NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion is wrong. Always.

I have given birth to one baby and have another one growing inside me now. I knew that what was inside of me is a LIFE and a PERSON from the moment I was sure I was late and should go down to the drugstore and buy a test.

There are many sad situations that can seem that adding a baby too will only make it worse, but how can adding murder to the day improve it?

If you would throw a baby out of a 50 story window, into highway traffic, or drive a knife into it's belly, then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

If you could do the above to a todder, then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

Would you murder a preschooler because his life is miserable? Be cause she has a phyisical disability? Then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

Would you murder a child in school because they have a learning disability? Because they are difficult in school because of emotional problems? Then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

Would you kill a teenager because they wanted to die? Then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

Would you kill a college student because they couldn't make the grade in classes and would flip burgers all their life? Then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

Would you kill a young couple on their honemoon because half or more of all marriges end in divorce? Let's end their misery quickly. Then I can see how you could support abortion rights.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Is there ever a "correct" reason to kill a person? Is there ever a "correct" reason to kill and INNOCENT person?

Who is more innocent than a child in it's mother's arms?

A CHILD IN IT'S MOTHER'S WOMB.

Abortion is murder, and I will NOT support your "right" to murder innocents.

I was brought up with this belief, but am now sincere in it because of my expereince of childbearing. I KNOW that what is inside me is not "a blob of tissue", "a tumor" or "a fetus". She is a child, as real and lovable and precious as any breathing the air at this moment. I KNOW this is a PERSON and LIFE. A man will never really understand the depth of my passion on this. My baby is REAL to me because I am holding it.

That's my rant, thanks for reading.

Oh, PS - I do not condemn anyone who has had an abortion (man or woman). I sincerely hope and pray for your eternal forgiveness. There are several organizations dedicted to help and healing and I recommend you go there.

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.

Kerubia supports both the rights of men and women to chose whether or not they wish to be a parent. This is why abortion is legal for women. It's their right to decide if they want the kid or not. Child support is not required (though it is optional) because men also have this right. In Kerubia, we believe that men and women were born equal, so they must have the same rights in our land. In this situation, they both have the right to chose if they want to be parents.

In case you're wondering, child support not being required means just that--no one is required to pay it--even women.

If you don't mind my asking, if you think that you should be ready for the consequences of sexual acts, why are you supporting abortion in a situation other than rape?

Oh, PS - I do not condemn anyone who has had an abortion (man or woman).

The Grand Executor of Kerubia cringes after the thought of a man having an abortion, and wonders just what goes on in that nation . . .

Good stuff Jennyworld. Very well said.

The Sovereign Nation of Allied Command, strongly supports the Pro-Life Vote regarding the resolution the UN is observing at this time.

Regardless though. The UN is becoming an institution that is forcing laws on individual countries. The UN should be dealing with international issues, such as free trade, sanctions, wars, famine, and such other issues. Not domestic issues like abortion.

It doesn't matter what your stance is on this issue. If you are a responsible member of the General Assembly, you will recognize that the resolution at hand extends beyond the UN's jurisdiction.

If we don't negate this resolution, we would in essence be supporting a one world governing power that would take the place of our own individual governments.

Fellow members of the General Assembly, there are other very important issues at hand. We live in a world that is in constant fear of terrorism and war. We live in a world that has seen many economic depressions. The UN was formed to help other nations cope with these such problems.

However, If this international body continues down the road that it is heading, we will soon be without an international forum. Let the UN do what it was made to do. Let the UN govern within its jurisdiction.

The Sovereign Nation of Allied Command, will propose a resolution backed by the Region of Conservative Capitol, that upon passage will institute strict guidelines as to what this body can and cannot legislate.

I urge all members of the UN, to follow the Nation of Allied Command, and make absolute sure that the rights of individal member states are preserved under all circumstances.

Negate this resolution not because you dissaggree with Abortion, but rather because you belive that the UN should be dealing with issues within its boundries.

The commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. Fellow member of the Assembly, make the right decision. Not for just our generation, but for the many generations to come.

Respectivly Submitted :

Supreme Commander of Allied Command

Certainly it is true that by performing an abortion, you are killing a human being, but without it, as many of you have pointed out, many abortions will be performed illegally, which is unsafe for the mother as well. Aside from this, what if you knew that your child will come into life with some terrible disease or some other condition which will affect the way he/she will live? Is it not better to put the child out of its misery quickly so that he/she will not suffer any more pain after entering this cruel world? And certain times the mother will not be able to provide for the child. Would you want such a baby to get thrown in a dumpster and starve to death by this mother? Abortions are not always wrong, and sometimes it is better that there is such an option open for everybody.

Zazesspur

Why interfere with God's plan for human life? Why let man play God and take away innocent lives? Abortion is a terrible murder and should be banned forever. If God chooses for a child not to be born... so be it, but if a woman is pregnant with a child that she knows will have birth defects she should embrace that child and do her best to help it through life not take its life away!

Only reason why Joneax is voting against this resolution is because we don't feel the need for an abortion throughout the pregnancy. Abortion is legal in Joneax only for the first trimester, and this is how our law will remain whether or not it passes.

Seriously people, by all standards abortions will happen whether in a doctors care in a hospital, or by a clothes hanger where ever. The real problem here is not political, its a moral question, does killing a fetus make a doctor a murderer, morally yes, but in the real world no. a persons right to choose although difficult is essensial. as much money is spent on welfare now, think about all of the unwanted or abandoned children that will come if there are no abortions. can we really imprison someone for not forcing a child to live in poverty?

Abortion is murder, and I will NOT support your "right" to murder innocents.

Actually, it's not "my" right, or any government's right we're talking about. It's your right, as a pregnant mother, to decide what you want to do. I'm happy that your situation is priviliged for you to enjoy and nurture the new life you will soon bring into this world, but spare a thought for those women with different situations, who think differently.

There are those who need an abortion to maintain their livelihood because their job is dependent on their not getting pregnant (some airlines have such policies for stewardesses). Who want to save their marriage by hiding an adulterous affair. Or those teenaged girls who are too young to raise a child. Or those who fear the costs of raising a child will drive them into inescapable debt or poverty. Or who simply believe it is a greater evil to raise a child in deprivation than to abort it. But whatever it is, it is a choice, YOUR choice, and no one will force you to make it.

No one is going to force you to have an abortion, nor will it give anyone the right to kill fetuses. The resolution will, however, force governments to give pregnant mothers the option, so they,and not anyone else, can decide. For some the decision to give birth is clear, such as in your case, and more power to you for that. For others, it may not be.

And while this might not be on a very suitable note, congratulations.

Why interfere with God's plan for human life? Why let man play God and take away innocent lives? Abortion is a terrible murder and should be banned forever. If God chooses for a child not to be born... so be it, but if a woman is pregnant with a child that she knows will have birth defects she should embrace that child and do her best to help it through life not take its life away!

Firstly, please keep religion out of this. Secondly, unless you yourself are a mother of a child with birth defects, you have no right to say such a thing, and even then, you should keep in mind that not everyone can cope with having a child with congential defects.

MP

MP

"Firstly, please keep religion out of this"



God is at the center of every debate. People can continue to ignore that, to their own demise. Truth cannot be separated from God.



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

:tantrum: i'm FOR abortion choice. what if the mother is in dire need to get rid of it? can't afford it, it was an accident, she was raped and doesn't want the child, has a disease, etc. it's her choice. if it's banned or w/e then would u want women in alleyways having shifty "doctors" with a razor blade doing it? it's their choice, not yours. and don't give me any religious B.S.


:!: :!: :?: :?: :!: :!: Lara :!: :!: :?: :?: :!: :!:

Alright. Where to begin.

Firstoff, let's classify the fetus. Is it living or non-living?
This is where the most controversy erupts. Pro-abortionists argue that without a sense of self-awareness, it is impossible for the fetus to care if it dies. So suppose I agree that destroying things that are not self-aware is o.k and we pass a law on that pretense.
I agree, and the law is passed.
I now have the right to kill you in your sleep. You are arguably not self aware (it's certainly impossible to prove otherwise, since you are now too dead to argue). So now people can either become chronic insomniacs or they can sleep under the threat of death. What a comforting world we now live in. Anyway, back to topic.

So, is the fetus living? Yes. It processes basic proteins and nutrients, and while not making a conscious effort to (nobody really DOES), it develops further into a full human. The cells of the fetus are very much alive. Brain function is perhaps not an issue, but that is irrelevant. Overall, the fetus is a living organism. It's nervous system isn't exactly all together yet, but it still is alive.

Alright then. The fetus is alive. Now do we consider it human?
Of COURSE WE DO.
This is another place where simple biology holds the answer. The DNA is human DNA. The chromosones are human chromosones. There isn't some basic fetus which simply changes according to what animal it is inside. It's a human, a living human at that.

So is it murder? It most certainly is. We define murder as the death of another. Does this mean we should ban abortion? No.

What this means is that some people tolerate the murder of the fetus-human. That's their business I guess, but if I think that murdering the fetus-human is terrible and awful like murdering a fully developed human is, I do not want those people to tell me I have to allow terrible and awful things to happen in my country.

The U.N is falling into a dictatorship which tells countries what to do. Ok, so it should enforce basic human rights. Abortion isn't some basic human right, and if it is, what happens to the right to life of the fetus?
Furthermore, where do we draw the line? Arguably, a child before puberty hasn't stopped developing. Are we going to allow the murder of them next?

:tantrum: i'm FOR abortion choice. what if the mother is in dire need to get rid of it? can't afford it,it was an accident,
she was raped and doesn't want the child, has a disease, etc.
it's her choice. if it's banned or w/e then would u want women in alleyways having shifty "doctors" with a razor blade doing it? it's their choice, not yours. and don't give me any religious B.S.
:!: :!: :?: :?: :!: :!: Lara :!: :!: :?: :?: :!: :!:

cant afford it..umm HELLO? Adoption?

Excuse me?! An accident? Since when is the creation of a delicate, new human being an accident! The baby is not an it, he or she is a person!

Adoption Adoption Adoption. If she was raped that is terrible, but her life has already been scarred, so why kill another life? Would you kill your mother if she suddenly contracted a terminal deasease? If not, why is killing an innocent child any different?

shifty "doctors" are already doing it. With protection by the government this could be prevented. Religion or not, Abortion is wrong.

You people are completely insane.

Seriously people, by all standards abortions will happen whether in a doctors care in a hospital, or by a clothes hanger where ever.
Just because it WILL happen, doesn't mean it should be legal. And if women are so desperate to kill their baby that they lacerate their insides with a clothes hanger, the Terran Coalition won't shed a tear. I hope they bleed to death.

If a woman tried to kill a helpless infant sleeping in their crib, and she slipped on a rattle and fell on her knife, would anyone here be upset? It's EXACTLY the same situation

can we really imprison someone for not forcing a child to live in poverty?
One word..."A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N"

While I do not think that abortion is the right choice, I do feel that it should remain a choice. No person should have the right to tell a woman that she must have a child.

This resolution is a poorly concieved throwaway sentance. It is not worthy of support.

is this the future of resolution making at the UN, first pick issues which are the actual domain of states, and the more controversial the better, then bark out your position... 'ban the death penalty'.... a resolution to ban the death penalty. And thats that, a resolution. Great, I can do that, give us a job.

Abortion kills a living being. Discover Magazine recently published an article in which they stated that by the time a pregnancy test found the woman to be pregnant, the baby is 88% developed and has all of its basic parts. If you have an abortion or support this cruel form of murder. You are killing a human. You are killing a child with a heart, a brain, lungs, mouth, ears, nose, eyes, feet, legs, knees, etc. Anyway, I would ask you to vote against the current bill in the UN because while I would support an abortion if it threatened the life of the mother, This bill does not have any restrictions against abortion and would allow anyone to kill their babies even if they were having the baby in a week.
-Bahamut
Dragonic Chancellor of UltimateEnd

The way I think of it is that by aborting a child, you are denying that child the right to live. Also, there are parents all over the world waiting for babies to care for because they cannot have them on their own. By aborting you are denying that couple the chance to become parents of a perfectly innocent child. In my eyes, the right to live far outways and other "right" a mother has to kill her child. This is really no different than if she killed the baby after it was born. Even if a fetus is not to be consider human, you are denying that fetus the right to become human How would you feel if your mother had just decided that it would be more convienent for you to die, than for you to live out your life.

-The Epop

The way I think of it is that by aborting a child, you are denying that child the right to live. Also, there are parents all over the world waiting for babies to care for because they cannot have them on their own. By aborting you are denying that couple the chance to become parents of a perfectly innocent child. In my eyes, the right to live far outways and other "right" a mother has to kill her child. This is really no different than if she killed the baby after it was born. Even if a fetus is not to be consider human, you are denying that fetus the right to become human How would you feel if your mother had just decided that it would be more convienent for you to die, than for you to live out your life.

-The Epop

Now, we at The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™ are quite against abortion. In fact, it is illegal in our nation.

But that is not why we appeal to you, our fellow nations in the UN, to vote against the abortion bill today.

We appeal to you all to reject this bill for several reasons other than our particular national dislike of the murder of the unborn. We appeal to you with three fundamental objections, based on simple principles of international politics.

1.) "Get your laws off my nation!"

The domestic laws of other nations are their own business. This should be obvious. It is called national sovereignty.

If some nation in the UN wants to make murder legal, then fine! Let them! But don't force their law onto _every_ UN nation. That is what this bill does - it takes the legal codification of the moral standards of the most liberal nations in the UN and forces those regulations on the rest of the world. Sovereignty is vital, and if the UN intrudes into national sovereignty too far, this body will no longer be an international forum for independent nation states, but the UN will itself become one giant Super State, with the laws of all individual UN nations replaced by UN Law.

The UN should exist for international purposes, and should not interfere in the domestic affaris and arrangements within nations. For example, it should facilitate international trade, set the protocols on international shipping, decide on whether international environmental regulations are necessary, set rules of war, defend member nations against foreign aggression, combat international terrorism, and deal with other such issues that extend beyond the borders of one or a few nations, and as such are truly international issues.

If you want to legalize abortion in your nation, the UN should not stop you. Nor should the UN stop you if you want to ban abortion in your nation. Nor should the UN interfere if you want some policy in between these extremes.

2.) It is vague.

This bill asserts that women must be allowed to have abortions, but it doesn't even explain whether this means that every UN nation must provide abortions free of charge, which is a common pro-abortion demand but not made explicit here. One could argue either way, that the bill forces UN nations to allow women to legally have abortions but not to pay for them, or one could argue that by not providing them free of charge, the nation is "preventing" poor women from access to abortions.

That is just the beginning. The bill is so vague, so non-specific, and leaves so many glaring issues unaddressed, that it is totally useless.

3.) It is unenforceable.

If this legislation is passed, The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™ will not change its culture or its history in one day. It would require a permanent armed occupation by UN troops to force our nation to accept this insult to our laws, our traditions, our morality, our ethics, and our God.

If this is passed, it would have to be enforced by sending invading armies into a sizeable minority of UN nations like ours who will not voluntarily adopt this foreign law. The UN simply does not command enough military force to occupy such a large minority of its member nations permanently.

Even if the UN forces us to comply by invading our country, or threatens us with expulsion from the UN for failure to comply, it will still not work. The administrative staffers who must be hired by the occupation forces will have to be drawn from the ranks of trained administrators in our nation, who will remain America the Americans, and thus will fight implementation of this legislation with intentional bureaucratic inefficiency, work slowdowns, "losing" paperwork, and various other means of sabotage from within. America the American doctors will not perform the murders asked of them, any more than they would perform dangerous experiments on unwilling victims at the behest of invading Nazis.

Even if the UN imports doctors and administrators to carry out the abortions following an invasion, or following our reluctant and bureacratically inefficient implementation following threatened expulsion from the UN, your invading army of abortionists will face massive popular resistance, ranging from crowds of people surrounding and blocking access to abortion clinics with their bodies, to widespread guerilla warfare against the foreign abortion army.

We have had to deal with this sort of chaos ever since the narrow passage of the UN-mandated 40 Hour Work Week bill. Employees are working illegally, under the table, in order to evade this absurd legislation, because they need work and employers cannot profitably pay them the mandated overtime rate. Some of our nation's most industrious workers insist on working more than the UN mandated 80 hour maximum - they continue to work under the table. Our businesses ignore the requirements, as there is no penalty included in the 40 Hour Work Week bill for breaking them. Our government administrators do not enforce the hated law, always having more pressing business to attend to.

When UN labor inspectors come by, everyone makes an effort to make things look "in order," but as soon as they are gone, it is back to normal for The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™. Some UN labor inspectors have even disappeared, rumored to have been kidnapped or murdered by extreme right paramilitary groups or organized crime hired by employers (though, since the UN inspectors are unionized bureaucrats, the most inefficient and lazy members of the human species, it is just as likely that they are busy getting drunk on the UN dime). Ultimately, all these shenanigans just introduce a ridiculous and unpopular layer of bureaucracy and inefficiency to our entire economy.

For these three reasons, (1) national sovereignty, (2) vagueness, and (3) the impossibility of effective implementation, whether your nation supports or prevents abortion within its own borders, all responsible and reasonable UN nations and regional delegates MUST OPPOSE THE ABORTION ACT.


Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

[quote="Leylsh"][quote="The Power of Isis"]:Excuse me?! An accident? Since when is the creation of a delicate, new human being an accident! The baby is not an it, he or she is a person!
your mother if she suddenly contracted a terminal deasease? If not, why is killing an innocent child any different?

Well doctors already "kill" people who have terminal illnesses after they get concent from the family so if my mother had a terminal illness then yes I would allow a doctor to pull the plug. A child can be "accidentely" concieved if you forgot to take a birth control pill. Lil Irelandia will not support this bill.

Due to the obvious future out come of this pro-abortion bill I must regretfully resign from the UN, I do not and cannot comply with a bill that imposes the legalization of the destruction of human life (fully developed or otherwise) and violates the national sovereignty of my nations congress to pass or veto laws of this nature as seen fit by the people of my nation. The UN has far overstepped its boundaries in the area of civil rights with this bill (amongst others) when its intended law making abilities are for the regulation of international relations, not to dictated one opinion of strongly biased issues (No matter which side if not both are biased, right or wrong) to a world that can and should make intelligent decisions for there own country as the law making representatives of said country see fit.

The Democratic Republic of Nutballistan will vote to affirm respect for a woman's right to choose.



---
Twonky Zwiloc,

Representative of Nutballistan

IF THIS RESOLUTON PASSES - KAMPER WILL RESIGN!
THIS UN IS A JOKE! :(

AS THE LEADER OF KNS, I SAY MAKE ABORTION MANDATORY!
WE DONT NEED ANY MORE PEOPLE!
BESIDES, ITS FUN! :twisted:

Ok, you guys shouldn't be debating this at all. It is obvious that this resolution shouldn't be passed.

I am not here to say that women shouldn't have rights, I am actualy a firm believer that they should have this right. I believe that they should have the right to abortion, but this isn't in the UN's jurisdiction. Vote no on this because its the individual nations choice, not the UN's on what you can and can't do with your nation. This is the nations right to chose on pro-choice.

Thanks,
Cirdan

WE NEED A MAN'S RIGHT TO PARENTAL DISSOLUTION!!!

STOP THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT AND THE FEMINAZIS AT THE SAME TIME!!!

If woman can make the ultimate decision over an fetus or embryo then they should be the only ones to take care of it when it's born.

Men shouldn't pay for a woman's decision!!! SAY NO TO PARENTAL SLAVERY!!!

HELP ME WHEN THE TIME COMES TO PASS THE ACT FOR MALE PARENTAL DISSOLUTION and DIASSOCIATION!!!

God is at the center of every debate. People can continue to ignore that, to their own demise. Truth cannot be separated from God.

We're having a serious debate here, and the last thing we need is people tossing religion into each other's face. So keep your respective religions, or lack thereof, out of this.

How would you feel if your mother had just decided that it would be more convienent for you to die, than for you to live out your life.


How would you know? And how would you have any feelings?

"Firstly, please keep religion out of this"



God is at the center of every debate. People can continue to ignore that, to their own demise. Truth cannot be separated from God.



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

Yes but god can and should be separated from politics hence separation of church and state. If religious extremists have thier way; yes god would be at the center of every debate. but; thank GOD :lol: he is not.

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.

Women should make the right choices and not even have to face abortion. If they get pregnent....i'm sorry because it is their own fault. And they have no right to kill the person inside them just because they made a bad choice

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.

Women should make the right choices and not even have to face abortion. If they get pregnent....i'm sorry because it is their own fault. And they have no right to kill the person inside them just because they made a bad choice

We of Malagonia with due consideration have to reject this resolution due to many factors. Below is a list of problems with the resolution.

1. No protections for women or fetus.

2. Would permit last day abortions.

This is the worst written resolution. You take a complex, broad issue like Abortion and try and pass a two sentence resolution?

Insanity.

This is the worst written resolution. You take a complex, broad issue like Abortion and try and pass a two sentence resolution?

Insanity.

The teachings of Raxanazar forbid the taking of life, and to this our people hold. Thus, it would be unthinkable to enact laws permitting this. However, we respect the other nations who do not share our beliefs.

The High Priests of Raxanazar in Raxanadon-X have decided to reject this proposal, because it should be left to each nation to decide how to deal with this issue which involves so many political and religious aspects.

Respectfully,
The High Priests of Raxanazar
Raxanadon-X
OnweX

This resolution is absurd!

A TRAGEDY for the right of sovereignty!



EVERY NATION should have the INDIVIDUAL right to decide for or against abortion!


It is not the place of the United Nations to force ideology on its member nations!.

The Republic of Tekania, hereby resolves to, in the word of this resolution, to conform to it's ruling.... to make abortion legal among her citizens, with the exception of those who are or have been in service to the military. :twisted:

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

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

The saddest part of this whether anyone likes it or not is the fact WE are trying to legislate Morality not abortions. We want to make it a law to make abortions Right.all of those toting the banner for abortion rights want you believe that it is ok to have an abortion.but where do they stand on stopping the pregnacy before it started. legislation does NOT make it moralely right. legislation makes it legal period. we don't teach young women and young men to be mothers and fathers we teach them how to get someone pregnant and how to abort it. doctors and scientists and even religious people have all tried to determine when life begins some say the moment of conception,others say when the baby cries,but sadly no one agrees on a specific moment it becomes a human being. this is somewhat simplified but if you take a bull to a cow she is not giving birth to a fetus.She is giving birth to a calf.isn't funny how we can change a few words around to suit our own purpose!

The saddest part of this whether anyone likes it or not is the fact WE are trying to legislate Morality not abortions. We want to make it a law to make abortions Right.all of those toting the banner for abortion rights want you believe that it is ok to have an abortion.but where do they stand on stopping the pregnacy before it started. legislation does NOT make it moralely right. legislation makes it legal period. we don't teach young women and young men to be mothers and fathers we teach them how to get someone pregnant and how to abort it. doctors and scientists and even religious people have all tried to determine when life begins some say the moment of conception,others say when the baby cries,but sadly no one agrees on a specific moment it becomes a human being. this is somewhat simplified but if you take a bull to a cow she is not giving birth to a fetus.She is giving birth to a calf.isn't funny how we can change a few words around to suit our own purpose!

What can someone say in a case like this? The battle lines are clearly drawn. On one side stand the Liberal Nutsos and on the other the Conservative Nutsos. You cannot remain neutral in a descision such as this one. Each side has labeled the other. The Liberals are baby killers and the Conservatives don't care about a womans safety. It is with solemn determination I cast my vote against this resolution. I feel the need to share my reasons for this before I do this though.

1. Before abortion was legalized most illegal abortions were in fact done in doctors offices by trained professionals.

2. With the privacy laws as they are it is impossible to regulate the abortion industry, and due to this abortions are sometimes done in hurried, and often dangerous, procedures by untrained people, simply because there is no way to hold accountable the people who are responsible if anything goes wrong.

3. Many abortions are done because the pregnant woman is an unwed mother and cannot handle the responsibility or hassle of a child. There are consequences to every action and if you have sex a possible outcome is pregnancy. So two alternatives are wait until you are married or until you are able and willing to take care of a child.

4. With medications such as the birth-control pill and the morning-after pill it is very easy to avoid getting pregnant in the first place. There are these drugs for a reason people, use them!

5. There are so many people out there who are want to have children but are unable to do so (because of reproductive difficulties) that if every child that was aborted was given up for adoption that there would still be couples wanting a child.

6. In the case of rape/incest there is the morning-after pill.

7. I am in support of abortion if the mother is in danger if she carries the baby to term, however, if the mother simply wants to have an abortion it is, quite frankly, very easy to find a doctor who will agree quickly that the mother is in terrible danger even when there is no chance at all of there being any danger to the mother.

8. If a child is mentally or physically handicapped there are adoption agencies who do take in such children and are even adopted. (Trust me on this. these people are desperate. I know a couple who adopted a child who was mentally handicapped)

9. While there are laws to regulate the way animals are 'put down' the way abortions are done are often horrifying. The fetus can be 'disposed of' in several ways. In one the fetus is dimembered inside the uterus and pulled out piece by piece. In another a saline (salt) solution is injected into the uterus and it acts as an acid upon the fetus as salt is extremely caustic to it while in the womb. And in partial-birth abortion the head of the child (I will not refer to it as a fetus after it has been delived) is allowed to be delivered and then crushed, or pierced through the back of the neck with a pair of scissors.

10. In the 1st and 2nd trimesters (when most abortions are done) the glands that secrete hormones that act as natural painkillers are not developed yet and the abortion, whichever procedure, could be up to 3 times as painful to the fetus as a normal person undergoing the same procedure.

I have attempted to provide my view of this issue as clear cut as I could without resorting to name-calling, or extremist rhetoric. I did my best to show my view as precisely as I could and did not twist any of the facts I had at my disposal. This is my opinion and if I change the outcome of this resolution then I will be overjoyed, but even if I do not change anyones mind I don't care. I simply wanted to tell the community how I feel about this issue.

The Protectorate of The Valcas
My Honor is My Life

10. In the 1st and 2nd trimesters (when most abortions are done) the glands that secrete hormones that act as natural painkillers are not developed yet and the abortion, whichever procedure, could be up to 3 times as painful to the fetus as a normal person undergoing the same procedure.
This one in particular I don't quite understand. As far as I am aware, the brain and nervous system do not develop until the third trimester, and as such no pain could be felt by the foetus.

We want to make it a law to make abortions Right... legislation makes it legal period. we don't teach young women and young men to be mothers and fathers we teach them how to get someone pregnant and how to abort it.

Now that's just unfair and you know it. One, as you said, making it legal doesn't make it right. So I don't see what your problem is, if you want it illegal because you feel abortions are morally wrong. In no way is the legalization of anything an endorsement of its moral correctness.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone will do it. Prostitution is legal in New Zealand, but does it mean everyone there goes to brothels? Of course not.

Contraception can also fail. And when the product is faulty, the customer shouldn't be the one who suffers. Abortion can be a back-up if contraceptives fail, after all, they have the same outcome.

As for the second part. What you're saying is once again wildly unfair. Taking "young" to be defined as teenagers, how do you expect them to become mothers and fathers when they're still in school and are still barely adults? If people aren't ready to have children, they aren't ready to have children.

The nation of Keyman is against this proposal simply because we are creationalists, we belive that if a woman and a man reproduce the child is the next step in the complex web that is evolution, if the baby were to die of an illness or disease or perhaps disability we would count this as natural selection.
Our main issue with abortion is that many couples may choose to abort a child if it has a mutation, as was the case earlier this year when in the city of Keyerian a baby was found through an ultra sound to have a beak and feathers on its arms, the couple decided that they wanted to get rid of this child but was over ruled by the government. Being a nation that likes to keep people happy we have procedures to follow when the child isnt wanted. Having had many trials ovcer abortion in the past we have an island in the middle of our great lake Keyter on which children that are unwanted as well as the unwanted mutations are placed in a natural environment where they live and reproduce, taking part in a completly natural foodweb with no industrialisim or agriculture to give the humans an advantage(as intelligence is already a huge advantage in hunting and protecting oneself) The Keyter lake prgram has been running for 1000 years and already the human population on the island has diversified into 4 different species that can no longer breed.
On the mainland such complex evolution is often stifled by modern things interferring, we will not allow this abortion idea to further the evolutionary disability that the keymans already have!
Abortion is not evolution!

The nation of Keyman is against this proposal simply because we are creationalists, we belive that if a woman and a man reproduce the child is the next step in the complex web that is evolution, if the baby were to die of an illness or disease or perhaps disability we would count this as natural selection.
Our main issue with abortion is that many couples may choose to abort a child if it has a mutation, as was the case earlier this year when in the city of Keyerian a baby was found through an ultra sound to have a beak and feathers on its arms, the couple decided that they wanted to get rid of this child but was over ruled by the government. Being a nation that likes to keep people happy we have procedures to follow when the child isnt wanted. Having had many trials ovcer abortion in the past we have an island in the middle of our great lake Keyter on which children that are unwanted as well as the unwanted mutations are placed in a natural environment where they live and reproduce, taking part in a completly natural foodweb with no industrialisim or agriculture to give the humans an advantage(as intelligence is already a huge advantage in hunting and protecting oneself) The Keyter lake prgram has been running for 1000 years and already the human population on the island has diversified into 4 different species that can no longer breed.
On the mainland such complex evolution is often stifled by modern things interferring, we will not allow this abortion idea to further the evolutionary disability that the keymans already have!
Abortion is not evolution!

@Kelssek

"As for the second part. What you're saying is once again wildly unfair. Taking "young" to be defined as teenagers, how do you expect them to become mothers and fathers when they're still in school and are still barely adults? If people aren't ready to have children, they aren't ready to have children."
While we are agreeing that abortion in the first three months of pregnancy shouldn´t be punished if certain conditions are met (woman has to take advice in a counsel (private or state) about her situation), we criticise that it does not specify how far this right should go: during the full time of pregnancy? the first six months? The first three months?? Or is it the sovereign right of the nation state to decide about that?? We would suggest an amendment that makes clear that countries have the right to ban abortions after the first three months.
We see many moral problems with abortions, but we leave that issue to the individual to decide in the first third of pregnancy. But after this period the embryo has developed so much that we don´t want to generally allow abortions, except in certain cases which are extreme.
But after six months there can´t be any abortions in our view. After all: there are cases where babies are born after 7 months: they are alive and they can survive.
Therefore abortions must be restricted and can not be allowed during the hole period of pregnancy.
Regarding teenagers: they shouldn´t have sex after all. The best way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sexual activity.
We are no monkeys, we are humans and we can controll ourselves. Therefore to abstain is the best way. By the way it is also the best way to prevent the transfer of sexualy transmitted diseases like HIV/Aids and others.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

The best way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sexual activity.
We are no monkeys, we are humans and we can controll ourselves. Therefore to abstain is the best way. By the way it is also the best way to prevent the transfer of sexualy transmitted diseases like HIV/Aids and others.

Abstention isn't contraception, and please don't think that just by virtue of having more intelligence, humans are somehow superior to other species and are thus able to control natural urges. Perhaps I'm being a little crude here, but like potty training, we control our bladder and take a whizz through training, not because we're somehow superior - you can potty train a dog. But in the end, you still gotta go (wink wink).

And of course, it's a lot easier to say things like "teenagers shouldn't have sex" than to actually make sure they don't.

And Keyman, I suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins if you want to understand how evolution actually works. I understand you're RPing, but your scenario is completely against things we know about biology, genetics and evolution.

@Kelssek,

"Abstention isn't contraception, and please don't think that just by virtue of having more intelligence, humans are somehow superior to other species and are thus able to control natural urges. Perhaps I'm being a little crude here, but like potty training, we control our bladder and take a whizz through training, not because we're somehow superior - you can potty train a dog. But in the end, you still gotta go (wink wink)."
Well: this is not about superiority or something, but it is about the concept of human society. If we assume that we are only determined by nature and the desire to sex (which is naturally the desire to REPRODUCE) we couldn´t punish the rapist for his rape because he is only following his natural ways.
We can not accept such a view towards humans. We expect more and demand more and we punish the evil doers to make clear to them and others that such things are not acceptable.

"And of course, it's a lot easier to say things like "teenagers shouldn't have sex" than to actually make sure they don't."
We are a moralistic democracy. Since that is the case abstention is seen as a virtue while in RL it is seen as weakness - especially in western societies but also in hugh parts of Africa, where promiscuity is usual and therefore the spread of HIV unstoppable (especially in Southern Africa - Botswana 37%, South Africa 20% - sub-Saharan Africa average estimated more than 10%).
In our nation Kybernetia that is different.
We think movements and organisations who promote abstention deserve support also in the RW, since without it many problems are going out of control or - HIV is already out of control in Southern Africa - are not going to be get under control.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

The general concept, of about everything being actually discussed is that MOST people, either for reasons of ethics, religion, or vagueness are against this resolution. Which I agree.... in fact, I don't have much choice but to classify anyone who actually voted for this resolution an idiot. I mean "No nation shall interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion." What the hell is interference?! It does not state... there's no provisions, no definition, no scope of rights provided... It could be applied that this can mean you can't license or regulate who can perform the abortions, they don't have to have any counseling, the abortion could be performed the day before the delivery date... whoever wrote this resolution is simply incompitent. I would pass that charge of incompitency right onto any delegate who gave approval to it. This is my primary reason for an adendum defining the scope of "interference" within this resolution. (Not an amendment, an adendum) "Abortion Regulational Rights."

And I am getting sick and frikken tired of this "well people can't be expected to control themselves" excuses when trying to pass off a whole bunch of this crap around here..... Yes, people CAN be expected to control themsevles, and if they don't they CAN expect to suffer the consequences of their actions. That's the ENTIRE concept of civilized society. ( Is getting increasingly of the opinion that the majority of the U.N. is not civilized). People can be expected not to kill another person, and they can expect to suffer being executed if they do so..... People can be expected not to rape another person, and if they do can expect to spend lots of time in a little confined cell. People can be expected not to take sexual advanted of minors, and if they do, they can be expected to spend lots of time in a little tiny cell... And people can be expected to abstain from sexual intercourse, and if they do, they can expect to have a child to support..... I have made consessions in the name of peacfull civility, but to state my personal beliefs, and it's a concept all you liberals and socialist seem to not understand, is that one persons rights STOP where another's begin, all human beings have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... however, just as a murder's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ended at the point they impeded somone else's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the woman's right to her body ENDS at the point the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of that little forming human in her uterus starts. A "right" to abortion is patently against the principles of a civilized society.

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

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

@Tekania,

I share your criticism regarding the vagueness of the resolution. But as regional delegate I have also to represent the opinion of my region.
And since I´m not for banning abortions but for regulating it, it is not against my conscience to vote for it.
Regarding the open questions we recommend another resolution clarifying those issues.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

@Tekania,

I share your criticism regarding the vagueness of the resolution. But as regional delegate I have also to represent the opinion of my region.
And since I´m not for banning abortions but for regulating it, it is not against my conscience to vote for it.
Regarding the open questions we recommend another resolution clarifying those issues.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

I wasn't reffering to Delegate "votes" for it, as I recognize that delegates are of the responsibility to vote according to the majority of their regions.... but the concept of the "approval" of it in quarum.

That's why there is the purpose of the "Abortion Regulational Rights" in another thread... to define the scope of "interference".... which from my personal beliefs, at least shows a capability to sacrifice for the sake of peace to at least reach an equitable middle-ground. (If only the majority of the U.N. could grasp that concept.)

There's two things I think NS needs to do though...

1) Allow for repeals (which from what I hear sounds like the process for it has at least started.. ie there is work being done to code it in )

2) Make it mandatory for all proposals to be debated in DRAFT in this forum BEFORE being submitted.... which would not be that hard since the proposals are all policed anyway in the first place.

I do, however, highly expect that this will be one of the resolutions that are not enforced (has noticed that "some" of them are not, especially the more controversial ones).

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

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

Abortion is a fine thing for what it is supposed to be, a despirate act that a mother can have in the case that a child should not be born, for whatever reason. But that is what it should remain, a DESPIRATE act.

In today's world, abortion is used more as a means of birth control by teenagers than an act of despiration. It is used on a whim by other mothers because a baby would be inconvenient.

The only cases I see for an abortion are rape cases, where the mother would be forced through traumatic emotional pain every single day of the pregnancy if forced to term (don't get me started, I am friends with rape victims). The only other case is if the mother may die from the pregnancy. Then, and there only should the line end for abortions. Anything more than that opens the door for casual abortions. This is basically a form of leagalized murder, of an innocent child no less. It has the potential of becoming anything in all walks of life, the descision to end that human life should be a hard one.

I myself will be voting against this resolution, but I am saddened that the votes are currently 3:2 in favor of this massively open abortion bill.

As a new country on the international scene, my country, the Republic of Argath, does not have much, if any, influence over you're decisions. But I implore you, why would you allow the death of a child, never giving it the chance to live it's own life? Even before birth, it is still human.

You say that if we abolish legalized abortions, that they will still continue. Then this will be against the law and will be punished by the law. Do not believe that just because the Roe vs. Wade act passed years ago, that it will always be this way. The United States of America's Supreme Court is on the verge of revoking the act.

We do not allow murder within our borders, and I'll be damned if I allow the murder of children.

When the voting ends, I will resign from the United Nations if you allow this to pass. Any other life-respecting country should do the same.

Thank you,
The President of the Republic of Argath

After the passage of the equally idiotic 40-day workweek...here comes this 'sham' of a resolution. The UN has no right to tell me how to run my country in respect to abortion rights. Whether I'm pro-choice or not is irrelevant. Whether I can tolerate abortion at the 1st or third trimester has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

At issue is the far-reaching power you are giving the UN to impose on it's member nations. What, can we not decide on our own how we want to handle the abortion issue?

Voting is almost over and this bill has almost 3000 more votes for than against. Unbelievable!

Can you all enact something that does good for the world instead of taking away sovereignty from member nation please? Otherwise, just step down!

Punk Daddy
Leader of Theocracy of Punk Daddy
Region: The South Pacific

If we assume that we are only determined by nature and the desire to sex (which is naturally the desire to REPRODUCE) we couldn´t punish the rapist for his rape because he is only following his natural ways.

Yes, but the simple fact of the existence of the society that makes rape unacceptable also makes sex more than just for reproduction - it becomes recreation and an expression of love too.

We are a moralistic democracy. Since that is the case abstention is seen as a virtue while in RL it is seen as weakness especially in western societies but also in hugh parts of Africa, where promiscuity is usual and therefore the spread of HIV unstoppable

Of course, abstention can be a virtue, but like all virtues, it's easier to preach than to practice. Statistics show that teaching about contraceptives rather than encouraging abstention not only is more effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy, but also, ironically, in increasing abstention rates.

The AIDS situation in Africa is not out of any inherent promiscuity, it's more out of poverty. This causes lack of education, lack of access to contraceptives, and at the same times makes prostitution one of the few viable occupations, and often clients refuse to use protection, or it simply isn't available. Because of this double whammy, STDs spread like wildfire, and it isn't helped by TRIPS, which forces expensive brand-name drugs instead of cheaper generics to be used for treatment, which most people simply can't afford.

Morals are a good thing, but we always must keep in mind that they are subjective, differ with culture, change with time, and cannot be used as a basis for legislation. They simply shape what society considers as acceptable and sets a standard, and should not be taken for anything more.

Therefore, we shouldn't ban abortion because it's morally wrong, or because it is an opt-out for what you consider morally wrong behaviour (e.g. sexual promiscuity). I believe compassion and civil rights should always take precedence over any moral concerns, and thus, abortion must be a right of the pregnant woman. Most will not take it, but for a few, it is a very important life preserver without which they might drown.

Thank you and goodnight.

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 why we have anarchists, friend. We realize that making laws wont change anything, that humanity will destroy humanity no matter what we do, and so we might as well live freely as best we can in the meantime. You said so yourself that laws are pretty much useless, you yourself pointed out quite clearly that government fails to complete it's mission. So why are you still in support of it?

We from holyfoot do not dispute the reasoning behind the proposal, but it is the actual text that bothers us.

Why is it the woman has the final word in this?
they always thought us a baby is made by 2 people.
Let the father have a say in this too!

We from holyfoot do not dispute the reasoning behind the proposal, but it is the actual text that bothers us.

Why is it the woman has the final word in this?
they always thought us a baby is made by 2 people.
Let the father have a say in this too!

Carry it in your body for 9 months and then you deserve a say.

holyfoot wasn't saying that the woman shouldn't have a say. he was saying that the father should also have a say in the matter. But! why do you have abortion? I quoth former president Richard Nixon: "Why do Abortionists support abortion? For all I see, all the Abortionists have been born."
It almost a hypocrasy. You have been born, yet you want the right to prevent others from being born.

Mother of all that is holy! I'm gone for 4 days when this thread has 9 posts and now there are about 320! I'm amazed.

Abortion is not murder. Murder is the killing of an independently living human being. A baby can live independently only at 36 weeks, or 9 months. The youngest baby ever to live with technology (NICU) (neo-intensive-care-unit) was 24 weeks, or 6 months. Therefore I think it is safe to say in modern times it is not murder until the 24 week, or 6 month mark. As far as banning goes, you are right in the fact that legalizing it will increase abortions, but illegalizing it will also increase BLACK MARKET abortions, do you see what I'm saying? There is definitly an increased fatality rate with black market, due to infection, lack of accuracy, etc. The proper surgical procedure is very low in the risk to the mother.

As for brutality, black market is very brutal. Sometimes the fetus is partialy alive(note since BM is illegal one can abort whatever age baby she wants, it may be alive for a little while) and must be killed.(Normally with a spike to the head). Licensed surgery is very clean and the baby is aspirated, or removed, in which time if alive it dies.

The mother should have the final sa-so over abortion or not, for even though it is also the man's child too, the man does not have to support it in a sense. The mother must carry it and suffer simptoms ranging form minor too major.

Whatever you wan't too think.
Dictator LG

I don't feel that abortion is really a world wide decsion. Many nations don't have the medical technology and safety standards to perform aboritions. No one wants unsafe practices that could take the lives of the mother as well as the child. I think that this decision needs to be made internally for each nation not as a whole world. :| personally Im pretty neutral on this hot topic but Id have to chose pro-choice i think the abortion is extreamly situational

---Courtney of CourtneysOptimist City

illegalizing it will also increase BLACK MARKET abortions, do you see what I'm saying? There is definitly an increased fatality rate with black market, due to infection, lack of accuracy, etc. The proper surgical procedure is very low in the risk to the mother.
Most abortions today are done on the black market. What we need is better education to keep people out of situations in which they would feel the need for an abortion.

As for brutality, black market is very brutal. Sometimes the fetus is partialy alive(note since BM is illegal one can abort whatever age baby she wants, it may be alive for a little while) and must be killed.(Normally with a spike to the head). Licensed surgery is very clean and the baby is aspirated, or removed, in which time if alive it dies.
Why is it only brutal when it suits your politics?

The mother should have the final sa-so over abortion or not, for even though it is also the man's child too, the man does not have to support it in a sense. The mother must carry it and suffer simptoms ranging form minor too major.
I'd say that, in all fairness, the baby should have some say, too.
I think people ignore the adoption option way too much. I think we can safely say that partial-birth abortion, at the VERY least, should be outlawed. It's a disgusting process in which the baby is half-way out of the mother, and it's skull is colapsed, or the brain is sucked out of the head through a hole.

Carry it in your body for 9 months and then you deserve a say.

I'm sorry, but from the dictates of liberalism and socialist ideals (that y'all spout out and rely on in the first place to get half of this crap by) means that for the sake of equality their should be equal say. Since, by liberalism's logic in the first place "equality and civil rights should take precedent over concernts of freedom and morality".

(Which is the difference between "leftist and rightist", leftist principles believe in equality over all, while rightist believes in the ballance of freedom and equality.)

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

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

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

Is it just me, or all the pro-lifers only capable of quoting 1 type of argument?
Morality? My god tells me this is wrong so it can't be good. Right.......
In the sense of morality it is immoral to ban it since the mother carries the baby. It IS her body. Natural abortion is many things, and I think it is safe to say that there are too many ways too abort too completely ban it. Why do religious people claim to be more correct on a subject such as this or gay mariage? Because they are backed by some neo-ethical choice maker? They have no reason to tell people what the can and can't do.

Whatever-
Dictator LG
(Note I for my people to have a choice, hehe)

I put this up before but i mistakenly made it a new topic and some mod got on my ass about it so here it is again...:

You must BEFORE even considering such a thing ask YOURSELF : "What makes a human?" Humans are in my opinion; thinking, learning, INDEPENDENT beings. NOT vegetables like those on life support and like a fetus. A fetus is not a developed being but an un-ripened fruit. And a patient on life support cannot function mentaly nor phyicaly, and will only prolong the misery of the being and the burden on society.

Then you must consider the potential of the fruit. Abortions happen for a good reason. The fruit is unwanted, so why bring the fruit to bare when no wants it ? It will only result in misery and outcast for the being. The development of a suscessful member of society requires the proper nurturing that only a loving and willing mother can provide. We have abortions, the Spartians had caves. Which do you prefer?

Adoptions DO NOT WORK ! And if they did, we wouldnt have children living in the streets around the world. Keep them from forming by alowing this method of contraception to let only the WANTED to become.

Making it illegal WILL NOT STOP IT. It will only give the goverment the power to prosecute it. And from what we see in the world when society tries to regulate itself; it either become more messy of a deal or will not change the situation. It is harmful to a democracy. In a world of differing views giving the democratic power to regulate such a thing will only result in oppression of a group by the goverment through some kind of powerful manipulation (a large church or org.) or by sheer mob rule.

Yes, I do believe in God. No I am not a Christian, nor am I a Jew. No I am not a Moslem. I am Zoroastrian. A follower of the Message Of Zoroaster (the Gathas). I call God by the name of Ahura Mazda. The essence of God is not to be debated here for now. The essence of my religion is CHOICE. Good vs. Evil. Truth vs. Lies. Freedom vs. Oppression. Sure if everyone was a perfect immortal then we could live in peace and anarchy but no it is not the time. God gives the two choices and only the INDUVIDUAL can choose.

Weither you are religious or not there is always a set morality for that religion. Christians, Jews, and even Moslems have standards and ethics, and if abortion is a sin to one then ONLY MEMBERS of that particular one can be judged in accordance to their standards. For example a Christian (and others) cannot set their standards upon a Jew (and/or the other way around). Like, if a Moslem does not to drink alcohol then thats their thing but for me I will do whatever is in the boundaries of my own ethics. Atheists included.

I SUPPORT ABORTION. And if someone opposes it then fine they DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE ONE. The goal is NOT TO PREVENT SIN but NOT TO LIVE IN SIN.

SUPPORT THE CURRENT ABORTION RESOLUTION !!!

Is it just me, or all the pro-lifers only capable of quoting 1 type of argument?
Morality? My god tells me this is wrong so it can't be good. Right.......
In the sense of morality it is immoral to ban it since the mother carries the baby. It IS her body. Natural abortion is many things, and I think it is safe to say that there are too many ways too abort too completely ban it. Why do religious people claim to be more correct on a subject such as this or gay mariage? Because they are backed by some neo-ethical choice maker? They have no reason to tell people what the can and can't do.


Actually they have every reason. Morality is defined by the society, so the society of a nation is best left to decide it's morality. It is the part of the gov't to legistlate on the morality of the people, and that legistlation is properly left to the segment of gov't closest to the people it is legislating on. You can force a gov't to make it legal, but you can't force the society to accept that moral judgement, no matter how many laws you pass. The entire concept of legislated morality is why there are laws against rape, murder, theft, fraud, extortion and the whole like. In this Republic, by the dictates of our societies morality, abortion is wrong, and, as a criminal in the commission of a crime, is shot by his victim, who is defending himself, died so in the commission of a crime, and therefore was deserving.... So to, the woman, going to some back alley abortion, and so suffered severe injury or died, did so in the commission of a crime, and therefore was deserving. WE have every right to legistlate on morality, just as you legislate on morality.
Here's the difference, we believe in freedom of choice, and independant thought, but also we believe people are held accountable for the choices they make when they were wrong. That's the difference, you do not believe people are accountable for their actions, you wish to excuse accountability at every chance. Left up to your logic, there would be no laws against murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, theft, fraud, extortion, assault, and the whole like.

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

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

Title edited to reflect proposal as having passed.

Title edited to reflect proposal as having passed.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

Just to clarify, if this stupid abortion bill fails, which seems incredibly unlikely at this point due to all the liberal lemmings in the UN, IT WILL NOT MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL!

If this bill failed, as it should, things would remain just as they are - each UN nation would be able to choose what their laws and regulations are regarding abortion. If they wanted to let everyone run around doing "20th year abortions" (murder of the post-born), like with the "violent violetists" issue, they can. If this bill fails, individual nations can make whatever laws they want regarding abortion - free to all, only first trimester, only first and second trimester, only in the case of danger to the mother, or not legal under any circumstances. Whatever your country thinks is right.

If this bill passes, everyone in the UN, like it or not, has to provide access to abortions for all their citizens, in conformity with the vocal activist contingent of communist and liberal nations.

People keep talking about this as though a vote against the stupid bill would outlaw abortion.

A vote against the bill would just preserve your right to decide for your country what the right legislation is on this matter.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

I highly doubt it will impact, like I've said, I've noticed that many of the more radical resolutions are even really applied. Let me ask you a few questions...

1) Is there a resolution legalizing euthanasia?

2) Am I a UN Member?

3) Then how is it, that through choice I made the decision to make it illegal?

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

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

Title edited to reflect proposal as having passed.
Whoo hoo! *cheers*

Yep, it's official, the U.N. has the average intelligence of a hampster now... Time for damage control.


Abortion Regulational Rights Of U.N. Members.

!DRAFT!

Catagory:<pending> Strength:<pending> Submitted by:<pending>

Recognizing the broad scope of the existing
resolution, "Abortion Rights", The United Nations
hereby resolves to define the following provisions as not
being interference:

I. Nations shall have the right to prohibit
abortions after the 29th 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.


II. Nations shall have the right to the proper
licensing and regulation of institutions who
provide abortion services within their nation's borders.

A)Any practice of abortion outside of the properly
regulated and licensed institutions aforementioned
shall be punishable by any applicable law(s) within
said nations.
B)Both the provider and the client may be held accountable
under Article II-A.
C)No private medical institution shall be required by any law(s)
to provide abortion services.
1)If aforemention institution refuses treatment they must
provide the client with references to applicable
institutions that will provide said service.

III. Nations shall have the right, in the case of:

A)Minors: To require the consent and approval of the
minor's guardian(s).
B)Partnerships(Marriages): To require consent from
the client's spouse.
C)In the case of conception, where it is legally found to be the
result of rape or incest, wherein the perpetrator
is of the party defined in Article III-A or B, their
consent shall not be required.

IV. Nations shall have the right to require whatever form
of "Family planning" counselling deemed neccessary
before the client(s) make their decision.

A)This counselling may include all applicable parties
including (sic.) the woman's legal spouse and in
the case of minors, their legal guardian(s).
B)Article IV-A shall never allow the inclusion of aforementioned
parties, wherein they are the perpetrator(s), in the case of rape
and/or incest.

V. Any nation exercising rights within Articles III and IV, wherein
the other required party does not consent, shall make the raising
and support of the child legally binding upon the said non-consenting
party.

A)Any failure by the non-consenting party to live up to their legal
obligations under this article shall be punishable under any
applicable law(s) of said nation.
B)If, under Article III-A,B and/or IV-A, additional consent is required,
and the other required party refuses to attend, they shall be automatically
considered consenting.
C)If, in the case of the client using any decieving means to prevent the
applicable additional party under Article III-A,B and/or IV-A from attending,
preventing their consent, the said client shall be held accountable in the
violation of any applicable law(s) of said nations.
D)For the purpose of enforcement under this article, institutions must
provide to the proper law-enforcement officials:
1)Certified contact information of the party/parties. Including:
a)Certified copies of letters.
b)Certificates of receipt.
c)Telephone recordings.
2)Either the original, or certified copies as such, of all applicable
consent forms.
E)Women shall have the right to request the paternal father of the fetus, and/or
his spouse be notified of the abortion.
1)For this provision to be operated, paternity tests must be conducted to
determine the paternal father.

VI. Definition of terms:
A) The term minor is defined under the applicable law(s) of each nation.
B) Refusal shall mean, any blatant refusal, where a party, in legally proven knowledge of their
duties, intentionally does not perform them.
C) Prevent shall mean, any legally proven action to deceive another from knowing or carrying
out a task or duty.
D) Consent is defined as, any physical document, providing the rights of another party to perform
an action, bearing the signature of the person who is allowing those actions.
E) Parties are defined as any person, group, or government, who are a signiary of the contract
or release.

VII. Any other regulation on abortion outside the scope of this Resolution shall be considered
interference, and stand in violation of the "Abortion Rights" Resolution.



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

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

IF THIS RESOLUTON PASSES - KAMPER WILL RESIGN!
THIS UN IS A JOKE! :(

KAMPER WILL NOT BOW TO ANY OTHER NATION OR GROUP OF NATIONS. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS.
STAY OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!!!

AS THE LEADER OF KNS, I SAY MAKE ABORTION MANDATORY!
WE DONT NEED ANY MORE PEOPLE!
BESIDES, ITS FUN! :twisted:

***YIPPEE!!!*** :lol:

SEND ME YOUR WOMEN! I'M RUNNING A 1/2 PRICE SPECIAL! :twisted:

Adoptions DO NOT WORK ! And if they did, we wouldnt have children living in the streets around the world. Keep them from forming by alowing this method of contraception to let only the WANTED to become.


Aside from this statement, I agreed totally with you, but you need to know that adoptions do work. I can give you two examples:

1) My aunt had a child when she was 16 and she gave him up for adoption because my grandmother threatened to kick her out of the house if she kept it. No, she couldnt see the child after she had it, which was sad, but she found him about 4 years ago, 21 years after he was born, and he was brought up a great, caring person who was in a loving family.

2)My friend was a crack baby, she was given up for adoption, pretty much the same thing that happened with my cousin happened with her.


Like I said, I agree with you about everything else, but before you go about putting down adoption, consider the facts that it does work

I personally am pro-choice and I believe that some excellant points have been made here. However, this is a very touchy subject, and everyone has very strong opinions about it. We could argue the topic all nigt and get nowhere. I think it is time to lay the topic to rest. Just an opinion!

The Republic of Demotheses

Due to this horrifying attack on our national sovereignty, and the dispicable nature of the last proposal, the Terran Coalition officially resigns from the United Nations.

Enjoy your baby killing.

ITs final, I'm not going to abide by the rule at all, infact Im completely banning abortion all together, and assembling a force to rid all processes of abortion, whether it might be clinical or "on the street". If im forced to leave the UN, then hell yes...

I have officially left the UN due to this legislation. My #1 issue is that this should be left up to the individual nation rather than the UN. This kind of UN power makes the UN far too centralized. A very horrible "advancement" in my opinion.

For all of you who say that us pro-lifers have no reason other than morality, or talk about the clinic bombers, listen to me. First off, abortion bombers are hypocrites and dammage the pro-life campaign. Using them against us is wrong, because they are nutcases that aparently dont mean what they say. They cant truely be pro-life and kill these people. They merely say they are pro life. Now on to the issue:

Abortion in the third trimester is usually banned in countries anyway. At this point the baby (yes baby) could support itself. Its funny though that babies that are five months premature have occasionally survived as well. Fetuses start getting electrical impulses in their brains very early on in the mother's pregnancy. If it was merely tissue, the mother should be allowed to remove it, however this is in fact human life. Abortions end the existance of a human being. I do however understand that a mother's life can be put at risk, or both individuals can be put at risk, but there are exceptions to every rule. In the US, pot can be used for medicinal purposes, I believe abortions should be legal if one or more lives are to be put at risk.

Quick side note, I have many friends who are adopted, and they turned out just fine, even better than most kids with their biological parents.

Many people have abortions because they are convenient. They dont want to deal with a child. Obviously there are exceptions. Many people say rape victims should be able to abort. On this toutchy subject, I must disagree unless the mother's life is at risk.

This post has been random at best, but there is one more issue I would like to address. Black market abortions would not be as bad as many think. Why? Because you would define abortion as murder. The "doctor" would be a murderer and the mother would be no less than an accomplice. They would still happen, but getting arrested and tried for 100+ counts of murder puts you in a keen position for a death penalty (or the harshest penalty your countru facilitates). I look forward to reading responses. Thank you.

Telegrams are welcome.

I have never been more shocked and appalled by a piece of legislation as the one that has just been passed. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, each nation should decide the matter. How could such a piece of legislation be passed for ALL members of the UN when the subject itself is so touchy? This is tyranny of the majority in its purest form. The very fact that it is a CONTROVERSIAL issue means that the nations should decide for themselves.

Hinokoku resigns from the UN.

Abortion Regulational Rights Of U.N. Members.

!DRAFT!

Catagory:<pending> Strength:<pending> Submitted by:<pending>

Recognizing the broad scope of the existing
resolution, "Abortion Rights", The United Nations
hereby resolves to define the following provisions as not
being interference:

I. Nations shall have the right to prohibit
abortions after the 12th 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.


II. Nations shall have the right to the proper
licensing and regulation of institutions who
provide abortion services within their nation's borders.

A)Any practice of abortion outside of the properly
regulated and licensed institutions aforementioned
shall be punishable by any applicable law(s) within
said nations.
B)Both the provider and the client may be held accountable
under Article II-A.
C)No private medical institution shall be required by any law(s)
to provide abortion services.
1)If aforemention institution refuses treatment they must
provide the client with references to applicable
institutions that will provide said service.

III. Nations shall have the right, in the case of:

A)Minors: To require the consent and approval of the
minor's guardian(s).
B)Partnerships(Marriages): To require consent from
the client's spouse.
C)In the case of conception, where it is legally found to be the
result of rape or incest, wherein the perpetrator
is of the party defined in Article III-A or B, their
consent shall not be required.

IV. Nations shall have the right to require whatever form
of "Family planning" counselling deemed neccessary
before the client(s) make their decision.

A)This counselling may include all applicable parties
including (sic.) the woman's legal spouse and in
the case of minors, their legal guardian(s).
B)Article IV-A shall never allow the inclusion of aforementioned
parties, wherein they are the perpetrator(s), in the case of rape
and/or incest.

V. Any nation exercising rights within Articles III and IV, wherein
the other required party does not consent, shall make the raising
and support of the child legally binding upon the said non-consenting
party.

A)Any failure by the non-consenting party to live up to their legal
obligations under this article shall be punishable under any
applicable law(s) of said nation.
B)If, under Article III-A,B and/or IV-A, additional consent is required,
and the other required party refuses to attend, they shall be automatically
considered consenting.
C)If, in the case of the client using any decieving means to prevent the
applicable additional party under Article III-A,B and/or IV-A from attending,
preventing their consent, the said client shall be held accountable in the
violation of any applicable law(s) of said nations.
D)For the purpose of enforcement under this article, institutions must
provide to the proper law-enforcement officials:
1)Certified contact information of the party/parties. Including:
a)Certified copies of letters.
b)Certificates of receipt.
c)Telephone recordings.
2)Either the original, or certified copies as such, of all applicable
consent forms.
E)Women shall have the right to request the paternal father of the fetus, and/or
his spouse be notified of the abortion.
1)For this provision to be operated, paternity tests must be conducted to
determine the paternal father.

VI. Definition of terms:
A) The term minor is defined under the applicable law(s) of each nation.
B) Refusal shall mean, any blatant refusal, where a party, in legally proven knowledge of their
duties, intentionally does not perform them.
C) Prevent shall mean, any legally proven action to deceive another from knowing or carrying
out a task or duty.
D) Consent is defined as, any physical document, providing the rights of another party to perform
an action, bearing the signature of the person who is allowing those actions.
E) Parties are defined as any person, group, or government, who are a signiary of the contract
or release.

VII. Any other regulation on abortion outside the scope of this Resolution shall be considered
interference, and stand in violation of the "Abortion Rights" Resolution.



Give us your opinions

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Alright, I see that many of you are as enraged by this resolution passing as I am. However, many of you are resigning from the UN. I do not think that is the way. We must instead, band together so that garbage like this doesn't pass again.

The UN was, and in my opinion, is not intended to force member nations to capitulate to the will of some of its members. That's not freedom and that's not 'choice'.

Again, no matter where you fall on the debate-your sovereignty as a nation has just been hijacked and apparently will continue to be so....so liberal wackos(lBTW liberalism doesn't justify this resolution nor would it support it. Liberlism supports the freedom of choice, my nations choice to do what it want when it wants.)

Well you have found an enemy in the Theocracy of Punk Daddy and I'm not going anywhere. Instead, I hope to organize the world majority who are against resolutions of this type.

you've been warned

ARGH This resolution did massive damage to my Political Freedom catagory..... and MARGINALLY raised the Civil Rights.....

We haven't changed at all…

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

This is getting quite tiresome....
Ok think about it, did YOU join the UN by CHOICE? Of course you did. If you dont like the decisions made by them then just LEAVE. The only reason that resolutions pass is not solely ideological reasons but debate. If you cant say something that either makes sense or some kind of reasoning other than "I dont like it" then who the hell cares what you have to say. You just become some moron whos a stubborn asshole and refuses look at the reality of the UN. Sure Id accept a roll back resolution but that dont mean it will get any repeals done. Form coliltions to oppose these things you oppose, and maybe you will get some things done. The UN sets some standards for its members not the whole goddamned world. Its supposed to be an big alliance; not a superstate.

Bennettia has hereby tendered its resignation from the United Nation. We will not allow any organization to prevent it from protecting all of its citizens. We believe that life starts at conception and any attempts to end that life before its natural course is immoral and we cannot be forced to accept a resolution prevents us from offering the protect all life deserves.

I love all the attacks on nations that are leaving. Thats so swell. I have already left. I did not expect the UN to have the ultimate supreme power. On an issue that is as toutchy as abortion, I think it was not thought through very well at all. I refuse to allow my nation's rights to be violated until a reform happens. I will not be part of a broken comitte.

Since the recent vague Abortion Rights bill essentially said nothing concrete, very little has changed in America the American. It isn't illegal to get an abortion anymore, but it's more impossible than ever to get one.

Medical insurance companies don't cover it, doctors don't perform it, basically the entire private sector does not provide for abortions - nothing in the language of the one-sentence bill required our private sector to do anything to provide abortions, it just said that UN nations will not prevent women from getting abortions. The nation isn't stopping you anymore, although it does regulate the provision of abortion with a special office which is renowned in the region for bureaucratic inefficiency. Anti-abortion activist groups and private security firms are doing their best to make it impossible to get an abortion, with tremendous success.

Needless to say, the government is vigilantly protecting the rights of these anti-abortion activists and companies. Analysts report that since these functions have been "privatized," they are more efficient than ever before. Studies show that the number of legal abortions being performed in The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™ after the Abortion Rights bill, zero, is lower than the small number of illegal abortions that used to take place before the bill.

Cordially,
Richard Held
Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Superpower™

Our nation sees the problem with "black market" (aka "back alley abortionist" and "coat hanger") abortion clinics, and thus there is a law against it.
We see only one small flaw in the idea of "trying to plan contraception" because there is no 100% failsafe contraception. Condoms break, some women are especially sensitive to/allergic to the pill, and not everyone has access to the morning after pill.
In other words - accidents happen.

Having said that, we try and educate the populace on methods of contraception, so that instances of failure are decreased and, if the morning after pill is needed, there are counsellors for its use, as are there
many counsellors with regards to the decision for abortion.

Also, although we allow abortion, it is ultimately
up to the individual couple (the woman ultimately, with the man's
counsel mattering, too) as to what happens.

On a final note, I'm not sure if this is an issue which should have gone
before the UN. I fail to see how what should be a national matter should
be the business of the UN.

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

then you dont belive in the bible.. either you belive in it 100% or you dont. you just choose and pick which portions you do belive in. you dont belive in the bible as a whole.

"The basic question of the whole debate about abortion is this: "When does life begin?" "

false. the basic question is who has the right to tell the mother she can or cannot stop the pregnancy at her option.

" I'm the father to 3 children and having watched their mother go through each pregnancy, I know that life begins at conception"

did you wife ever take hormonal pills to prevent pregnancy? if so then you are a murderer. by your own definition.

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

if life begins at conception which is medically defined as when the male sperm fertilizes the egg then any preventive measure to stop that fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is a form of abortion.

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

if life does not begin at conception then using birth control methods that use hormonal changes such as the birth control pill are not abortion or murder.

"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."

false. it is her body. you just want to remove her rights and choices as to what she can and cannot do to it.

"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. "

then by your view you have made pills that modify hormones to prevent pregnancy in either the male or female is illegal.

"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. "

by this definition then bacteria are alive. so by killing bacteria you are a murderer. since your body kills lots of bacteria then you are accountable for murder by being an accomplice to your body for carrying out its natural functions of your immune system.


1) if life begins at conception:

then birth control pills, contraceptive jellies, and any other form of birth control that can stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall or that can kill a fertilized egg would be murder.

2) if life begins when there is a measureable heart-beat and brain activity:

abortions should be legal within the first trimester. its not untill the 2nd trimester that the "baby" begins to take shape and form organs.

3) if life begins at birth:

then abortions are legal up untill natural conception and you cannot utilize any method to force conception.

4) if abortion is murder from moral/ethical views based on religion then see #1

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

then you dont belive in the bible.. either you belive in it 100% or you dont. you just choose and pick which portions you do belive in. you dont belive in the bible as a whole.



Wow, for someone who seems worried about peoples' rights to choose (ie mothers) you certainly don't care about other peoples' rights to choose. How are you coming off telling people how they can and cannot define their own moral black and white and gray. He CAN believe in only parts ofthe Bible if he wants (even though I don't see how not supporting aborton is against any part of the bible), that's his choice. Duh. You can't just take it away from him. Maybe you can make your own moral obligation to believe only the whole of the bible but I don't think you can dictate that to him without taking away his choice...
just an observation/

(even though I don't see how not supporting aborton is against any part of the bible),

It isn't. Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible but there are a number of verses that are interpreted as the do. I can post them if you want but I'll have to dig around…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)