your nation, one less choice of a wife or husband.

The Commonwealth of Volosh sees every life as an essential part of Volosh, as should every one of you in your own nations. For if you have no life in your nation then your nation will fall into decay.

The only time that a child should be aborted is when the mother is in danger and there is unmitigating circumstances that do not allow a caesarian section, or other medical reasons in similar situations.

I apologise if all of these points have already been brought up, but I need to get the point of view from the Commonwealth of Volosh. This is immoral and inhumane, and what right does the United Nations have to place a policy like this upon the world? Shouldn't the United Nations stand for the respect of life not its ending, especially not before it has even had a chance to live?

Voloshi Prime Delegate

This evil practice should be banned immediately. We can't kill one human being in order to satisfy other one. Don't tell me that embryo is not a human! You can't prove it, there is no scientific evidences of that. But of course I can't prove my statement neither. So let'e leave it and focus on that what can be proved. Human Embryo was procreated by human parents- it seems to be obvious. It has human's genes- so many future features of it are allready known. Concluding there is a great PROBABILITY that it will become a "real" human. So by commiting a crime of abortion we are in fact killing this great PROBABILITY OF BECOMING A MAN. And for me this probability is much more important then comfortable life of irresponsible people who were such an idiots and didn't buy preservatives or some pills...whatever. I am strongly convinced that planning family is needed and wise. But come on guys, there are some other ways then killing... The only situations abortion should be legal: women was raped, it is dangerous to women's life, there is great probability that the child will be seriously disabled or seek.

Sorry for my terrible english :roll:

The Democratic Republic of Reymonta

I will make an exception for the 3rd trimester in the case that the baby has some disease which will take both the baby's life and the life of its mother.



I dare you to give me one truthful example in which an abortion saved the life of a mother.

Save your self some time. You won't.

Spouting nonsense does not help the debate.

Heartbeat is a silly way to define life worth saving. It may be possible for medical science to connect a heart to a series of electrical impulses and fluid pipes, and create what you would call an inviolable life-form, which it isn't; it's just a hunk of muscle pumping fluid.

If, on the other hand, medical science or AI specialists created a conscious entity that represented no threat to people, then it would be amoral to kill it on a whim. I find it hard to believe, then, that a foetus in the early stages of its development is conscious, and therefore and talk of "BABY KILLERS!" and so on is unfounded, since the entity is not yet self-aware and hence is without emotions, pain responses or a will to survive.

Of course, we can't be certain, but then I doubt very much that most anti-abortionists are strict vegans or vegetarians, and since, as has been pointed out, animals may well have some form of consciousness as they exhibit all the same responses to stress, pain, threat of death, etc, as humans do, it is not unreasonable that they have consciousness, unlike an early foetus. Hence anti-abortionists have no moral ground if they accuse people practicing abortion of murder and yet are happy to consume meat.

On the subject of probability; you can't attack the prevention of a probable life. By that logic, acts such as disturbing a couple while they're having sex would be a crime, as would a government calling up for duty on short notice a soldier who was going to try for a baby with his wife over a time period. As Epicureus noted, why worry about death when your mind isn't even there to experience it?

[quote=SocialistPortugal]"natural abortion" (What the frick is that?!)?

If you look at my post again, this is what I said:

"Some women also are infertile because the fertilised egg is unable to "stick" in the uterus, with the result that the embryo dies. Isn't that just natural abortion? And, going by anti-abortionists' arguments, isn't that ?"/quote]

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "natural abortion." Abortion is a HUMAN action that prematurely kills an embryo. Are you saying, therefore, that when people die, for example, of a disease, that their life is being aborted? When an old person dies from, say, pneumonia, is that "natural euthenasia?" OF COURSE NOT. "Natural Abortion" is just a big fat OXYMORON. The inability of an egg to stick in the uterus is a natural occurance, just as due to disease is. You cannot stop it, and you cannot cause it.

SP

Just because it's the "main pro-drug decriminalization argument" doesn't make it right.
Obviously, you believe it's wrong and I believe it's right. But that's not the issue, so let's drop it.

I didn't say it was wrong, I just said that the cirsumstances you discribed didn't (necessarily) make it right.

Once again, comparing a black-and-white thing with a shades of grey issue. Drunk driving is an apple and abortion is an orange, you can't compare them.

It's not "shades of grey." I'm trying to demonstrate that just because something WILL happen if it is illegal, doesn't mean we should just give in and make it legal.

im sorry if these points have been made a hundred times already but i dont have time to read through all ten pages so far.

Im am not sugggesting that abortion be completely banned, this would inevitably lead to illegal and dangerous 'backstreet' abortions taking place.

The current resolution would seem to allow abortion at any time, for example less than a week before expected birth. Im sure many people would disagree with this.

My suggestion would be that this current resolution is pevented from passing, and a new resolution is written with much more detailed requirements. I myself only would allow abortion to prevent harm to another life, e.g. mother/ existing children. But we do not necessarily have to be this strict.

Please consider this. thankyou for your time.

I support removing this resolution, I believe it is NOT the duty of the UN to decide this matter. This matter is to be left to the Nations themselves. While I do not condone abortion, I also do not feel the need to make any sort of law or edict that bans or allows it. The Nation of the Harmless will not recognize this resolution if passed, or any other UN resolution affecting the personal freedoms of its citizens, and will be forced to resign.

Thank You.

As we see abortion as the premature ending of a life, we are opposed to any proposal which would require our nation to allow it. We will withdraw from the United Nations, rather that be bound by this barbarity.

Abortion is murder.

At the instruction of Duke Misha, Grant Impotentate of UrsaMauve by the Wrath -- er, make that Grace -- of God, I hereby tender the position which our government proposes to take in this matter:

We view the proposed resolution as a "lose-lose" proposition, divisive at best and restrictive in the worst application of the term. At this time, we are preparing a "no" vote, but not without reluctance.

The issue of abortion v individual rights has long been a philosophical and political conundrum for our nation. Philosophically, the ruling family -- along with a majority of the citizens and the government -- of UrsaMauve are personally disposed against abortion on demand. At the same time, however, the government's policy has been to guarantee the individual woman's right to freedom of choice in this matter, rather than superimpose our own conscience as a sledgehammer.

While we would naturally prefer to see all countries follow such an approach, we do not view a binding UN resolution as the proper tool to effect such an end. For one thing, this resolution effectively inflicts UN control upon the internal conduct of individual nations' governments as regards their citizens -- a situation which is not part of that body's original mandate, having been formed to regulate the external acts of governments in their dealings with each other -- and can only open the door to further intrusiveness.

Additionally, we cannot help but envision an inevitable eroding of the UN's authority, both actual and moral, in the rush of resignations from that body if and when this resolution passes. This can only cripple the UN's effectiveness in its mandated spheres of authority.

As a side note, we also note that the Republic of Tekania has begun agitating for an amendment -- should the resolution pass -- which would prohibit third-trimester abortions (that so-called "partial-birth abortion"). This bit of mischief is virtually guaranteed to keep an already divisive debate raging far into the future -- and to divert the UN from effectively conducting the actual business its mandate requires.

For this reason, the Grand Duchy of UrsaMauve is at this time preparing -- however reluctantly -- to cast a "no" vote on the resolution.

Respectfully submitted,
Paul
Ambassador Plenipotentiary
By Appointment to Grand Duke Misha

Actually the "Amendment" is currently revamped as an adendum, defining the scope of "interefrence" in the aforementioned "Abortion Rights" resolution. And it does not "Ban" third trimenter, it alows regulational control to include the limiting the choice at the third trimester point to medical reasoning only.


I. Nations shall have the right to prohibit
abortions after the 30th week of pregnancy.
A)This article shall not be used to construe
the right to restrict abortions for medical
reasons where:
1)The life of the mother is in question.
2)The life of the child is in question.
B)Consent under this article may, in addition to
the woman, include:
1)For minors: The legal guardian(s).
2)Partnerships(Marriages): the persons's legal
spouse.
C)In situations, under this Article, where the woman is unable
to provide consent, consent shall be obtained from, in this order:
1)The woman's legal spouse.
2)The woman's closest living relative.
3)After Article's I-C-1,2 are exausted the presiding
physician may provide consent.


As Article I stands currently. (Mind you, this resolution is being done with the heavy consessioning that the writter of the "Abortion Rights" Proposal should have applied, and has already been through 13 drafts in it's first 12 hours of life.)

Im leaving the UN. Im tired that 90 % of the resolutions are posted by extreme Left wing.

Now, in this particular case (abortion), I know which the result is going to be. Im not a fervent catholic, and I always try to see everything from a cientific perspective, therefore, it is my belief that a woman´s rights on her own body are limitated by her body; wich means, a womans rights end where the umbilical cord starts.

And due to the fact that the right to exist is above the right to remain beautiful or without children or without any phisical or psychological damage, my position to this issue is clear:

"Unless there is a certain medical risk for the life of the mother, in which case you will be sacrifing a life (the baby) for another (the mother), abortion is a crime"

It entertains me in a kind of sad, and pitiful way to see all you pro-choice advocates restricting the choices of others in the name of choice... Do you not even realize your own hypocracy when it stares you in the face?

Why, I do see it as disastrous for the member nations of the UN that this proposal seems to pass as a UN resolution. The statement is much to general to be healthy. Besides, it worries me with regards to some rules I have read: There is no way to renounce or counter a previous resolution -right? This would mean there is no way back.

I claim the right to change my opinion.
Why is that a reasonable claim?
Because I constantly recieve new information. I learn as I live. The earth is no longer flat, although the Church has killed people for saying so. The chuch had not reserved for itself the right to change its opinion. I do. Therefore I might never have to kill for the sake of a mistake.

Heartbeat is a silly way to define life worth saving. It may be possible for medical science to connect a heart to a series of electrical impulses and fluid pipes, and create what you would call an inviolable life-form, which it isn't; it's just a hunk of muscle pumping fluid.

If, on the other hand, medical science or AI specialists created a conscious entity that represented no threat to people, then it would be amoral to kill it on a whim. I find it hard to believe, then, that a foetus in the early stages of its development is conscious, and therefore and talk of "BABY KILLERS!" and so on is unfounded, since the entity is not yet self-aware and hence is without emotions, pain responses or a will to survive.

Of course, we can't be certain, but then I doubt very much that most anti-abortionists are strict vegans or vegetarians, and since, as has been pointed out, animals may well have some form of consciousness as they exhibit all the same responses to stress, pain, threat of death, etc, as humans do, it is not unreasonable that they have consciousness, unlike an early foetus. Hence anti-abortionists have no moral ground if they accuse people practicing abortion of murder and yet are happy to consume meat.

On the subject of probability; you can't attack the prevention of a probable life. By that logic, acts such as disturbing a couple while they're having sex would be a crime, as would a government calling up for duty on short notice a soldier who was going to try for a baby with his wife over a time period. As Epicureus noted, why worry about death when your mind isn't even there to experience it?


Well following your way of thinking... Is the newborn infant fully conscious? Is it self-aware and has a will to survive? And even if the answer to one of these questions was "yes" it still would't convince me. I really don't think that we are able to say when the "humanity" of potential human starts. Is an infant a human already? Can it speak, walk, think, memorize things and so on? Let me use your "animal" argument. Adult apes, for example, could have some features, abilities which make them, well, more human then a newborn infants are. So according to your argument killing apes (in order to eat them :wink: ) would be a bigger crime then murdering an infant.
Now about the "probability". I didn't say that humans are obligated to procreate all their time and that procreation is the aim of our life. I didn't even say that we should have as many children as possible. I didn't say that because such statement would be a negation of this, let's name it "probability theory". Doing nothing then having sex in order to have many babies won't give us a chance to make this world better place to live -for these children of us. So their probability of becoming human would be less. If parents are unready to have child (because of economical or other reasons) they should use preservatives or pills. Doing it they are controling births instead of killing "potential humans".

Sorry, again, for horrible english :?

I feel that Abortion is wrong in all situaltions, even a case where the mother's life is in danger. It would be better to die for your child and show it any other childern that you may have how much you love them then to kill them. The baby is not just a part of the women, it is its own seperate thing the monment the zygoat was formed. While this is the way that I feel. I belive that it is stupid to ban abortion because, as many have said, people will have abortions anyways and the black market will go way up. Insead I invest more money into paregnacy help centers and sex pervention programs!

We're posting this letter that appeared in the Monkey Island region forum, that we support completely:

-----------------

We of Reiki Practitioners hold Life to be valued, yet we also value Intention and Self-Responsibility.

Given that, we cannot support this proposal, although we as a nation are pro-choice and quite liberal in our social mores.

Why?

Because choice, is not to impose pro-choice. And this resolution does that -- bulldozing national and cultural sovereignty in what they wish to do.

Every nation has its history, individuality, social fabric, and spiritual beliefs -- these characteristics are unique, sometimes in utter contradiction, but must be given both voice and time and opportunity enough to evolve.

Not to mention that worldwide governments are in no way on a medical par with Western nations, and thus are unable to follow through with adequate medical care, or aftercare. The resolution blithely skips over this economic and cultural reality. So we give women the choice, but no opportunity for safe abortion -- leading to what, back alley abortions? *shudder*

We are not currently a UN nation but we have asked our UN puppet to vote No on this issue. Whether you are pro-choice or not, we ask you to consider the wider, global implications of such a simplistic resolution. Whether you vote one way or another does not concern us, but that we all think about it, does.

The Republic of Shotagon is against this resolution for the following reasons:

1) The moment of conception is determined to be the start of human life; therefore, abortion is already illegal through our murder laws.

2) No amount of talking about 'grey areas' as a reason to allow abortion will change the fact that the fetus is actually alive, and has been since the egg was fertilized.

3) Saying that since the fetus cannot sustain life outside of the mother's body it is not really alive is false. Exactly how long will you stay alive without the host of bacteria etc. in symbiotic relationships with you? Clearly, you would not actually be alive under such a definition, and you would have no problem with someone killing you, and neither would the law. Seeing as you're not alive, of course, that would have no legal ramifications, and anyone could get away with it.

4) Contraception is illegal also, since that is directly opposed to the clearly obvious function of reproduction: to reproduce. If persons do not want to have children, they should do the obvious thing and abstain from sexual relations. Actions have consequences; this is one.

5) The only way that abortion would be allowed is that if the life of the mother and/or the fetus was in grave danger. If aborting in such a situation would not appreaciably help, it would not be allowed.

Any resolution by the UN that is directly opposed to the laws of Shotagon, on which the people thereof have voted and previously decided upon will force us to withdraw from the UN.

Please vote against this resolution, or, more correctly, this attack on national sovereignty and morals.

I don't know about everyone else, but if it comes to saving my species or destroying it, I'll choose life.

Abortion is necesary if a disease threatens to kill the baby and its mother then abort. Why wouldnt you? Whats wrong with abortion? Anybody who has a problem with it should think about what they are saying.

The nation would like to address this inappropriate quotation. I will not use the opinion that abortion is murder. I will not insinuate that the mother and doctors/nurses who allow such actions to be taken are murderers and accessories to the fact.
My problem is not with abortion. It is instead with the phrasing of the motion. Therefore, I will address the motion itself.

This motion does not take into account when life begins. With a very loose interpretation, a child that is just born could be "aborted." While I know that this is not the intention of the author of this proposal, this proposal would allow it.
When, then, does life begin? Certainly we can assume that the mother and father are alive, as are their "donated" chromosones and cells which carry important genetic information that we consider to be "alive." But these cells are only half alive as only half the information is present. It is not until conception that the chromosones combine to form the first whole cell of a fetus. It takes approximately 40 weeks for a fetus to become fully developed. However, a brain, spinal cord, eyes, lungs, a heartbeat, fingers and toes, have been formed long before the 40 weeks is up. Does life exist when the heartbeat begins then? Or must one wait until the fetus is removed from the mother's womb for it to be considered "alive?" Premature children are not fully developed, though they are "born." Can a fetus existing outside of the womb be aborted then? Or since it has been removed and "born," so to speak, is it then considered to be alive?
I have read several discussions that have spoken of trimesters. Most seem to agree that if abortion is to be legalized, it should take place before the end of the 2nd, or beginning of the 3rd, trimester. Therefore, a limitation as to when abortion should take place during the pregnancy should certainly be a worthwhile addendum to this proposal.

Also, while the rights of the mother are certainly one which includes choice to an entity that is a part and dependent upon her, the rights of the unborn fetus are not taken into account! Jefferson defined these as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (some philosophers have used property as the third right [Montisque]). I do not imply that an unborn fetus can voice their opinions regarding abortion, not by any means. Must we then wait until cognition exists until the child is consdiered to be alive? Certainly not.

Medically speaking, I would much prefer for a woman to be able to go to a doctor to have their abortion than to have to go to some shady building or alley to have hackneyed practioners or coat hangers to abort the child instead. Such a process causes immense physical and psychological damage to the potential mother, damage that is preventable and unnecessary. I will not address the problem of abortion being used as a form of birth control here. However, the issue of birth control may need to be addressed. Condoms, spermicides, diaphragms, birthcontrol pills, morning after pills, or even abstinence, in proper condition and use, have shown to be (mostly) effective means of birth control for consensual intercourse.

As I have said, my contention is not with the actual legalization of abortion. It is the phrasing of this motion that my nation is opposed to. This motion should be voted down with another proposal written to set limits of when abortion can take place. It is therefore in my opinion that the author should withdraw their motion and revise more carefully, or that this motion be voted down and a new proposal be written as soon as possible.
Thank you, Daemon Faa. I believe I have now thought about it.
Cordially,
Aegaeus

I believe that this is an issue where the rights of the individual are paramount.

While I agree there are people who find the Idea of Abortion tantamount to murder, and I would strongly support their right to express their opinion, I also believe that this is a matter of individual and personal choise. While the Facilities exist for unwanted Children exist (Our own Military Orphenages for instance), I would not deny any Citizen the right to choose to Terminate a Pregancy if it were their choise.

I do not know if this has already been stated, though I am sure it might have been, but let me remind you that a vote against this does not make abortion illegal by UN standards. It simply would not allow the legalization of abortion to be imposed upon the UN member nations. I urge everyone, pro-life or pro-"choice" to vote against this action immediately for whatever reason you choose. There are simply no good reason to support an ambiguous, poorly-written, inhumane, and utterly scandalous piece of legislation such as this one.

Hyarnustar

We are disappointed in the membership of the UN, and have resigned rather than let wholesale legalized abortions take place in our borders.

The government of Rejebe has always maintained the stance that the only instance that an abortion can take place is when the life of the mother is in peril. Our current laws dictate that three physicians must concur that the abortion is necessary before the procedure can be carried out.

This resolution is crazy.
You can say that this will stop dangerous illegal abortions, but this creates a problem in those nations that have allowed abortions by accredited physitians. By just saying that all abortion is illegal then you will have people performing abortions for cheap because they never went to medical school! and the police wouldn't be able to stop them!

also i see no need for the UN to interfere with abortion laws of member states to begin with. the UN should be worrying about stuff that affects things on a national level, such as trade, warfare, use of international resources, pollution of one nation that may affect another, etc.
whether or not one nation allows abortion of any kind does not affect any of the other nations (if anything it may BOOST the economy of those that do allow abortions, because then those wanting abortions may goto another country to have them performed)

another problem i have with this is that it is sexist. both parents are given the "choice" not to have a child by being given the choice not to have sex.
however this gives an additional chance to the mother, while not doing the same for the father.

personally, i am mostly pro-life, yet i don't think i would vote for a bill completely outlawing abortion.
for two reasons:
-again it really doesn't affect international matters
-there are some cases in which i think abortion may be OK. for instance, rape. the mother had no choice in the matter, and perhaps should be given the choice to abort the child at an early stage. as well as if the life of the mother is highly at risk, the choice may be given to the mother to have an abortion.

I strongly urge you to vote against the abortion resolution in the United Nations, for several reasons.

Firstly, abortion is immoral because it says that birth is some sort of accident, which is WRONG-WRONG-WRONG. Unless you plan on having your entire nation born in test tubes (an incredibly costly procedure), you could expect a significant drop in population.

Secondly, consider the ever-increasing spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STD's). If everyone realizes that they can have sex without making babies, they will have a lot more sex, hence more STD's.

Thirdly, a resolution like this infringes on the rights of nations. We should be allowed to make our own laws about such matters. If you beleive that abortion is good, fine. But keep it in your own nation, don't shove it on mine.

Sincerely, The Holy Empire of Funnyllamas, West Pacific.

Well, now, it seems like this is like many of the other political debates I've been to -- a lot of talking but very little listening.

I voted against the resolution not because of any moral dilemmas -- I try to keep my own personal faith out of politics, though many in my government would have it otherwise. In addition, Daryn's dominant religion has a rather complicated view on when and how a soul becomes attached to a child, and trying to attach a limit on when this happens would be a legal NIGHTMARE. But, I know our religious and moral beliefs are not shared by foreigners, so I will not mention them further.

I voted agianst the resolution because of two reasons: One) the resolution is poorly-worded and far too broad -- hich I'm sure is not what the wirters intended and Two) it impinges on a nation's right to create laws governing a practice that is shady at best. As mentioned previously by another esteemed member to the UN, the way this resolution is worded, the government cannot regulate abortion AT ALL. If a citizen of my country is misled into having a dangerous abortion or one when the baby is viable outside the womb, she cannot go to the government save in the form of a lawsuit.

Let's hope this doesn't pass, or I will be having to make sure our lawmakers have an extra pot of coffee Sunday morning.

Minister Mar Darenka,
Daryn

Abortion is wrong, in fact it can certainly be considered homicide. Despite all lies/withheld information that doctors tell (or dont) women considering abortion, a fetus has well formed eyes, mouth, ears, and nose. It is NOT just some lump of tissue!

Also, and i think this has been mentioned, if this passes, women realize they can have sex without worrying about a baby, and then STDs will increase tremendously.

The effect on women who have abortions can be terrible. Not necessarly physically, but emotionally as well. No one can destroy a life that was living, LIVING inside of you without being tramatized. It is not some simple procedure that you forget about soon after and use to get on with your life. Abortion has frightening effects on women. Some women suffer from PTSD..Post Tramatic Stress Disorder. This disorder includes nightmares, depression, and guilt. If abortion is legalized, you can bet that suicides will increase, especially in women.

When no one cares about the life of a baby, something is definatly WRONG! Soon it will not just be babies that are ignored and quietly murdered, but the elderly, and the terminally ill. The high esteme with which human life should be held will drop, and the santity of human life ruined.

:evil: what the hell? this resolution doesnt even give stipulations. Simply any woman at ANY TIME DURING HER PREGNANCY can have an abortion. Technically it could be the day before he/she is due, when he/she IS a person. I dont believe in abortion. It sickens me, but I would be more willing to vote for it if it had guidlines. This resolution is in need of serious revision. Thats all I have to say.

Acutally, due to recently passed Tekania laws, has cast serious doubts that this resolution would even be enforceable. Recently the Tekanian congress made the decision to pass up creating any euthanasia legislation at this time. In purity this would be a violation of the UN "Euthanasia" Resolution..... so I wondered how we could do it, if such would not be allowed TECHNICALLY by mechanics... so I started looking, with a fine tooth comb through all the passed UN resolutions... What I finally found, that gave me a clue why was,


Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.


That is Article 3 of the "Rights and Duties of UN Nations". Effectively, this resolution makes all these "Highly controversial" moral/ethical/social agendas, no matter how harshly worded, optional. There appearantly is a check and ballance system in place by this.. This Abortion proposal won't forcibly make abortion legal in all members any more then the Euthanasia one is abled to be enforced... IOW this Abortion Rights proposal, if passed, will say exactly what it does, but MEAN, in connection with previous resolution, "Any nation may make abortion legal, if they so wish"... IOW it is a proposal that passes a right to the members that they already had... effectively the proposal is meaningless.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

Government Expenditures:

To permit abortion
- $0.00

To monitor and control women:
-- Expensive

To jail doctors (whose training costs hundreds of thousands of dollars) who use their skills on willing taxpayers:
--- Insanely Expensive!
______________

And the cost to freedom is even more absurd.

If the un-born have "rights" then government can do almost anything they want to pregnant women in the name of "protecting" those rights.

Let's follow this trail of logic.........
Government should stop pregnant women from using:
a) Crack Cocaine. We have all seen the pictures. Very bad would be an understatement.
b) Alcohol.
c) Tobacco.

Now think how intrusive it would be for government to actually enforce these bans to "protect" the "rights" of the unborn. Cameras anywhere a woman could get high? That could be almost anywhere.

How about in the upper-left hand corner of your bedroom. Watching YOU. And, as a good citizen wouldn't you want to help "protect" the "rights" of the unborn by having that camera.

Personally, I'd be afraid to go to sleep ever again. I suppose some kinky people would find the camera idea appealing.

What about the poor, defenseless government employee who has to watch the footage? A 400-pound green stretch-pants wearing monster getting porked on a nightly basis by her equally overweight boyfriend.

Oh, I knew I forget something.....

d) Nutrition is also important for pregnant women. No Burger and Fries for You! Fatty! It's health salads and vitamin pills twice a day all under government supervision.

Remember friend citizen; it’s to “protect” the “rights” of the unborn. And, you do want to “protect” their “rights”? That would be a Double-Plus Good thing for you to do.

It is true that a woman has a right to her own body. If she wants an abortion than I guess she can have one, but we as the UN can not support the idea of women sleeping around and getting an abortion! We can not outlaw it, but we could put a high price on it to discourage women from sleeping around. As a bonus the number of STD's will hopefully drop as well.

Mygrathea has voted against this resolution. Our UN delegates made this decision not because of any radical "pro-life" agenda--abortion is legal in Mygrathea, though the government does everything it can to make the procedure as rare as possible. However, the government of Mygrathea does not feel that this is an issue that should be decided for every nation by the UN. After all, many UN member states have adopted strict anti-abortion laws due to deeply-held religious convictions embraced by the majority of their populations. It is not the business of the UN to overturn the convictions of the people of a sovereign nation, as expressed by their democratically elected government.

"Message from Grand Executor Justin Timme of the Empire of Kerubia

In my nation, citizens are allowed to choose whether or not they wish to be parents. This is why men are not required by law to pay child support, and why women are allowed to have abortions.

We plan on support this proposal."

While I support the proposal as well I would like to point out she sheer idiocy of this post. You choose to be a parent when you decide to have sex, at which point you should be ready, even if using protection, for the consequences. Furthermore that lack of child support thing is a complete sham since the man consents to the act as well. Not to mention that women pay for child support, too. It is not always the woman that has custody of the child.

I would also like to point out that those that belive the UN is becoming too powerful and are complaining about their national sovereignty can do us all a favor and leave it. No one forced you to join.

Good day,
The Empire of Dreudel

Ok, this is just the wors "resolution" I have ever seen, and that that the one regarding the Copyrights was already bad.

Why it is so bad.
Maybe not for its content, but becouse it lacks of anything.

I mean, skipp the introduction paragrafs, which are only to count the problems anyway but have no direct influence on the resolution even if in this case they would have been very helpfull, but not the executives one.

You can´t just generalice a resolution in 2 frases.
What about the fathers right? A baby is made by 2 not only one person, even if the mother has to carry it for 9 months. But, that is how reproduction works, and nobody choosed his sexuality anyway.


I suggest to vote against this resolution as well, becouse it is a horible one.
A well written one would have found my aproval, but not one like this

Where is the male's right to parental disassociation/dissoiution???

ABORTION IS SEXIST!!! MAKE IT FAIR!!! STOP THE FASCISTS!!!

This resolution is roughly equivalent to the literary equivalent of a stinking heap of offal.
It makes sense neither grammatically, politically, diplomatically, ethically or sensibly. I haven't read the 11 pages of the topic, because I'm getting too frustrated at continuously having to beat it into the heads of senseless, mindnumblingly sycophantic and pro-whatever-the-resolution-says UN members that they should actually take some care in examining resolutions.
Because I haven't read this topic, I'm unsure if anyone has brought up the hideous, glaring grammatical error located in the midst of the two statements of the resolution (the comma, that is). Nonetheless, I must urge all members and delegates to vote against this mutated dwarfish excuse for a resolution and to PLEASE not allow any more such horrors to reach the floor.

Saying that a fetus cannot survive outside the mother is not a valid reason to deny the baby is alive. There are thousands of people in hospitals around the world that can no longer survive without the help of manufactured machinery, does that mean they're no longer alive?

Umm.. have you ever heard the term 'brain dead'. it means that the brain is no longer functioning, but that generally the heart and lungs are still OK. To whose benefit is it to keep this person artificially alive if they will never again breathe without mechanical assistance? This it different from a coma, where there is still low level brain activity, and there is still hope for a recovery.

Death can come gradually - just as life come gradually.

The abortion debate is largely rooted in property law - men not wanting their heirs destroyed. Most of western law is a combination of property law and imposing conservative christian morals on people who are often not christian.

Most people in the western world would be appalled to have sharia law suddenly imposed on them, they see it's doctrine to be outdated and just plain wrong.

We 'got it' about slavery eventually, even though it had been enshrined in law since the egyptians.

Hopefully we will reach a point where we can see that certain aspects of our current morality based legal structures are also wrong - and most of these issues revolve around the expression of sexuality, whether it be issues of conception or gender preferences.

On a seperate point owever, while i personally pro-choice, I will not be supporting this resoltion becuase it is not an issue I believe should be dictated at a global level.

Sara
Serene Grand Duchess of Zen
est. 21 Nov 2002

We are confusing the issue.
The issue here is not whether abortions should be allowed or not, or how immoral it is, or not, or how wrong it is, or not.

The issue is simply this: What right does the UN have to dictate if a country should allow abortion?
Abortion is not something the UN should force upon countries. Whether or not to allow abortion depends on the people and government of that country. E.g. A Christian country may not want to allow this, yet now they are going to be forced to accept and allow it?
Another point:
The way the Proposal is phrased, makes it sounds as if the UN can dictate how the people of a country will behave. How would you guarantee that people will not interfere with a woman who wishes to have an abortion? It is impossible. :roll:
The proposal is badly phrased and vague. Is will allow abortion, yes, but it will not guarantee safety and security for the women having the abortion, nor standards for the abortion clinics.

Those of you who have voted "yes" to the proposal, I implore you to think again, not because I am pro-life (I believe abortion has its place in society) but because I believe this resolution falls outside the domain of the UN.

How can we let the UN decide on such a controversial issue? I can't believe someone would even propose this to the UN.

VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL