NationStates Jolt Archive

This moronic organization has gone and done it again. They've passed a resolution that is borderline-despotic, as well as childish in its complexity and structure. Today, the Ascensian Guild of Physicians and Surgeons released a press statement regarding this unjust law, here is an exerpt: "As we are healers, not murderers, law-abiding citizens, and ethical in all matters pertaining to our profession, we will not follow this law. No member of the Medical Guild will perform an abortion, ever. This law has violated the Ascensian constitution, the right of every nation to determine its own domestic policies, and the right of individuals to grow and thrive as human beings." Would you wish to send police to arrest doctors who are trying to defend your own constitution? We do not. We will not make any efforts to enforce this law.

We hope that those who value freedom and self-determination will join us in this protest of U.N. policy.

Can I just ask anyone who is leaving the UN to edit their 'meet the reps' post so it is blank or saying 'retired'.

Oh… and bye.

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 moronic organization has gone and done it again. They've passed a resolution that is borderline-despotic, as well as childish in its complexity and structure. Today, the Ascensian Guild of Physicians and Surgeons released a press statement regarding this unjust law, here is an exerpt: "As we are healers, not murderers, law-abiding citizens, and ethical in all matters pertaining to our profession, we will not follow this law. No member of the Medical Guild will perform an abortion, ever. This law has violated the Ascensian constitution, the right of every nation to determine its own domestic policies, and the right of individuals to grow and thrive as human beings." Would you wish to send police to arrest doctors who are trying to defend your own constitution? We do not. We will not make any efforts to enforce this law.

We hope that those who value freedom and self-determination will join us in this protest of U.N. policy.

"As president of Corneliu, we applaude the decision of Ascensia! We are currently in the process of deciding to withdraw. This abortion law also violates the Corneliuan Constitution and I, as president, has stated that anyone caught providing an abortion, will be brought to trial and thrown in jail for the rest of their life."

President Server
Armed Galatic Empire of Corneliu

You can't choose which resolutions you follow and which you don't, like nations do in the real UN.
With the NS one, if you're in the UN, you're automatically following the resolutions.

In actuality, I agree that there are circumstances in which an abortion may need to be performed, and my views on abortion are my own.
Others may share them, they may not.

But I don't know if it's right for me to force my laws on the subject
upon others.

I mean, I don't like the idea of abortion being a "first line of defense", instead leaving it to if/when abstainence isn't chosen and other forms of contraception aren't applicable (e.g. in cases of rape/incest) or in cases where contraception does not work and/or the morning after pill is not available/the woman in question is allergic etc, and the woman chooses, with good counselling the process. In my country, I'd have it that abortions can be performed, however under certain circumstances, and that there must be a good range of education on contraception, and counselling, etc too. And, most importantly, I believe that it's the woman's choice, although she should - if applicable - consult her husband/partner on the subject.

BUT not everyone would say that. Some others would suggest that abortion under any circumstances is amoral/immoral, and that is, in my view, their nation's prerogative, and I don't know if a UN ruling has validity here.
Just my opinion.

- Tsorfinn

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

...I don't know if a UN ruling has validity here.
Just my opinion.

Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

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)

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

If you believe in Human rights then Abortion should be illegal! Fetuses are humans too and they need a voice, not an executioner! Im going to IGNORE THIS UN RESOLUTION! If you want to entangle with me, come and get me!

This UN Resolution is hereby ignored by order of the Corneliuan Congress

OOC:

You can't choose which resolutions you follow and which you don't, like nations do in the real UN.
With the NS one, if you're in the UN, you're automatically following the resolutions.

Actually, you can do it even more so than in the real UN, as there is no way to enforce UN dictates here - it's a political role playing game. IRL the UN at least has a few troops.

This resolution is ridiculous. My nation is an Islamic Government, and we must follow the rules of the Qu'ran. This is a violation of our right.

I'd also like to say that the UN resolutions are getting more retarded everytime.

"If you believe in Human rights then Abortion should be illegal! Fetuses are humans too and they need a voice, not an executioner!"


Did you forget that the mother is also a human who will have to live with the child in her for 9 months and go thru excrutiating pain only to either give up her child, and most likely regret it later, or give up her entire life , her hpoes and dreams, to take care of it----- in many situations the child will also live in conditions that would make it wish it could die

Whining governments;

Over-ruled, suckers. More people voted for this than against, and I believe it is clear where you are to go if you don't like it. After all, it isn't as if none of you were informed, when you made the free decision to join, that you must stick by resolutions you don't like.

Come up with some of your own non-retarded resolutions, if you want to alter the tide.

Sincerely,
The Greater Zognor Ministry of Get Over Yourself

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

I suggest you stop whining about the fact that many nations don't like, and won't enforce, your vague and illegal resolution.

In fact, being in the NSUN means that your nation is protected by the earlier resolution, Rights and Duties of UN States, which states:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Your resolution, all one sentence of it, cannot repeal earlier passed UN resolutions, according to the game mechanics.

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

Whining governments;

Over-ruled, suckers. More people voted for this than against, and I believe it is clear where you are to go if you don't like it. After all, it isn't as if none of you were informed, when you made the free decision to join, that you must stick by resolutions you don't like.

Come up with some of your own non-retarded resolutions, if you want to alter the tide.

Sincerely,
The Greater Zognor Ministry of Get Over Yourself

Whining meddler,

Ignored, sucker.

This resolution is one sentence. It doesn't say anything other than a vague statement of misguided liberal principle. It enacts nothing concrete that our nation is bound to respect, as protected by the previous UN resolution Rights and Duties of UN States.

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

Im going to IGNORE THIS UN RESOLUTION! If you want to entangle with me, come and get me!

This UN Resolution is hereby ignored by order of the Corneliuan Congress

then quit the un. what you are saying is that you want to be able to vote on issues to affect other countries - to impose your will on them - but don't want to be bound by resolutions that you don't like. this is the height of hypocrisy. you freely chose to subject your nation to the whims of the un when you joined. so you don't always get your way; welcome to democracy. a fairly good kind too, because it is a free association and you are free to leave at any time.

I mean, I don't like the idea of abortion being a "first line of defense",

And, most importantly, I believe that it's the woman's choice, although she should - if applicable - consult her husband/partner on the subject.



I am not entirely for or against abortion but I do have an opinion on a few issues here. First of all I aggre that it should not be a "first line of defense." I think that every woman in the world of NationStates who has gone through puberty should be provided with the pill (the kind you take everyday to prevent a sperm reaching the egg). Then if they want to take it they can or if not and they want to get pregnant they dont have to. This will also help out all you guys out there because the pill boosts the labedo (no idea how to spell that) of the women who take it in most cases, not to mention it is almost 100% effective.

I would like to thank doctor drew and loveline for teaching me that.

Secondly, I believe that a man/partner in crime should have some say as well in the matter. A birth of a child will affect both for the rest of their lives and if the male doesnt think he is ready for that then he should be able to have some say. This may seem a little extreme but, if the man doesnt want to have the baby but the woman decides to do so anyway then the male shouldn't have to pay naychild support for it. Or something along those lines. I'm sorry to any one offended by this but that is just the way I feel.

I mean, I don't like the idea of abortion being a "first line of defense",

And, most importantly, I believe that it's the woman's choice, although she should - if applicable - consult her husband/partner on the subject.



I am not entirely for or against abortion but I do have an opinion on a few issues here. First of all I aggre that it should not be a "first line of defense." I think that every woman in the world of NationStates who has gone through puberty should be provided with the pill (the kind you take everyday to prevent a sperm reaching the egg). Then if they want to take it they can or if not and they want to get pregnant they dont have to. This will also help out all you guys out there because the pill boosts the labedo (no idea how to spell that) of the women who take it in most cases, not to mention it is almost 100% effective.

I would like to thank doctor drew and loveline for teaching me that.

Secondly, I believe that a man/partner in crime should have some say as well in the matter. A birth of a child will affect both for the rest of their lives and if the male doesnt think he is ready for that then he should be able to have some say. This may seem a little extreme but, if the man doesnt want to have the baby but the woman decides to do so anyway then the male shouldn't have to pay naychild support for it. Or something along those lines. I'm sorry to any one offended by this but that is just the way I feel.

I mean, I don't like the idea of abortion being a "first line of defense",

And, most importantly, I believe that it's the woman's choice, although she should - if applicable - consult her husband/partner on the subject.



I am not entirely for or against abortion but I do have an opinion on a few issues here. First of all I aggre that it should not be a "first line of defense." I think that every woman in the world of NationStates who has gone through puberty should be provided with the pill (the kind you take everyday to prevent a sperm reaching the egg). Then if they want to take it they can or if not and they want to get pregnant they dont have to. This will also help out all you guys out there because the pill boosts the labedo (no idea how to spell that) of the women who take it in most cases, not to mention it is almost 100% effective.

I would like to thank doctor drew and loveline for teaching me that.

Secondly, I believe that a man/partner in crime should have some say as well in the matter. A birth of a child will affect both for the rest of their lives and if the male doesnt think he is ready for that then he should be able to have some say. This may seem a little extreme but, if the man doesnt want to have the baby but the woman decides to do so anyway then the male shouldn't have to pay naychild support for it. Or something along those lines. I'm sorry to any one offended by this but that is just the way I feel.

I believe if both of these are adopted then the world will be a better place.

get over it. people die. sh!t happens. you are either shanked by a doctor before your neurons have developed, starving to death in somolia, living in luxery till you choke on your fancy food, or you never become more than a gametotype (or whatever) in life.

calm down. you'll all get to heaven (or whatever your delusion/mythology claims) eventually.

Come on now. I think you're just jealous that the fetus gets to skip suffering on earth.

Well Jesus got to skip suffering on earth for about half a century by his little suicide/martyrdom bit. So don't be whining about how it's unfair.

"Tie the b!tch's tubes!!!1"

I'm sorry. I don't know where that came from. I just had to say it.

Im going to IGNORE THIS UN RESOLUTION! If you want to entangle with me, come and get me!

This UN Resolution is hereby ignored by order of the Corneliuan Congress

then quit the un. what you are saying is that you want to be able to vote on issues to affect other countries - to impose your will on them - but don't want to be bound by resolutions that you don't like. this is the height of hypocrisy. you freely chose to subject your nation to the whims of the un when you joined. so you don't always get your way; welcome to democracy. a fairly good kind too, because it is a free association and you are free to leave at any time.

eh. Bush ignored the war crimes resolution by the UN. That's why they haven't nailed his ass to the wall.
He also refused to sign the landmine treaty. Which is good, I guess, cause it does help stop starvation in Africa...
by blowing people up.
:lol:

"Our lord Saipea is incredibly vague. But we have no right to question him. No no, musn't think for ourselves, for that is a sin."

You damn right. You puny humans are too stupid to follow my infalliable logic.

...I don't know if a UN ruling has validity here.

Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

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 in fact deeply contradictory reasoning.

The UN can, by that reasoning, clearly repeal proposals, too, and violate every other game rule that requires enforcement because the option to make such proposals exists.

Rights and Duties of UN States. It's on the books. Can't be repealed. Don't like it? Tough. Quit the UN. Stop whining.

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

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

[/quote]Did you forget that the mother is also a human who will have to live with the child in her for 9 months and go thru excrutiating pain only to either give up her child, and most likely regret it later, or give up her entire life , her hpoes and dreams, to take care of it[/quote]

Then maybe the slut should have kept her legs together!

"If you're gonna dance, you have to pay the fiddler!"

[/quote]
"If you're gonna dance, you have to pay the fiddler!"[/quote]

hehe i like that. Good motto

...I don't know if a UN ruling has validity here.

Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

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 in fact deeply contradictory reasoning.

The UN can, by that reasoning, clearly repeal proposals, too, and violate every other game rule that requires enforcement because the option to make such proposals exists.

Rights and Duties of UN States. It's on the books. Can't be repealed. Don't like it? Tough. Quit the UN. Stop whining.

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

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

The difference being that it is down to we, the moderators, to remove proposals which aren't allowed. A ban on proposals that 'infringe on national sovereignty' would require the Game Mods to manually sort through and remove all proposals which do so. That would be 95% of proposals.
Repeal proposals are simply not possible because of the way the UN works. As such, we remove them.
When a resolution passes, it is automatically enforced in the UN member nations. It cannot be avoided. You can pretend it can, but it doesn't affect the fact that the changes have already been made to your nation.

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

Vistadin, the problem - as I said in my telegram to you earlier this week - is that you do not have the right to propose laws. That is a matter for national governments. You are encouraging people who don't like the resolution to leave the UN, I can only presume that this is so there is less opposition and more foolish, poor thought out resolutions can be passed more easily.

I won't involve myself in debating the rights and wrongs of abortion, but as I said in my telegram to you, I believe it was irresponsible of you to bring such a sensitive issue into a game.

I was seriusly irritated after the "Public Domain" resolution got aproved, and when I saw that it was inevitable that the abortion resolution was going to be aproved, I withdrew my membership from the UN. There have been several resolutions I was against, but those two where simply absurd (not to say incredibly stupid) and where the act of an over inflated ego of people with small brains. They got aproved by a mass of mindless voters that lack any insight in legislation, laws and rights.

My suggestion is for all nations and regions that are against these type of resolutions getting passed to withdraw their membership from the UN and boycott it. Make it obsolete until moderators or who ever controls the mechanics of the UN decide to take hands into this and eliminate that sort of resolutions.

The Dominion of the Danimal left the UN after the abortions rights act was passed. No organization that would pass something like this is worth being apart of.

I left the UN right before this bill passed so that it would not affect my country. I know you couldn't do that in the real UN, but in the real UN you could also refuse to enforce the resolution.

I also intend to stay out of it for now until an issue comes along where people don't vote on it so childishly and foolishly.

the Hiios council ruled the act a violation of human rights as well as an infringement on national sovereignty and it was repealed seconds after it was implemented.

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

Human rights? But, no children's rights!

JRV agrees with Saipea. If you are Christian, then what is the deal? My goodness, it tells us in the Bible we those who dishonor their parents can be at the worst punished by death! Yes, I know that even Christians don't often take the Bible word for word, but then I don't want to hear justification for such things as homophobia from the Bible.

"Tie the b!tch's tubes!!!1"

I'm sorry. I don't know where that came from. I just had to say it.

That I don't think I agree with, ah well...

I believe this is medical proof that the majority of the U.N. is suffering from the debilitating disease, analocuphelia. (Where a person's vision is obstructed by their own <edited for content>-hole) Maybe we should write a resolution campaigning on curing this horrible disease....

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

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

Fenure has enacted the folowing measures to stop the injustice the proposal has caused.

1. Any medical doctor performing a abortion shall have his or her medical lisence revoked and shall be sent to jail for no less than five years per instance.
2. Any medical location performing abortions shall be closed and all doctors in that location performing abortions shall have their lisences revoked and shall be sent to jail for no less than five years per instance.
3. Any person caught informing a woman how to perform a abortion on her own shall be sent to jail for no less than two yers per instance and if appliable shall lose his or her medical lisence.


We feel that none of these laws violate the vauge, one sentence proposal that we have been forced to abide by. None of these laws directly prevents a woman from have an abortion.

double post

Altho i wish to stay with the Un, i will not enforce this in my country, my people are encourages through various means to have a the baby and give to to a needy parent or put it on our Great Island where unwanted children and mutations go.
This was a vERY stupid idea, almost as stupid as making the entire UN countries have absolutly no defence against nuclear war, ah well.
I encourage all UN nations to offer benifets to your people if they go through with unwanted pregnancies. Such as alternate home for the children or an income and free baby care.

Since when does the UN create laws about Abortion? In addition to being illegal, "civil rights" such as abortion are established by nations and not "governing" multi-national authorities like the UN. If that was the case then China would not be the civil rights mess it is right now. I wish people would know what they're talking about before they propose these "laws."

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

First off - I doubt that 70% of all people truly THINK about what they're agreeing too. Hell, 75% of US Congress signed the Patriot Act without even reading it! (Yes, this is an actual statistic).

While the right for women to have abortions is all well and just, but it doesn't DO anything. All the most recent UN Law does is give women the RIGHT to have an abortion. It doesn't state ANYTHING about doctors having to PERFORM abortions. In this cause - abortions can still be illegal; despite a woman's choice to have them.

Aiurtroshia, you may have a point. A large number of people probably haven't thought through as well as others have. I for one have considered this argument extensivelymany times, long before I even joined NS (which was only a few days ago). And I stand by my support for the resolution.

Countries which are happy to send unwanted children to isolated islands with mutants and have the nerve to argue against abortion... are just down right hypocrites.

Now to worry about this stupid Nuclear arms resolution which I do not support.

Interesting that many supporters of this resolution say...suck it up and deal.

Doesn't sound very internationally diplomatic to me, but I guess that's not what this UN is about.

The tide will begin to turn on these resolutions and then we'll see who's running away from the UN.

:lol:

Heh... what you must understand is that if the resolution had gone the other way, people such as yourself would probably be saying the same to people such as myself.

Women should definitely have the right to choose. I think that its necessary, especially for teenage pregnancies. It ends up ruining two lives.
People should have kids when they're ready.
Is it a life? Yeah. So are the spiders you kill. So are the animals you eat.
Anti-Abortionists should stop being hypocritical and become Vegan.

'Heh... what you must understand is that if the resolution had gone the other way, people such as yourself would probably be saying the same to people such as myself.'


Uh no...because if this resolution had passed i could care less how you chose to deal with abortion......

...since it passed I am forced to adhere to a position which I do not feel the UN had a right to pound over my head even if I agree with the resolution. Just because I may agree that abortion is ok, doesn't mean I agree that the UN should force it's members to make abortion legal among all members. I hold that the right to choose one's government above the UN's 'duty' to enact activist legislation.

That's my opinion...snd apparently many agree so the point then is to harness these opinions to work as one.....

That day is coming...and very soon. 8)

...I don't know if a UN ruling has validity here.

Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

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 in fact deeply contradictory reasoning.

The UN can, by that reasoning, clearly repeal proposals, too, and violate every other game rule that requires enforcement because the option to make such proposals exists.

Rights and Duties of UN States. It's on the books. Can't be repealed. Don't like it? Tough. Quit the UN. Stop whining.

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

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

The difference being that it is down to we, the moderators, to remove proposals which aren't allowed. A ban on proposals that 'infringe on national sovereignty' would require the Game Mods to manually sort through and remove all proposals which do so. That would be 95% of proposals.
Repeal proposals are simply not possible because of the way the UN works. As such, we remove them.
When a resolution passes, it is automatically enforced in the UN member nations. It cannot be avoided. You can pretend it can, but it doesn't affect the fact that the changes have already been made to your nation.
OOC: Pardon me if you find this disrespectful... but what the hell? Isn't this a roleplaying game? Don't we get to play out the actions of our nations in any way we choose? If I choose to have my government ignore this law, that's my choice as a player. I could be ejected from the U.N. along with others who ignore the laws, yes, but I can ignore them. You're telling people they can only RP their nations in a certain way, what room does this leave for creativity? You're saying that because we're in the U.N., we have absolutely no choice in this aspect of RP. Why have the U.N. at all then? Half of the coolness of the real U.N. and model U.N.s is the ability to have disputes, to say 'screw this!', and to slap the hell out of people to try and make them follow the rules. You're shortchanging this game by trying to force people to play in a certain way. Sorry again if you're offended by my strong statements.

OOC: I've gotten that feeling too recently.... Alot of us are RP'ing as anywhere else, we have our own personas, and we're acting how our nation were to act if this was real. I mean, if people are going to tell me I can't be running around IC then the entire game is meaningless. I mean come on people, there is no IGNORE cannon IC, OOC maybe, but IC we're acting according to the path and character of our respective nations. Alot of you, mods including, need to divide the concepts of OOC and IC here. It's all part of the game, threating to resign, worrying about national security... it's all IC RP activities. Because that is what would be happening if all this was real.

I was seriusly irritated after the "Public Domain" resolution got aproved, and when I saw that it was inevitable that the abortion resolution was going to be aproved, I withdrew my membership from the UN. There have been several resolutions I was against, but those two where simply absurd (not to say incredibly stupid) and where the act of an over inflated ego of people with small brains. They got aproved by a mass of mindless voters that lack any insight in legislation, laws and rights.

My suggestion is for all nations and regions that are against these type of resolutions getting passed to withdraw their membership from the UN and boycott it. Make it obsolete until moderators or who ever controls the mechanics of the UN decide to take hands into this and eliminate that sort of resolutions.

^ ^ ^ Vacant Planets tells the truth. It seems to me that on the abortion, there are far more anti-s than pro-s on this forum.

The problem is that we, the players, control the UN. Too many people vote for a resolution without reading it. Theres not a lot we can do about that. I think that the problem is people resign from the UN in disgust, so there are less people to vote against these poorly thought out resolutions, so more of them seem to be passing.

OOC: ...concepts of OOC and IC here. It's all part of the game, threating to resign, worrying about national security... it's all IC RP activities. Because that is what would be happening if all this was real.

OOC: A valid point; but if you browse through the forums - only TWO of the forums actually say "In-Character," this not being one of them.

It's completly fine that you believe woman should have the right to chose, I'm mostly with you on that one. HOWEVER, the Abortion Rights resolution did nothing accept give women the right to chose. A doctor can still deny her, and the government in which she lives can still outlaw abortions, since it did nothing else accept give woman the right to choose.

In Modern America, as many people can argue this topic as they like - it's their choice. Women can go out and get abortions if they choose too, there are clinics that will do so. However, there are also MANY doctors that believe killing a child past a certain trimester is against their Oath. There are some doctors that won't even do it. So tell me, how has this Resolution done ANYTHING accept give empowerment to women by allowing them to say; "Look! I can choose if I want one or not!" In reality, the ability to say something like that means absolutly nothing. You can't force doctors to give abortions, since it can be a very disgusting sight.

I mean, I don't like the idea of abortion being a "first line of defense",

And, most importantly, I believe that it's the woman's choice, although she should - if applicable - consult her husband/partner on the subject.



I am not entirely for or against abortion but I do have an opinion on a few issues here. First of all I aggre that it should not be a "first line of defense." I think that every woman in the world of NationStates who has gone through puberty should be provided with the pill (the kind you take everyday to prevent a sperm reaching the egg). Then if they want to take it they can or if not and they want to get pregnant they dont have to. This will also help out all you guys out there because the pill boosts the labedo (no idea how to spell that) of the women who take it in most cases, not to mention it is almost 100% effective.

I would like to thank doctor drew and loveline for teaching me that.

Secondly, I believe that a man/partner in crime should have some say as well in the matter. A birth of a child will affect both for the rest of their lives and if the male doesnt think he is ready for that then he should be able to have some say. This may seem a little extreme but, if the man doesnt want to have the baby but the woman decides to do so anyway then the male shouldn't have to pay naychild support for it. Or something along those lines. I'm sorry to any one offended by this but that is just the way I feel.

What many people don't realize is that an Abortion is EXCRUTIATINGLY painful, so noone of right mind will use it as a first line of defense. As for all the people who will "ignore" this law because "the un can't inforce it", The UN doesn't have to, the GAME inforces it. All member nations automatically adhere to any UN resolution passed after they join. Course this also means that none of the resolutions that passed BEFORE you joined applied to you. Finally, UN membership is not mandatory, if you disagree with the way things work, either leave or do something productive to change it. Don't just sit there and whine because over half of the nations in the UN disagree with your personal beliefs. Or better yet, here's a BRILLIANT idea, make a proposal requiring that all proposals require a 2/3rds majority to pass (I would have, even though I agree with this particular resolution, but I lack the endorsements).

While I am for abortions (atleast the ones early in the stages of development) I am totally against this resolution. The UN has no place in choosing the domestic policies of regions. The UN was created to make resolutions concerning international affairs. So, our UN should only be voting on resolutions that have to do with peace and security issues, economic and social issues, very basic international human rights issues (like the ones set down by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, found here (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)), humanitarian aid issues, and international law. So, we cannot dictate the domestic policies of UN member countries, making the last 3 resolutions against the principles of the UN. Now in my mind, since the mods won't do anything about it, this should allow the nations who do not want their domestic issues to be dictated by the UN to not accept the last 3 resolutions passed.

...I don't know if a UN ruling has validity here.

Also, proposals about the UN not being allowed to infringe on "national sovereignty" are Game Mechanics things as well - clearly the UN can infringe on whatever it wants because the option to make such proposals exists.

This is in fact deeply contradictory reasoning.

The UN can, by that reasoning, clearly repeal proposals, too, and violate every other game rule that requires enforcement because the option to make such proposals exists.

Rights and Duties of UN States. It's on the books. Can't be repealed. Don't like it? Tough. Quit the UN. Stop whining.

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

The difference being that it is down to we, the moderators, to remove proposals which aren't allowed. A ban on proposals that 'infringe on national sovereignty' would require the Game Mods to manually sort through and remove all proposals which do so. That would be 95% of proposals.
Repeal proposals are simply not possible because of the way the UN works. As such, we remove them.
When a resolution passes, it is automatically enforced in the UN member nations. It cannot be avoided. You can pretend it can, but it doesn't affect the fact that the changes have already been made to your nation.
OOC: Pardon me if you find this disrespectful... but what the hell? Isn't this a roleplaying game? Don't we get to play out the actions of our nations in any way we choose? If I choose to have my government ignore this law, that's my choice as a player. I could be ejected from the U.N. along with others who ignore the laws, yes, but I can ignore them. You're telling people they can only RP their nations in a certain way, what room does this leave for creativity? You're saying that because we're in the U.N., we have absolutely no choice in this aspect of RP. Why have the U.N. at all then? Half of the coolness of the real U.N. and model U.N.s is the ability to have disputes, to say 'screw this!', and to slap the hell out of people to try and make them follow the rules. You're shortchanging this game by trying to force people to play in a certain way. Sorry again if you're offended by my strong statements.

OOC:

Even though you are making every effort to be polite, based on the reactions I have had from mods in these forums, they will take offense to your criticism.

Myrth's post above clearly outlines that the effective veto in this UN is the mods. First he admits that the mods ignore resolutions that repeal the UN Bill 'Rights and Duties of UN States,' which is on the books, because it would be too tedious for them. Then he says that they remove repeals.

How do they decide which repeals to remove? The 'Abortion Rights' bill was a clear repeal of portions of 'Rights and Duties of UN States.' Therefore there is selctive enforcement happening, which reflects the politics of the mods and admins - the totally unaccountable Central Soviet of the UN.

As for the "automatic" enforcement of UN bills on member nations - the game statistics are automatically changed, in terms of economy, political freedoms, and civil rights. However, that is not all there is to these bills, which is why they have descriptions. The descriptions are typically what people object to. Everything in the description is entirely subject to how you want to RP it.

For example...

IC:

Since the recent vague abortion 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 still impossible 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 us 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 anti-abortion activist groups and private security companies are doing their best to make it impossible to get one, with tremendous success. Needless to say, the government is vigilantly protecting the rights of these fine anti-abortion activists and companies.

Analysts agree that since such functions have been "privatized," it's even more difficult to procure an abortion within the borders of The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Superpower™.

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

double post

In fact, being in the NSUN means that your nation is protected by the earlier resolution, Rights and Duties of UN States, which states:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Your resolution, all one sentence of it, cannot repeal earlier passed UN resolutions, according to the game mechanics.

Odd you quoted articles 1-3 but not 10 and 11, isn't it? Now, why would that be?

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Ah, because it utterly destroys your argument.

Seriously, making the UN non-ridiculous is a worthy cause, but lying about conflicts between resolutions isn't the way to go about it.

What many people don't realize is that an Abortion is EXCRUTIATINGLY painful, so noone of right mind will use it as a first line of defense. As for all the people who will "ignore" this law because "the un can't inforce it", The UN doesn't have to, the GAME inforces it. All member nations automatically adhere to any UN resolution passed after they join. Course this also means that none of the resolutions that passed BEFORE you joined applied to you. Finally, UN membership is not mandatory, if you disagree with the way things work, either leave or do something productive to change it. Don't just sit there and whine because over half of the nations in the UN disagree with your personal beliefs. Or better yet, here's a BRILLIANT idea, make a proposal requiring that all proposals require a 2/3rds majority to pass (I would have, even though I agree with this particular resolution, but I lack the endorsements).

Here, here.

Or better yet, here's a BRILLIANT idea, make a proposal requiring that all proposals require a 2/3rds majority to pass (I would have, even though I agree with this particular resolution, but I lack the endorsements).

Wouldn't people be screaming "Game Mechanics" if that got proposed?

I wonder how a proposal/resolution stating the obligation of UN members to read resolutions carefully before voting would fare.

What many people don't realize is that an Abortion is EXCRUTIATINGLY painful, so noone of right mind will use it as a first line of defense. As for all the people who will "ignore" this law because "the un can't inforce it", The UN doesn't have to, the GAME inforces it. All member nations automatically adhere to any UN resolution passed after they join. Course this also means that none of the resolutions that passed BEFORE you joined applied to you. Finally, UN membership is not mandatory, if you disagree with the way things work, either leave or do something productive to change it. Don't just sit there and whine because over half of the nations in the UN disagree with your personal beliefs. Or better yet, here's a BRILLIANT idea, make a proposal requiring that all proposals require a 2/3rds majority to pass (I would have, even though I agree with this particular resolution, but I lack the endorsements).

Here, here.
So, the U.N. should only be made up of people who agree? That seems pretty boring to me? Maybe it's just be, but I thought the purpose of the U.N. was international debate... Course not, we all believe in every resolution the U.N. passes, don't we? :roll:

'Heh... what you must understand is that if the resolution had gone the other way, people such as yourself would probably be saying the same to people such as myself.'


Uh no...because if this resolution had passed i could care less how you chose to deal with abortion......

...since it passed I am forced to adhere to a position which I do not feel the UN had a right to pound over my head even if I agree with the resolution. Just because I may agree that abortion is ok, doesn't mean I agree that the UN should force it's members to make abortion legal among all members. I hold that the right to choose one's government above the UN's 'duty' to enact activist legislation.

That's my opinion...snd apparently many agree so the point then is to harness these opinions to work as one.....

That day is coming...and very soon. 8)

The problem is... the liberals have already harnessed their voting power. They think the same way. Conservatives tend to bicker to much with themselves. Even if you could harness your votes, their wouldn't be enough of them to matter. Unless everyine reapplied to the UN....
I voted yes on this resolution, but it was a very tough choice. I believe in abortion, however, it did infringe on national sovreignity. I really don't know. The best thing to do is to leave the UN, thats what I did when the anti-nuke act popped up. Even though it is losing now, it 's just extremely unbelievable that something that liberal could get into the UN. You see, you can educate against abortion, brainwash, harass, whatever whoever performs them, you just can't make it officially illegal to have abortions, you see? Or you could harness the economic power of it and make alot of money. (Privatize it, inflate the costs, gov. agency, etc.) It's all up to you. The thing is, you have a choice, which is slightly coercive:
1) Accept it, 2) Leave the UN, 3)Whatever else you can think of.


As for tie the bitches tubes, that would be the same thing as abortion, you're restricting the ovum's rights to become a zygote. Or, more precisly, it is the same as stem cell research, where eggs are used to produce life saving tissues, etc. It appears that some right-extremists are against allowing that. As for the slut keeping her legs closed, apparently your nation needs a boost in education, so it can brainwash the "inferior" women not to have sex until they're married, and once they are to make lots and lots of babies, and not use contraceptives. Besides, that once again is restricting ovum rights. Also, the man-slut/fiddler should have kept his snake in his pants. Unless it was only the woman's fault for getting pregnant, in which case the man has no right to have a portion of the choice in the abortion. As for adoptiion, that's no bien. One of my parents was adopted, and it really hurts him to know:
1) their "real" parents didn't want them 2) they'll never know who they were 3) their adoptive parents never told them they were, they found a document telling that they were adopted, etc. Adoption causes sever emotional harm. Also, adoption forces the mother to possibly:
1) skip school 2) forfeit her future life, due to lack of education/ social outcast, including a good job, retirement, etc. (punishing people for bringing children into the world, eh?)
3)deal with the loss of the fetus(worse than abortion, she went through birth and pregnancy compared to pop in the first trimester, lots of emotional harm) etc.
And she shouldn't have to keep the baby either. Since she lacks proper education, she lacks a good job, lacks money, therefore she needs the abomidible WELFARE!!!!! to stay alive. Not to mention if they don't recieve it they'll propbably starve, freeze, etc.

It's your choice, but all you pro-lifers can say is:
"Fetus' rights" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've told you why abortion is more humane than anything else, if the fetus is UNWANTED BY THE MOTHER. So I'll claim:
1) morality 2) child's rights 3) mother's rights 4) taxpayer's rights5) economic power 6) non-coercize, there are to many choices and loopholes 7) adoption, keeping the baby, other options no solvency
8) others that I forgot to list.
So the case outweighs. Obviously abortion is better in the case the mother doesn't wan't the fetus.

Also, be happy the proposal is so short. You can loophole the s%#t out of it.

You're choice.

Dictator LG

I'm sorry if you don't like the law I proposed. But it has passed. And considering only UN members have to be in accordance with resolutions, I suggest you either stop whining like a little kid and forget about it or get yourself out of the United Nations. You gave up some of your sovereignty when you joined the UN. I am not forcing abortions on anyone, a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to discontinue her pregnancy. It is her right. I'm sorry I believe in human rights, but that's just how I am. ;-)

If you believe in Human rights then Abortion should be illegal! Fetuses are humans too and they need a voice, not an executioner! Im going to IGNORE THIS UN RESOLUTION! If you want to entangle with me, come and get me!

This UN Resolution is hereby ignored by order of the Corneliuan Congress

Vistadin and Corneliu appear to be represented by the irresponsible and the unhinged. How sad for them.

The problem is... the liberals have already harnessed their voting power. They think the same way. Conservatives tend to bicker to much with themselves.

Strange. It's usually the other way round.

Vistadin and Corneliu appear to be represented by the irresponsible and the unhinged. How sad for them.

I take high offense to this. I am not irresponsible nor unhinged. I just have a since of moral guideness that seems to be lacking in most peoples brain. My nation has outlawed abortion except in extreme circumstances. Not going to reveal what they are because if you don't know, then you dumber than I thought.

You can say you can't do this, I really don't care. My nation, my way to run it. If you don't like it well that is just to bad. That proposal violates my right to self-rule and I will ignore it on that bounds.

Sincerly,

President Server
Armed Galatic Empire of Corneliu!

Leylsh is in the process of deciding whether or not to withdraw from the UN because of this resolution. It goes against the Leylsh Constitution. Since it has been passed, the government of Leylsh see no other option, besides ignoring the law all together, which is quite unethical.

Vistadin and Corneliu appear to be represented by the irresponsible and the unhinged. How sad for them.

I take high offense to this. I am not irresponsible nor unhinged. I just have a since of moral guideness that seems to be lacking in most peoples brain. My nation has outlawed abortion except in extreme circumstances. Not going to reveal what they are because if you don't know, then you dumber than I thought.

You can say you can't do this, I really don't care. My nation, my way to run it. If you don't like it well that is just to bad. That proposal violates my right to self-rule and I will ignore it on that bounds.

Sincerly,

President Server
Armed Galatic Empire of Corneliu!

I wasn't objecting to your position on abortion (although Ecopoeia is pro-choice, we voted against the resolution for reasons that have been discussed to death). Your intransigence and inability to appreciate that the resolution has been enforced by the UN is indicative of 'unhinged' behaviour. Your subsequent response has not served to give me any confidence in your leadership.

In fairness, most of my scorn was reserved for the nation of Vistadin.

I take high offense to this. I am not irresponsible nor unhinged. I just have a since of moral guideness that seems to be lacking in most peoples brain. My nation has outlawed abortion except in extreme circumstances. Not going to reveal what they are because if you don't know, then you dumber than I thought.

You can say you can't do this, I really don't care. My nation, my way to run it. If you don't like it well that is just to bad. That proposal violates my right to self-rule and I will ignore it on that bounds.

Actually, it's the other way round. You can say you can outlaw abortion, but since you are a member of the UN, abortion is legal in your nation. Regardless of how much you whine, cry, grumble, complain and moan like a spoilt little child*.

You can pretend you have outlawed it in your own little mind (further clues pointing to you being unhinged), but the simple fact is you haven't. No arguements, no debate, it's legal. Live with it kiddo. It's game mechanics and your moaning is not going to change that.

*Unless you leave the UN, of course.

This is getting ridiculous!

I'm pro choice on this issue but i highly respect other's views on this matter and i am outraged to see the UN degenerating into people hurling insults at each other - you sound like children, not responsible members of the governments you represent and this is unacceptable

The worst thing is that pro-choice indicates that you are aware that some people DO NOT want to have abortions otherwise you'd have to make them compulsary or illegal and by saying you allow people to have that choice, you aren't allowed to complain about those who have made their choice, even if it conflicts with your views

By the same token, though, those who want abortion made illegal have to remember that being ruler of a happy, respectable nation is to give people what they want and remember that by making abortions legal, it doesn't mean 5,000,000 pregnant women are going to run out and get abortions - it means that they are now going to have the choice that some of them want to have and not all of them will chose against your beliefs

No-one has any right to complain about what i just said because you all know what i said was true, whether you like to believe it or not

I would recommend that the mods lock this thread if they can as i don't feel that it's appropriate to the UN to argue like school-kids over any issue - it's been voted for and has passed whether you like it or not and those of you who are happy about it's passing have no right to insult others because of their views - i wish i had voted against this resolution now, i can only hope that those who did vote against it can accept my apology and forgive me for my mistake :(

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

pnlrogue1

The National Congress as well as the Cabinet have denounced this. All sides voted together to denounce it and in the same token, reject it out of hand. It says that laws have been inacted but there is no way to enfore it. My people don't want abortion legalized. My people are allowed to marry young. The marriage age in my country is fifteen. As such, i'm going with my poplulation. Abortion remains illegal.

President Server
Armed Galatic Empire of Corneliu

The National Congress as well as the Cabinet have denounced this. All sides voted together to denounce it and in the same token, reject it out of hand. It says that laws have been inacted but there is no way to enfore it. My people don't want abortion legalized. My people are allowed to marry young. The marriage age in my country is fifteen. As such, i'm going with my poplulation. Abortion remains illegal.

President Server
Armed Galatic Empire of Corneliu

It is legal under the Corneliuan (apologies if that is an incorrect term) constitution for a woman to seek an abortion for as long as Corneliu is a member of the United Nations. There is no way around this. However, you may be able to exploit the brevity of the resolution by discouraging doctors and so on from performing abortions. How you discourage them I leave up to you.

Bear in mind that if your people are so adamantly opposed to abortion, then they will neither seek to have nor perform abortions. In which case you have nothing to worry about. This is a highly unlikely scenario, however. So, you stigmatise abortion to the degree that no one will seek to go throught with the procedure.

Alternatively, you leave the UN.

I hope this has been of some help. Such scheming leaves a nasty taste in my mouth, but I would prefer to see your nation's leadership adopt a rational position on this emotive and arguably morally ambiguous issue.

Kind regards.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs
The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia

Two doctors have been executed already. And besides, the majority of pregnancies are under the age of 18. Not a vast majority but a majority. The woman are appaled at this and we still might leave the UN.

As for discouraging, execution is as much a deterant than prison. Executed for comitting murder. Doctors are seeing this. They know the pschyological effects of abortion as well as the medical effets hence why the docs wont do it anyway. So technically I'm ignoring it but by the same token, no doctor will perform it since it goes against their oaths as a doctor to DO NO HARM!

PS: Corneliuan is the correct term :)

Ecopoeia: Thank you for reinterating what I have been TRYING to tell Corneliu for the last few hours, in more polite terminology than I am currently using....it's difficult to stay patient with such difficult induviduals.

Anadolu fears that this resolution will result in what has been called "American justice." Those laws that the government favors and can enforce are enforced thoroughly. Those laws that are unrealistic, unpopular, or impossible to enforce are rarely followed, however.

We urge that any nation that finds the UN charter and legislation unsavory leave immediately. Laws are to be just and followed or unjust and repealed. If you refuse both, the entire system collapses. But to have laws on the books which one neither believes in nor enforces... That is apathy to the point of sin.

Corneliu,

I do hope you have been following you obligations on other UN resolutions as well old boy.

Notably Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States “Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.”

In addition, I do hope those two doctors had the right to a fair trial – as described under “Definition of 'Fair Trial',” “Due Process,” “The Universal Bill of Rights” and “Fair trial”

Of course, we know they could not have, else under international law set by the UN, they would have been determined innocent, and allowed to walk freely.

You want to try and get round it again? You’ve just made it worse for yourself – not only are you failing to fulfil your obligations on “Abortion Rights” but also apparently the above resolutions.

The door is just over there old boy.

Corneliu,

I do hope you have been following you obligations on other UN resolutions as well old boy.

Notably Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States “Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.”

In addition, I do hope those two doctors had the right to a fair trial – as described under “Definition of 'Fair Trial',” “Due Process,” “The Universal Bill of Rights” and “Fair trial”

Of course, we know they could not have, else under international law set by the UN, they would have been determined innocent, and allowed to walk freely.

You want to try and get round it again? You’ve just made it worse for yourself – not only are you failing to fulfil your obligations on “Abortion Rights” but also apparently the above resolutions.

The door is just over there old boy.

That was uncalled for - besides, unless I'm mistaken, while legal to have an abortion, it may yet be illegal to perform one in his nation, just like smoking under 16 is legal but buying cigarrettes/selling them to under 16s is illegal...

This moronic organization has gone and done it again. They've passed a resolution that is borderline-despotic, as well as childish in its complexity and structure. Today, the Ascensian Guild of Physicians and Surgeons released a press statement regarding this unjust law, here is an exerpt: "As we are healers, not murderers, law-abiding citizens, and ethical in all matters pertaining to our profession, we will not follow this law. No member of the Medical Guild will perform an abortion, ever. This law has violated the Ascensian constitution, the right of every nation to determine its own domestic policies, and the right of individuals to grow and thrive as human beings." Would you wish to send police to arrest doctors who are trying to defend your own constitution? We do not. We will not make any efforts to enforce this law.

We hope that those who value freedom and self-determination will join us in this protest of U.N. policy.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Kitsune Island is firmly in consensus and support of this action against the violation of basic human rights, including and especially the right of ALL people, outside of or inside of the womb, to develop and have a life.

This resolution is ridiculous. My nation is an Islamic Government, and we must follow the rules of the Qu'ran. This is a violation of our right.

I'd also like to say that the UN resolutions are getting more retarded everytime.

Yes, there are ways that these issues violate simple religious rights, too. My government is Christian, and as a Catholic myself I cannot allow such infringement of my right.

"If you believe in Human rights then Abortion should be illegal! Fetuses are humans too and they need a voice, not an executioner!"


Did you forget that the mother is also a human who will have to live with the child in her for 9 months and go thru excrutiating pain only to either give up her child, and most likely regret it later, or give up her entire life , her hpoes and dreams, to take care of it----- in many situations the child will also live in conditions that would make it wish it could die

Opportunity knocks at what seems like the worst time of night, bearing extra flashlights. Better to live than never know if you even HAD a chance of making it big. If the woman didn't want to make that sacrifice for her child (an utmost expression of love) why'd she "spread her legs?"

I mean, I don't like the idea of abortion being a "first line of defense",

And, most importantly, I believe that it's the woman's choice, although she should - if applicable - consult her husband/partner on the subject.



I am not entirely for or against abortion but I do have an opinion on a few issues here. First of all I aggre that it should not be a "first line of defense." I think that every woman in the world of NationStates who has gone through puberty should be provided with the pill (the kind you take everyday to prevent a sperm reaching the egg). Then if they want to take it they can or if not and they want to get pregnant they dont have to. This will also help out all you guys out there because the pill boosts the labedo (no idea how to spell that) of the women who take it in most cases, not to mention it is almost 100% effective.

I would like to thank doctor drew and loveline for teaching me that.

Secondly, I believe that a man/partner in crime should have some say as well in the matter. A birth of a child will affect both for the rest of their lives and if the male doesnt think he is ready for that then he should be able to have some say. This may seem a little extreme but, if the man doesnt want to have the baby but the woman decides to do so anyway then the male shouldn't have to pay naychild support for it. Or something along those lines. I'm sorry to any one offended by this but that is just the way I feel.

You're very miseducated if you believe the Pill is almost 100% effective. From Grand Illusions, by George Grant (Wolgemuth and Hyatt, Publishers, Inc.), chapter two, page 32:

According to Planned Parenthood's own figures, the annual in-use failure rate for the Pill is as high as eleven percent. For the diaphragm, the normal failure rate is nearly thirty-two eprcent. For the inter-uterine device (IUD), it is almost eleven percent. For "safe sex" condoms, it is over eighteen percent. And for the various foam, cream, and jelly spermicides, it can range as high as thirty-four percent. That means that a sexually-active fourteen-year-old girl who faithfully uses the Pill has a fourty-four percent chance of getting pregnant at least once before she finishes high school. She has a sixty-nine percent chance of getting pregnant at least once before she finishes college. And she has a thirty percent chance of getting pregnant two or more times. If she relies on "safe sex" condoms, the likelihood of an unwanted pregnancy while she is in school rises to nearly eighty-seven percent. In other words, the Planned Parenthood system virtually guarantees that women will get pregnant -- and that they will then be "forced" to fall back on the birth control lynch pin: abortion.

Safe and effective? Not by a long shot. Planned Parenthood's program of birth control is nothing but foreplay for abortion. Besides the fact that it is fraught with awful side effects, complications, and medical risks, it is incapable of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well. Planned Parenthood's entire myth is an empty charade. We simply cannot contend or pretend otherwise.

Maybe the failure rate is nearly 100%, then, if you count the results over the time of use. Also, it states on the same page that "eighty-eight percent of those (Planned Parenthood clients) who previously practiced 'safe sex' are dissuaded from continuing." Furthermore..."due to in-use mechanical failure -- leaks, braeks, tears, slippage, and spillage -- their (condoms' and other barrier devices') effectiveness has been estimated to be at best eighty-two percent. But the Pill offers no protection whatsoever. Neither does the IUD or the diaphragm of spermicides or contraceptive sponges or any of the other...birth control devices that Planned Parenthood favors. Worse, recent studies indicate that not only do these methods fail to guard against venereal infection, they may actually enhance the risks."

Women should definitely have the right to choose. I think that its necessary, especially for teenage pregnancies. It ends up ruining two lives.
People should have kids when they're ready.
Is it a life? Yeah. So are the spiders you kill. So are the animals you eat.
Anti-Abortionists should stop being hypocritical and become Vegan.

Oh, but then you're hurting the poor Vegetable Species. It's been proven they have electrical impulses sent off when they're helplessly mutilated. I'm going to stop eating anything and take my Hummer H2 for a drive!

(end severe sarcasm)

The point of that argument you've just made, which you haven't reailzed or don't want do, is that spiders, (non-human) animals, plants have NO REAL INTELLIGENCE; no conception of right or wrong. Animals follow their instincts; plants similiarly follow their own genetically-coded instructions. Perhaps it's not hypocritical; perhaps instead it is a fuller realization of the view you've just put forward.

'Heh... what you must understand is that if the resolution had gone the other way, people such as yourself would probably be saying the same to people such as myself.'


Uh no...because if this resolution had passed i could care less how you chose to deal with abortion......

...since it passed I am forced to adhere to a position which I do not feel the UN had a right to pound over my head even if I agree with the resolution. Just because I may agree that abortion is ok, doesn't mean I agree that the UN should force it's members to make abortion legal among all members. I hold that the right to choose one's government above the UN's 'duty' to enact activist legislation.

That's my opinion...snd apparently many agree so the point then is to harness these opinions to work as one.....

That day is coming...and very soon. 8)

The problem is... the liberals have already harnessed their voting power. They think the same way. Conservatives tend to bicker to much with themselves. Even if you could harness your votes, their wouldn't be enough of them to matter. Unless everyine reapplied to the UN....
I voted yes on this resolution, but it was a very tough choice. I believe in abortion, however, it did infringe on national sovreignity. I really don't know. The best thing to do is to leave the UN, thats what I did when the anti-nuke act popped up. Even though it is losing now, it 's just extremely unbelievable that something that liberal could get into the UN. You see, you can educate against abortion, brainwash, harass, whatever whoever performs them, you just can't make it officially illegal to have abortions, you see? Or you could harness the economic power of it and make alot of money. (Privatize it, inflate the costs, gov. agency, etc.) It's all up to you. The thing is, you have a choice, which is slightly coercive:
1) Accept it, 2) Leave the UN, 3)Whatever else you can think of.


As for tie the bitches tubes, that would be the same thing as abortion, you're restricting the ovum's rights to become a zygote. Or, more precisly, it is the same as stem cell research, where eggs are used to produce life saving tissues, etc. It appears that some right-extremists are against allowing that. As for the slut keeping her legs closed, apparently your nation needs a boost in education, so it can brainwash the "inferior" women not to have sex until they're married, and once they are to make lots and lots of babies, and not use contraceptives. Besides, that once again is restricting ovum rights. Also, the man-slut/fiddler should have kept his snake in his pants. Unless it was only the woman's fault for getting pregnant, in which case the man has no right to have a portion of the choice in the abortion. As for adoptiion, that's no bien. One of my parents was adopted, and it really hurts him to know:
1) their "real" parents didn't want them 2) they'll never know who they were 3) their adoptive parents never told them they were, they found a document telling that they were adopted, etc. Adoption causes sever emotional harm. Also, adoption forces the mother to possibly:
1) skip school 2) forfeit her future life, due to lack of education/ social outcast, including a good job, retirement, etc. (punishing people for bringing children into the world, eh?)
3)deal with the loss of the fetus(worse than abortion, she went through birth and pregnancy compared to pop in the first trimester, lots of emotional harm) etc.
And she shouldn't have to keep the baby either. Since she lacks proper education, she lacks a good job, lacks money, therefore she needs the abomidible WELFARE!!!!! to stay alive. Not to mention if they don't recieve it they'll propbably starve, freeze, etc.

It's your choice, but all you pro-lifers can say is:
"Fetus' rights" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've told you why abortion is more humane than anything else, if the fetus is UNWANTED BY THE MOTHER. So I'll claim:
1) morality 2) child's rights 3) mother's rights 4) taxpayer's rights5) economic power 6) non-coercize, there are to many choices and loopholes 7) adoption, keeping the baby, other options no solvency
8) others that I forgot to list.

Listen, please stop complaining about how adoption causes trauma. My mom and my uncle were both adopted (I think they were twins, and they were adopted by the same parents, so they were not separated; they were also adopted right after birth). They suffer no trauma; I should know that, having lived with them from day to day (especially Mom). She understands, has told me personally, and would testify that she has done both: that she was adopted, that her biological mother was not capable of taking care of her, that her biological mother wished to preserve privacy for her sake, that she may look for her biological mother's records sometime in her life, and that she was adopted into a loving family who raised her and her brother as their own -- that she really suffers no trauma at all from that.

And remember -- if you don't want the baby, DON'T HAVE SEX. And if you ignore that, there's always adoption. Many people are looking to adopt children, and there are certainly enough kids being killed each day to at least partially satisfy that desire, that need.

* * *

I close. If you want more information on the book Grand Illusions, I'll be happy to transmit most of it to you under Fair Use or find where you can buy it on the cheap, online or in the "real" world.

That was uncalled for - besides, unless I'm mistaken, while legal to have an abortion, it may yet be illegal to perform one in his nation, just like smoking under 16 is legal but buying cigarrettes/selling them to under 16s is illegal...

Where do you get that from? read the resolution:

no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

Making it illegal is a good way to interfere I think.

And yes, it was very called for. The nation in question needed a kick up the proverbial backside. There are too many nations out there who THINK they can ignore resolutions - when any semi intelligent nation knows the only way to ignore it is to leave.

OOC: ...concepts of OOC and IC here. It's all part of the game, threating to resign, worrying about national security... it's all IC RP activities. Because that is what would be happening if all this was real.

OOC: A valid point; but if you browse through the forums - only TWO of the forums actually say "In-Character," this not being one of them.

OOC: Those forums are labeled that way because In Character Role Play is enforced in those forums, not because we are not allowed to be In Character in the UN and other threads. That would be ridiculous, if no one was allowed to promote their UN bills IC.

In fact, being in the NSUN means that your nation is protected by the earlier resolution, Rights and Duties of UN States, which states:

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty: Article 1 § Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government. Article 2 § Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Your resolution, all one sentence of it, cannot repeal earlier passed UN resolutions, according to the game mechanics.

Odd you quoted articles 1-3 but not 10 and 11, isn't it? Now, why would that be?

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Ah, because it utterly destroys your argument.

Seriously, making the UN non-ridiculous is a worthy cause, but lying about conflicts between resolutions isn't the way to go about it.

Actually, it does not "destroy my argument," it is obviously irrelevant to our nation's argument.

We are not arguing that nations are not bound to uphold valid international treaties as mandated by Article 10, nor are we arguing that any nation should "conduct its relations with other NationStates" in a way that is not "in accordance with international law" as mandated by Article 11.

We are arguing that anything inconsistent with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States is clearly in violation of international law, and cannot be enforced by the UN.

Your accusation of "lying" against the Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency is actionable as slander in the courts of The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™. Further, such slander when made against a government official can be tried as high treason. Treason carries the death penalty here. Consider carefully any visits you might have had planned to our great nation.

Cordially,
Benito Nixon
Secretary of Foreign Counter-Subversion
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Actually, it's the other way round. You can say you can outlaw abortion, but since you are a member of the UN, abortion is legal in your nation. Regardless of how much you whine, cry, grumble, complain and moan like a spoilt little child*.

You can pretend you have outlawed it in your own little mind (further clues pointing to you being unhinged), but the simple fact is you haven't. No arguements, no debate, it's legal. Live with it kiddo. It's game mechanics and your moaning is not going to change that.

*Unless you leave the UN, of course.

Your foreign standards of tact may differ from ours, but we at the Department of Tourism and Terror Threat Advisories of The United States of America the American feel strongly that we must warn you that addressing citizens of our nation in such a way would result in you being lynched by an angry mob. To our citizens, etiquette and honor are vital central aspects of their way of life. Such violent mob incidents in our recent past have included gruesome scenes, including castration, hangings from trees, anal rape with sharp objects, evisceration, and the strangling to death of individuals with their own bleeding, feces-filled guts.

Specifically, use of such phrases as "Regardless of how much you whine, cry, grumble, complain and moan like a spoilt little child," "Live with it kiddo," and "your own little mind" have been found in many scientific studies to be a grave threat to one's health and safety in The United States of America the American. As such, we must strongly advise that citizens of your nation take a course on America the American standard etiquette and manners before any recreational or business visits to our great nation.

As for the matter of policy you mention, see the other posts on this thread by representatives of The United States of America the American authorized to speak on matters of international policy.

As always, we hope citizens of all nations will choose to come visit our high-security terror-free vacation islands, complete with hardened bunker-style bungalows, once they have taken such steps as necessary to visit safely, without violating our national standards of morality and etiquette.

Cordially,
Nancy Franco
Department of Tourism and Terror Threat Advisories
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States “Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.”

In addition, I do hope those two doctors had the right to a fair trial – as described under “Definition of 'Fair Trial',” “Due Process,” “The Universal Bill of Rights” and “Fair trial”

Of course, we know they could not have, else under international law set by the UN, they would have been determined innocent, and allowed to walk freely.

You want to try and get round it again? You’ve just made it worse for yourself – not only are you failing to fulfil your obligations on “Abortion Rights” but also apparently the above resolutions.

Your entire argument is based on Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States, which clearly relates only to the obligations of each member nation in regards to how it must "conduct its relations with other NationStates."

Abortion is a domestic matter internal to each nation, and thus is not related in any way by Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States.

Also, Abortion Rights states, in its entirety, "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

As you can see, it says nothing about a doctor's right to provide an abortion, only "a woman's right to have an abortion."

If the author of Abortion Rights had bothered to write more than one sentence this bill might have supported your assertions. As it stands, it does not.

We are astounded that you would assert that you "know they could not have" had a fair trial, without any knowledge other than the outcome of the trial - knowing absolutely nothing of the trial procedures about which you are casting accusations.

It is our impression that you are rather too eager to impose the will of your nation on other nations, and are willing to ignore facts and international law in order to do so. Please desist.

It is legal under the Corneliuan (apologies if that is an incorrect term) constitution for a woman to seek an abortion for as long as Corneliu is a member of the United Nations. There is no way around this. However, you may be able to exploit the brevity of the resolution by discouraging doctors and so on from performing abortions. How you discourage them I leave up to you.

As explained above, since Abortion Rights says nothing about how nations may deal with doctors who provide abortions, only that "no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion," any UN nation may choose to discourage doctors and so on from performing abortions with the death penalty. This does not interfere with the woman's right to have an abortion, only the doctor's right to perform an abortion, as the woman in question is not punished in any way for seeking an abortion.

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

This is getting ridiculous!

I'm pro choice on this issue but i highly respect other's views on this matter and i am outraged to see the UN degenerating into people hurling insults at each other - you sound like children, not responsible members of the governments you represent and this is unacceptable

those of you who are happy about it's passing have no right to insult others because of their views - i wish i had voted against this resolution now, i can only hope that those who did vote against it can accept my apology and forgive me for my mistake :(

This is the most profoundly respectable thing we have seen any pro-choice advocate say in all of these debates.

The people of our nation have been made aware of your honorable statements on all news outlets. Our nation's receptiveness to pro-choice advocates, though still resolutely against abortion, has been improved immeasurably by your respectable and honorable conduct, which is in such stark contrast to the disrespectful behavior of other abortion advocates.

Our nation would like to present you with the Golden Cross, our nation's highest civilian medal of honor. Please let us know if you will accept this honor so that we can arrange the presentation ceremony.

You have our sincerest regards.

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

Actually, it does not "destroy my argument," it is obviously irrelevant to our nation's argument.

We are not arguing that nations are not bound to uphold valid international treaties as mandated by Article 10, nor are we arguing that any nation should "conduct its relations with other NationStates" in a way that is not "in accordance with international law" as mandated by Article 11.

We are arguing that anything inconsistent with Section I of Rights and Duties of UN States is clearly in violation of international law, and cannot be enforced by the UN.

Which is wrong, since if you try reading the damn resolution in full rather than taking it apart and reading it as two halves you would realise that it does THIS:

Article 1 Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article one states that ANY OTHER NATIONSTATE [singular] may not interfere in the running of your nation. But the UN is an international body, it isn't another nationstate, so the protections in section 1 don't apply to UN law, nor to international law. They are to protect you from direct interference in your domestic affairs by other nationstates acting apart from the UN or other international bodies.

Article 10 § Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.
Article 11 § Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Articles 10 and 11 states that international law INCLUDING UN LAW supercedes any and all national law. There is no contraction whatsoever; any law the UN makes is superior to and must be enforced above national law. Article ten is very specific on that exact point.

Do you really think a UN proposal that had such a blatant effect on game mechanics as you claim this one does would have even been allowed in the first place?

Your accusation of "lying" against the Secretary of Homeland Counter-Insurgency is actionable as slander in the courts of The United States of America the American, Mighty Capitalist Überpower™. Further, such slander when made against a government official can be tried as high treason. Treason carries the death penalty here. Consider carefully any visits you might have had planned to our great nation.

Blah blah. I'm speaking out-of character. In character is bookended with the speaker's name and credentials and said speaker will actually make some effort to sound diplomatic. Take your in-character national outrage elsewhere, it's irrelevent, this is myself as player / mod, not nation.

A person on the pill gets raped. Nothing she can do about that, its not her fault. The pill dosent seem to be 100% protective, person falls pregnant. Should she have to carry a fetus which was produced by her rapist or should she have the fundamental right to abort it?

The People of The Grand Duchy Northrobland would just like to say:

"Yay for abortions; boo for clubbing baby seals".

Of course, the people of Northrobland have no say in government. Nor do they have freedom of speech. And they especially don't have the piles of lesbian cheerleader pornography which meet the eye almost everywhere in the Grand Duke's palatial summer ho...

Ahem... *Straightens lapels*

I digress. The important thing is that although this motion could very well pass, our back-alley abortion system is the envy of ultra-conservative nations everywhere. Therefore, I have no choice but to pronounce July 14th National Back Alley Abortions Day. Back alley abortions will be 50% off, or buy-one-get-one-free. Meaning you can get an abortion now, and then save one for later.

Long live the Duke.

Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States “Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.”

Your entire argument is based on Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States, which clearly relates only to the obligations of each member nation in regards to how it must "conduct its relations with other NationStates."

Actually, I meant article 10 :oops:

"Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

I'd argue that killing doctors is a good way to interfere in members of the populace having abortions.

And as for why I might have taken such a harsh tone, you have a look at some of the comments the other nation made, and consider that this petty little arguement about ignoring resolutions has popped up time and time again.

Actually, it's the other way round. You can say you can outlaw abortion, but since you are a member of the UN, abortion is legal in your nation. Regardless of how much you whine, cry, grumble, complain and moan like a spoilt little child*.

You can pretend you have outlawed it in your own little mind (further clues pointing to you being unhinged), but the simple fact is you haven't. No arguements, no debate, it's legal. Live with it kiddo. It's game mechanics and your moaning is not going to change that.

*Unless you leave the UN, of course.

Your foreign standards of tact may differ from ours, but we at the Department of Tourism and Terror Threat Advisories of The United States of America the American feel strongly that we must warn you that addressing citizens of our nation in such a way would result in you being lynched by an angry mob. To our citizens, etiquette and honor are vital central aspects of their way of life. Such violent mob incidents in our recent past have included gruesome scenes, including castration, hangings from trees, anal rape with sharp objects, evisceration, and the strangling to death of individuals with their own bleeding, feces-filled guts.

Specifically, use of such phrases as "Regardless of how much you whine, cry, grumble, complain and moan like a spoilt little child," "Live with it kiddo," and "your own little mind" have been found in many scientific studies to be a grave threat to one's health and safety in The United States of America the American. As such, we must strongly advise that citizens of your nation take a course on America the American standard etiquette and manners before any recreational or business visits to our great nation.

As for the matter of policy you mention, see the other posts on this thread by representatives of The United States of America the American authorized to speak on matters of international policy.

As always, we hope citizens of all nations will choose to come visit our high-security terror-free vacation islands, complete with hardened bunker-style bungalows, once they have taken such steps as necessary to visit safely, without violating our national standards of morality and etiquette.


I do hope you know how to define hypocrite. http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3268681#3268681

Calling another nation "whinning" does not sound to me like etiquette and honor is highly valued in your nation.

Actually, I meant article 10 :oops:

"Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

I see. This reference to Article 10 is correct in regards to international affairs and treaties, but this does not invalidate the fact that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Section I of the same resolution prevent UN legislation from interfering with national sovereignty, especially as regards domestic affairs. Any such resolution is illegal, and nations are correct to ignore portions of UN legislation which conflict with purely domestic aspects of their national policies.

I'd argue that killing doctors is a good way to interfere in members of the populace having abortions.

And so your nation will enforce the vague Abortion Rights bill accordingly. Other nations will disagree, and enforce the same vague bill differently. There is no way you can argue that their interpretation is incorrect, as the bill does not specify that nations must provide access to abortion, that nations must allow doctors to practice abortion, or anything else. All it says is that women may not be prevented from having them. Killing doctors who perform them does not prevent women from having them, it discourages doctors from performing them. This is what happens when people write one-sentence bills, and the majority of the UN is foolish enough to vote for them.

Besides, our nation simply privatized abortion-prevention measures, so that our nation no longer prevents women from having abortions, it is now the province of incredibly well-funded private security firms like Pinkerton and well-financed, well-organized private pressure agencies that blockade clinics, dissuade women, etc.

And as for why I might have taken such a harsh tone, you have a look at some of the comments the other nation made, and consider that this petty little arguement about ignoring resolutions has popped up time and time again.

What may seem petty to you is clearly of great importance to other nations. If it is petty, don't insist on forcing your interpretation on other nations.

If other anti-abortion nations have insulted your nation or diplomats, I apologize on behalf of anti-abortion as a movement, but I am afraid I can do little to repair the damage of those nations' particular statements on their behalf without their consent. I hope that the words written on behalf of The United States of America the American have not offended the honor of the sovereign nation of Hirota. We thank you for your civility and willingness to reasonably discuss this matter.

Cordially,
Henry Showa
Emissary of Ceremonial Honor
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

I do hope you know how to define hypocrite.

Calling another nation "whinning" does not sound to me like etiquette and honor is highly valued in your nation.

We do indeed know the definition.

Returning an insult is, in fact, a component of the ritual escalation of perceived threats to honor in our nation's elaborate system of etiquette. Secretary Held was therefore upholding his cultural obligation as an American American to defend his honor by returning the insults which he received, and duly quoted for clarity. In the setting of a bar or street in America the American, such escalations can quickly become quite violent. This is why our Department of Tourism and Terror Threat Advisories was impelled to warn of these dangers.

Our nation sincerely hopes that no such escalations occur in the context of international diplomacy, and we seek to avoid such incidents. However, our rigid and impenetrably complex honor codes do make this difficult, as I am sure you can imagine.

I hope this clarifies the source of your confusion on this matter. America the American is a highly unique, and highly complex society of overlapping and often contradictory codes of etiquette and honor, which is why a course is often recommended for potential visitors.

Henry Showa
Emissary of Ceremonial Honor
The United States of America the American
Mighty Capitalist Überpower™

Actually, I meant article 10 :oops:

"Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

I see. This reference to Article 10 is correct in regards to international affairs and treaties, but this does not invalidate the fact that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Section I of the same resolution prevent UN legislation from interfering with national sovereignty, especially as regards domestic affairs. Any such resolution is illegal, and nations are correct to ignore portions of UN legislation which conflict with purely domestic aspects of their national policies.

If this was the real life UN, I'd appreciate that position. Sadly this is NS UN, and nations can claim they might be ignoring resolutions, when the fundamental answer at the end of the day is you can't.

Once it is passed, it's incorportated into all member nations profiles. The changes are made. There is no debate on the matter - it simply happens. It's not the best way to go, but it's the only workable way to keep the UN running.

If the abortion resolution was truly illegal under the articles you quoted, then the mods should and would have deleted it in the proposal stage, and the mods are a lot wiser than either of us

Other nations will disagree, and enforce the same vague bill differently. There is no way you can argue that their interpretation is incorrect, as the bill does not specify that nations must provide access to abortion, that nations must allow doctors to practice abortion, or anything else.

At the very least it does permit women to travel to other nations to have the abortion performed without fear of punishment. Although I find it foolish to kill doctors - your population will feel it soon enough when the medical services can't handle the demand.

This is what happens when people write one-sentence bills, and the majority of the UN is foolish enough to vote for them.

Agreed. Which is why it is such a good idea to post their proposals on here before submitting them!

And as for why I might have taken such a harsh tone, you have a look at some of the comments the other nation made, and consider that this petty little arguement about ignoring resolutions has popped up time and time again.

What may seem petty to you is clearly of great importance to other nations. If it is petty, don't insist on forcing your interpretation on other nations.

Well, the arguement itself is not petty, simply the repetition.

If other anti-abortion nations have insulted your nation or diplomats, I apologize on behalf of anti-abortion as a movement, but I am afraid I can do little to repair the damage of those nations' particular statements on their behalf without their consent.

And I would not expect you to, but I was not happy you chosen to take the comments out of context...but no harm done. To be fair I was getting a tad impatient and may have gone a step to far.

Personally, I abhore the idea of abortion.
But legally, I support it. The woman has the right to decide. To determine her body and her future.

I only Have This To say: If medically needed to keep the mother alive, then yes, she can choose abortion in our country. however... in the case of * just keepin' a figure,* Trying to kill your own child while still in the womb by abortion or other means is considered murder, and punished by life in prision.

That was uncalled for - besides, unless I'm mistaken, while legal to have an abortion, it may yet be illegal to perform one in his nation, just like smoking under 16 is legal but buying cigarrettes/selling them to under 16s is illegal...

Where do you get that from? read the resolution:

no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

Making it illegal is a good way to interfere I think.

And yes, it was very called for. The nation in question needed a kick up the proverbial backside. There are too many nations out there who THINK they can ignore resolutions - when any semi intelligent nation knows the only way to ignore it is to leave.

Don't ever talk to me that way sir. As of this moment, we have broken off all ties with your nation for insulting us. My population has spoken and I will, for once, go with them since we all agree on this. We have recalled our ambassador from you nation and we have declared your ambassador Personna non Grata.

As for our obligations, we are for the most part. I may be a dictator but I let the judicial system run their own affairs. Very rare do I get involved in such things. As for free elections, only for local government and state governments. Other than that, the cheif person incharge of the state, appoints the members to the Congress!

My Congress is on the verge now of DECLARING WAR on your nation for your insults! Don't insult me or my nation or the next post, will be a Declaration of War. No ifs ands or buts!

OOC: Gotta Kill my sister for not logging out!

Corneliu,

I do hope you have been following you obligations on other UN resolutions as well old boy.

Notably Article 11 of Rights and Duties of UN States “Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.”

In addition, I do hope those two doctors had the right to a fair trial – as described under “Definition of 'Fair Trial',” “Due Process,” “The Universal Bill of Rights” and “Fair trial”

Of course, we know they could not have, else under international law set by the UN, they would have been determined innocent, and allowed to walk freely.

You want to try and get round it again? You’ve just made it worse for yourself – not only are you failing to fulfil your obligations on “Abortion Rights” but also apparently the above resolutions.

The door is just over there old boy.

Um, I would have to disagree with your view, most certainly, if a nation ran a regulated medical system, said nation would be abble to legislate the oathes of office of their medical personel, if performance of an abortion was against that oath, they would be able to hold the said medical personnel accountable, provide them a fair trial, and subscribe a legislated penalty upon them upon conviction. It would not be a violation of international law (international law does not apply within nations, but only between individual nations, within the scope of one nation as it treats persons from another nation).... It would be very easy for a nation to get around the Abortion Rights amendment, simply by applying abortion regulation upon medical establishments that have the capacity to provide such a service, since this would not fall within "interferance" with a "womans right to have an abortion"..... Simply, regulation upon medical personnel's capability to perform them in the first place.

I might remind you, while the woman's right to choose to have one, is now protected, there is no resolution that mandates that nations provide the service, ensure that the woman can afford it, or make the practice safe. Simple fact is, hospitals, clinics, or any other medical establishment, whether private, public, or government run... are under no obligation to provide abortion services...... regardless of the woman's right to choose.
They can have the "opportunity of choice" even without the capacity to enact the procedure.... So nations can still control it, by controling those who have the capacity to carry the act out.

In addition, within private groups, I cannot "interfere" with private hospitals religious beliefs to perform actions they consider morally and ethically wrong..... I cannot "interfere" with doctors rights, by making them perform procedures they consider morally and ethically wrong.... Those people's beliefs are protected under another UN Resolution.... And no U.N. resolution can force them to do what they consider wrong.

By definition in Tekania, in the case of a pregnant woman, both the mother and the fetus are legally considered patients. Tekanian doctors are sworn under the Hippocratic Oath, which dictates that they cannot intentionally bring harm upon their patients. Abortion is regulated to only those possesing medical degrees (Doctors), abortion is classified as harm upon the fetus, so is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.... Any doctor who performs such, has all their medical certification voided for violating the oath, and they are effectively disenfranchised from the medical community for it. This prevents doctors (being the only ones legally allowed to perform abortions) from doing it from fear of having their careers, and their life, ruined.... So in the long run, abortion is legal, women have the right to choose to have one or not, but they have no power to actually legally get one, since no one will provide it for them in a legal capacity, in the first place.....

Hirota, the resolution sucked, was poorly written, and now you're going to be seeing the consequences for leaping before you really thought things through.... Don't try to skirt around your ignorance on the issue.... In the end, the person responsible for all the loop-holding going on, is the person who wrote the resolution in the first place.

Actually, I meant article 10 :oops:

"Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty."

I see. This reference to Article 10 is correct in regards to international affairs and treaties, but this does not invalidate the fact that Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Section I of the same resolution prevent UN legislation from interfering with national sovereignty, especially as regards domestic affairs. Any such resolution is illegal, and nations are correct to ignore portions of UN legislation which conflict with purely domestic aspects of their national policies.

You have been shown time and time again that that interpretation is wrong and logically indefensible. Why are you still insisting it is correct?

Hmm, I was considering joining this NationStates UN thing to suggest an end to all abortion. Let me wake you up with some of the facts:

Abortions at 6 months are undeniably murder, as look when children are born prematurely, they are living beings when they are born at 6 months. Aborting children just because they are a "nuisance" or "unwanted" is undeniably false. There are literally millions of families who would be willing to care for an unwanted child. Aborting children just because there are health risks is like killing a patient because the doctor might get sick trying to help the patient. Can you tell me you would rather have your kid murdered than, even if the child dies immediately after being born, to hold him or her in your arms and see your child?

Abortion doctors who do not show sincere remorse should be executed immiatedly and women who had abortions who do not show sincere remorse and are not mothers of living children should be executed as well. ANY ONE who supports sucking the brains out of an innocent child with a needle just because no one wants to care for him or her or because the mother might have a headache is supporting MURDER.

Malpizia's comments are entirely sensationalistic and entirely against how most women seek abortions when they make the agonizing choice of having one. Most women choose to have an abortion during the first trimester, not at six months, when a child may be technically viable. The ONLY late-term abortions that I of that a legitimate doctor would perform are ones where the fetus has died in utero or is entirely unviable, such as in cases were fetuses have gross birth defects, like having the brain grow outside of the fetus' body or lacking essential organs that would make it an indepdent being at birth. To think that making abortion safe and legal leads to this kind of nonsense shows exactly why people of average intelligence and education shouldn't be allowed to make laws.

Speaking of such, I find this entire thread to be disturbing, especially from those against abortion. Most of you are advocating arresting and murdering adults for making the choice to keep women safe over the unborn. That SHOULD ring alarm bells in any nation, but the apparent obsession with "innocent lives" has led to a rather simplistic POV conerning more complex ones. It is shameful that the leaders of nations would resort to such draconian measures over a vague resolution that was open to interpretation in the first place. I invite those who opposed this eneactment to leave the UN, if only to assuage the danger you pose to other members who took this resolution, however poorly-drafted, in stride.

Hak-Generale supports freedom of choice, emphasizing that CHOICE does not mean dictating abortion. The following measures have been implemented as part of our public health care initiatives to assist our citizens who are agonizing over one of the most difficult decisions any person or persons has to make in their lives:

1) No minor under the age of 18 may seek an abortion without parental or custodial consent. A minor may seek a legal custodian to review her case and sign for her if the parents are unable to offer consent. By unable, Hak-Generale does NOT mean "unwilling" except in extreme cases.

2) Hospitals and clinics will provide free information and counselling to pregnant women not only about abortion, but alternatives to abortion (such as adoption and social serves) and will refer women to faith-based organizations to consider their decision UPON THEIR REQUEST.

3) If the fathers of unborn children wish to seek opportunities to adopt rather than have the mothers proceed with abortion, the Commonwealth will provide public, legal support to assist fathers in seeking such action. One of the major faults Hak-Generale has found with most nations that have legal abortions is the lack of support for potential fathers to be given their children.

4) In cases of rape or incest, the father is NOT entitled to the above services.

5) Privately-funded hospitals and clinics are exempt from the obligation of providing abortion services. Hospitals and clinics that are partially-funded by the government may opt out of offering abortions ONLY IF THEY DO NOT OFFER OTHER REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES. These include obsterics, reproductive gynecology, and any fertility specialties. Clinics that refuse to perform abortions but also receive public monies are to refer patients to other facilities that do upon a patient's request.

6) Hak-Generale does not advocate nor support abortions of fetuses that are viable at the time of abortion. A fetus must be determined inviable for medical reasons, or the mother must be in severe and immediate danger for a practitioner to authorize an abortion of this kind. Any practitioners who violate this law are subject to fine and/or imprisonment.

In conclusion:

The issue of abortion is extremely sensitive. Hak-Generale as a goverment considers the rights and concerns of all its citizens, and in doing so has come up with the most reasonable solution available to it. We feel we are not only in compliance with the UN, but are in tune with the desires of its people, whom we ultimately serve. Our choice to call ourselves a "commonwealth" is taken very seriously. We look with caution and concern upon others who do not share our commitment, though we must respect the various forms of government represented in the UN. We want to see other nations deal with this resolution sensibly rather than having knee-jerk responses and violent declarations, which is why Hak-Generale has electd to publicize its measures.


Sincerely,

Leaders of the Commonwealth of Hak-Generale

You know, before I joined the UN, I admit that I was not aware that the UN was all about controlling an individual country's wellfare and how they govern themselves. You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that because a bunch of people got together and decided to make abortion legal, that other countries are required to follow this BS policy? What are we? Iraq? Is the UN really trying to control us as the US has controlled Iraq? In my country, you will see daily riots and demonstrations against abortion, and you can damn well bet that I am going to support them all the way. To quote an earlier WISE statement:

"Then maybe the slut should have kept her legs together!
If you're gonna dance, you have to pay the fiddler!"

You're damn right you have to play the fiddler. In my country, you have to pay to play. Nothing is free, and I'll be damn if an abortion is going to be carried out without serious and dire consequences. So how about this:
everyone who WANTS to follow this rediculus policy can do so, and more power to you. And those who do not want to adopt an abortion law, doesn't have to. It is just that simple, and I do not understand why or how the UN ever got involved in this BS. So, this is what I am going to bring before the UN Council:

A petition to have the law reversed. It works like this: everyone who DOES NOT agree with abortion, sign the petition, then we present it to the UN and it goes up for vote again. Better yet, a law that says that the UN WILL NOT meddle with the working of individual countries. That is just plain foolishness.

I am going to start a thread regarding the petition. I STRONGLY encourage ONLY THOSE who DO NOT agree with this BS law come and visit it, and support your view.

Regards,

Commander-General Vlad Pryde
~=*****=~

P.S. I WILL NOT be manipulated by the UN, but I am also NOT LEAVING. So deal with THAT.

You know, before I joined the UN, I admit that I was not aware that the UN was all about controlling an individual country's wellfare and how they govern themselves.
…

You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that because a bunch of people got together and decided to make abortion legal, that other countries are required to follow this BS policy?
I'm sorry but because the majority, for good or ill, decided to make abortion legal all countries in The UN are expected to follow it.

What are we? Iraq?
I assume you are talking about the government of Iraq until recently, not the country itself. Just because The UN makes people follow the rules doesn’t mean we are going to commit various atrocities and practically ignore human rights.

Is the UN really trying to control us as the US has controlled Iraq?
No here Iraq can leave the US whenever it wants., there is no military force keeping it in, and the US would have even more control.

In my country, you will see daily riots and demonstrations against abortion, and you can damn well bet that I am going to support them all the way.
Okay…

To quote an earlier WISE statement:

"Then maybe the slut should have kept her legs together!
If you're gonna dance, you have to pay the fiddler!"
With dance you have to find a partner…

You're damn right you have to play the fiddler. In my country, you have to pay to play. Nothing is free, and I'll be damn if an abortion is going to be carried out without serious and dire consequences.
Just because a action has bas consequences doesn’t mean that the good can't out weigh the good, however unfortunate those consequences may be.

So how about this:
everyone who WANTS to follow this rediculus policy can do so, and more power to you. And those who do not want to adopt an abortion law, doesn't have to.
Right… Until you join The UN. It's just how the game works.

It is just that simple, and I do not understand why or how the UN ever got involved in this BS.
…the members of the United Nations have been working tirelessly to improve the standard of the world. That, or trying to force other nations to be more like them

So, this is what I am going to bring before the UN Council:

A petition to have the law reversed. It works like this: everyone who DOES NOT agree with abortion, sign the petition, then we present it to the UN and it goes up for vote again. Better yet, a law that says that the UN WILL NOT meddle with the working of individual countries. That is just plain foolishness.

I am going to start a thread regarding the petition. I STRONGLY encourage ONLY THOSE who DO NOT agree with this BS law come and visit it, and support your view. Please do not write a resolution to this effect, you may cease to exist.

P.S. I WILL NOT be manipulated by the UN, but I am also NOT LEAVING. So deal with THAT.

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=151465&highlight=)

Oh, but I will, because I can. If I cease to exist, so be it. But surely I am not the only one who feels simularily here. I am simply giving a voice to those who feel the same way, because I see it quite obvious that not many of us in the UN have an individual voice. That is both a burden and a blessing. The only reason why I have not already left the UN is because I wish to have a voice in the international community. Trust me when I say that there are many things that I agree with and will follow in the United Nations. But what I am dead set against is the fact that other nations pass votes that effect other nations, when they should only effect themselves. The United Nations is about freedom, and I am not seeing that right now.
In regards to the Iraq comment that I made earlier:
What I meant was how we are Iraq in the sence that we are being used by the United Nations, just as Iraq is being used by The United States.

Regards,

Commander-General Vlad Pryde
~=*****=~

For good or ill The United Nation isn't about freedom, it's about conformity.

Make your stand, and good luck too you, but it won't effect anything.

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=151465&highlight=)