NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Imperium of Crossman proposes that UN Resolution #61, the "Abortion Rights" resolution be repealed. We find it unacceptable to force a moral position on member nations. We call on the members of the United Nations to repeal this resolution and allow nations to decide for themselves on this issue.

My fellow UN members, I ask for your support on this proposal. If you wish to keep abortion legal, let that be your nation's decision and not that of the UN. It is not right to force this on all members.

One could argue that in certain situations of life-or-death, or rape, abortion would seem imperative. I think it should stay the way it is. Majority rule, etc.

One could argue that in certain situations of life-or-death, or rape, abortion would seem imperative.

And I agree with that completely. But I do not agree with the it being mandatory for all nations to make it legal.

One could argue that in certain situations of life-or-death, or rape, abortion would seem imperative. I think it should stay the way it is. Majority rule, etc.

True, there are reasons which just about everyone recognizes as legitimate. Beyond this, however, abortion, I believe, is both legitimately viewed as a "cosmetic" (not the right word, but the best I have right now) event by some 'conservative' nations, and a right of choice by some 'liberal' nations. The vote when this was passed Saturday Jun 5, 2004, was fairly close by NSUN standards, 9368 FOR, 6549 AGAINST.

This does not produce a consensus agreement on this issue, widely disagreed upon. I feel strongly that this resolution (along with the Gay Rights resolution) is more of a dividing point in the UN than it is an agreed upon practice. I think it's best to leave issues like this up for the nations to decide.

My fellow UN members, I ask for your support on this proposal. If you wish to keep abortion legal, let that be your nation's decision and not that of the UN. It is not right to force this on all members.

If you're going to get this passed, you must telegram delegates, and you will almost certainly have to submit it multiple times.

Mora Tau is firm in its belief that abortion is a woman's right to choose.

If you're going to get this passed, you must telegram delegates, and you will almost certainly have to submit it multiple times.

Oh, worry not, this I know.

Mora Tau is firm in its belief that abortion is a woman's right to choose.

And Crossman is firm in its belief that nations have a right to choose whats right for their nation. That is your belief, fine. I do not have a problem with that. I do have a problem with that position being forced on everyone.

*bump*

It is the position of Olangapo that Abortion for any other reason than the safety of the mother is murder and should be treated as such. When a woman chooses to put herself in the position of having a child it is her responsibility to do anything in her power to protect the welfare of that child. If a pregnant mother is murdered the precedent is that it is to be treated as two murders, implying that the unborn child is entitled to all the rights of a youth of that nation. Meaning that Abortion, for non-life threatening reasons, should be held on the same level of punishment that the murder of a youth from that nation would be on. The level of punishment enforced should be up to the governing body of the nation the act was committed in, but with a certain minimum standard to be agreed upon by the UN so that countries can not undermine the importance of this issue.

We find it unacceptable to force a moral position on member nations.

Thus, by repealing the right to abortion, you too are forcing a moral position on the issue, too.

Thus, by repealing the right to abortion, you too are forcing a moral position on the issue, too.

Not at all. By repealing it, we leave the decision to individual nations. Therefore they may decide for themselves what the proper course of action is. Repealing it does not mean that we are mking it illegal, by no means does it. As I said, it simply gives nations an option.

Unfortunately, that option to allow for national sovereignty in this matter will only cause nation's citizens who have outlawed it to run to a nation that has it legalized as well; by allowing for legal abortions across the UN, we allow all INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS - not nations - to decide where there morality lies.

The Queendom of the Zombie Overlords is firmly pro-choice. However, we support this repeal. We feel that it is wrong for the UN to make this sensitive decision for its individual member states.

Unfortunately, that option to allow for national sovereignty in this matter will only cause nation's citizens who have outlawed it to run to a nation that has it legalized as well; by allowing for legal abortions across the UN, we allow all INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS - not nations - to decide where there morality lies.
That's an interesting argument. Individual sovereignty rather than national sovereignty...

I don't know that it'll float, but at least it's new.

It is the position of Olangapo that Abortion for any other reason than the safety of the mother is murder and should be treated as such. When a woman chooses to put herself in the position of having a child it is her responsibility to do anything in her power to protect the welfare of that child. If a pregnant mother is murdered the precedent is that it is to be treated as two murders, implying that the unborn child is entitled to all the rights of a youth of that nation. Meaning that Abortion, for non-life threatening reasons, should be held on the same level of punishment that the murder of a youth from that nation would be on. The level of punishment enforced should be up to the governing body of the nation the act was committed in, but with a certain minimum standard to be agreed upon by the UN so that countries can not undermine the importance of this issue.

You make no mention of rape. So you are willing to condone that a women can be raped and forced to carry a child to term against her will? You don't think that, since this is apparently a "moral" issue, that you should at least accept that rape is another condition under which women should be able to seek abortion?

Here's the thing :-

Unless you make it illegal across the whole of the UN then it's pretty pointless. A women who needs an abortion could just cross the border in to the next country to get one. My nation will happily accept anyone who wants to come for such a procedure.

Secondly if certain exceptions are put in - life threatening condition, rape and so forth - then it will just lead to a woman lying about how she got in the condition so that she can be part of an exempted group.

On the other hand if you don't put any exemptions in then you are pretty much making women second class citizens by telling them that they no longer have any rights over their own body - you are making their body the possession of the state, which could be termed as slavery (outlawed by one of the Resolutions passed in this agust body).

Thirdly who are you to sit in judgement of women? If someone rapes her and she ends up pregnant it is not her fault. If the condom splits it is not her fault. While I will accept there are some women in the world who might behave in an irrational, even reckless, manner, I do not think it is my place to judge how they live their lives, and to punish them for something that might simply be an accident. Condoms split. There are rapists out there.

Suffice to say I think this repeal is a huge blow for women's rights around the world, and I think that the Sex Equality Resolution (which MUST have a better name, but I can not think of it off the top of my head) would make repealing this illegal. (But I am not a lawyer)

That's an interesting argument. Individual sovereignty rather than national sovereignty...

I don't know that it'll float, but at least it's new.

It's hardly a new argument. It hasn't been around much for the last few months, though.


Back to the subject at hand...

I support this repeal, as will my regional U.N. Delegate, I'm sure.

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

That's an interesting argument. Individual sovereignty rather than national sovereignty...

I don't know that it'll float, but at least it's new.

But almost everything is at a personal level. Abortion can be legal, but it does not force someone to have on.

On the same level (from another thread) if prostitution is not repealed, it doesn't mean every little girl and boy is going to end up on the game.

The Queendom of the Zombie Overlords is firmly pro-choice. However, we support this repeal. We feel that it is wrong for the UN to make this sensitive decision for its individual member states.

Thank you.

See what I mean? Legal or illegal, the decision is not the UN's to make.

Unless you make it illegal across the whole of the UN then it's pretty pointless. A women who needs an abortion could just cross the border in to the next country to get one. My nation will happily accept anyone who wants to come for such a procedure.
Surely the solution is there then? No nation needs to have legal abortion because there will always be nations like yours who do. So it's solely a question of whether a nation wishs to have abortions performed within it's borders. This is particuarly an issue in nations where there is a national health service and doctor training is funded by the state. Surely we should have the right to decide which medical operations to priortise when they are funded by our goverment?

Surely the solution is there then? No nation needs to have legal abortion because there will always be nations like yours who do. So it's solely a question of whether a nation wishs to have abortions performed within it's borders. This is particuarly an issue in nations where there is a national health service and doctor training is funded by the state. Surely we should have the right to decide which medical operations to priortise when they are funded by our goverment?

A very good point.

Surely the solution is there then? No nation needs to have legal abortion because there will always be nations like yours who do. So it's solely a question of whether a nation wishs to have abortions performed within it's borders. This is particuarly an issue in nations where there is a national health service and doctor training is funded by the state. Surely we should have the right to decide which medical operations to priortise when they are funded by our goverment?

And a woman who has been raped in a nation halfway around the world is going to be able to afford to come to my country to have an abortion of course.

Oh no - wait - they might not. So instead of going to a state trained doctor that is clean and healthy, they end up at some back alley clinic where not only the pregnancy is terminated, but their life as well. But hey - it would stop them doing it again, and since the banning of abortion would make them a slave to your government, it wouldn't be so serious if they died would it?

I realise that that sounds a bit harsh, but to suggest that your nation can ban abortion, but it's not a problem because a pregnant woman can go somewhere else to have it done, is the worst kind of hypocracy. If abortion is so wrong that you want to outlaw it in your country, you should take steps to ensure no one in your country could have one. Otherwise you are just pretending to be better than you are.

Surely the solution is there then? No nation needs to have legal abortion because there will always be nations like yours who do. So it's solely a question of whether a nation wishs to have abortions performed within it's borders. This is particuarly an issue in nations where there is a national health service and doctor training is funded by the state. Surely we should have the right to decide which medical operations to priortise when they are funded by our goverment?

And on another topic, that has very little to do with abortion but has brought up an interesting point - no. The government should not be allowed to decide what operations are important and what aren't. Doctors should treat the sick on the basis of need, not on the basis of money.

For the record, TilEnca, I'm not a big fan of abortion, but I can understand abortions in the case of rape or danger to the woman's health in she gives birth.

Though other than that, I'm really not kean on the idea. I understand, women should have their rights, but it worries me that so many young people getting pregnant see abortion as an easy way out. I also understand that having an abortion is very hard and stressful on a woman. So, I am understanding of both sides of the arguement. I'm just trying to keep the UN from completely telling nations how they can run their nations.

This is going out on a limb a little, but I feel that if this resolution was repealed, and the UN member states were allowed to outlaw abortion, they would find themselves in violation of the following resolutions :-

Resolution 6 - End To Slavery
Part of this was the right for every person "determine their own destiny" - if the nation is going to force a woman to have a child against her will then that is not allowing her to determine her own destiny.

Resolution 10 - Privacy Intrustion
This says that it relates to privacy, which includes wiretapping, but does not limit it to that. The right of someone to have privacy in their medical dealings could be said to be covered by this - and so the government can not interfere in them.

Resolution 26 - The Bill Of Rights
Article 4 - Equal treatment under the law. No law forces men to carry children to term, so why should there be a law that forces a woman to?
Article 5 - Prohibits inhumane and cruel treatment. I would argue that forcing a woman to give birth against her will is inhumane and cruel.

I am not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in UN law. So if anyone would like to show me why repealing abortion rights would not be in violation of the above resolutions, I will be happy to conceed my error.

Though other than that, I'm really not kean on the idea. I understand, women should have their rights, but it worries me that so many young people getting pregnant see abortion as an easy way out. I also understand that having an abortion is very hard and stressful on a woman. So, I am understanding of both sides of the arguement. I'm just trying to keep the UN from completely telling nations how they can run their nations.

I thnk the number of young people getting pregnant in the world (and this is not a comment on your nation I swear - it is just a general comment) is a reflection of the lack of decent sex education in the world, not the ease of which abortion is available.

And although abortion can be hard and stressful on a women, I would wager that going through labour and birth, then maybe giving the kid up for adoption is no picnic.

(OOC - though Toriella is female, I am not. Which is why this gets confusing when I am discussing it. So if any of this sounds patronising in anyway, I, personally, apologise)

I thnk the number of young people getting pregnant in the world (and this is not a comment on your nation I swear - it is just a general comment) is a reflection of the lack of decent sex education in the world, not the ease of which abortion is available.

And although abortion can be hard and stressful on a women, I would wager that going through labour and birth, then maybe giving the kid up for adoption is no picnic.

(OOC - though Toriella is female, I am not. Which is why this gets confusing when I am discussing it. So if any of this sounds patronising in anyway, I, personally, apologise)

Lack of sex education? I agree with that completely. We need much more of it. Hell, I went through highschool Health class and never heard a thing about sex.

I'm not saying the ease of getting abortions are a cause of more teen pregnancies, but I do believe that some teens see it as a way of hitting the resart button and then going on to do the same stupid things over again without learning a lesson. Not all teens are like that, and not even teens for that matter. There are some people in general (adults and teens) who just see abortion as a way to do whatever and not pay consequences.

Lack of sex education? I agree with that completely. We need much more of it. Hell, I went through highschool Health class and never heard a thing about sex.

I'm not saying the ease of getting abortions are a cause of more teen pregnancies, but I do believe that some teens see it as a way of hitting the resart button and then going on to do the same stupid things over again without learning a lesson. Not all teens are like that, and not even teens for that matter. There are some people in general (adults and teens) who just see abortion as a way to do whatever and not pay consequences.

But there are also people who see it as their only hope. It is not beyond reason that a couple could take every precaution - condems and so forth - and still end up pregnant. Abortion might be the only way they can deal with it.

So while I would agree that people should learn to accept the consequences of their actions, I think the dangers of outlawing abortion greatly outweigh any benifits it might provide.

But there are also people who see it as their only hope. It is not beyond reason that a couple could take every precaution - condems and so forth - and still end up pregnant. Abortion might be the only way they can deal with it.

So while I would agree that people should learn to accept the consequences of their actions, I think the dangers of outlawing abortion greatly outweigh any benifits it might provide.

I can understand that too. But remember, I not trying to outlaw it. I just don't think it should be in the UN. I don't think the UN should legalize it or outlaw. They should leave it alone.

I can understand that too. But remember, I not trying to outlaw it. I just don't think it should be in the UN. I don't think the UN should legalize it or outlaw. They should leave it alone.

Then don't repeal the act. The UN is the only thing that can protect women, by making sure it is not banned.

Why is this post not a poll? lol

Why is this post not a poll? lol

Because if delegates are for my idea, they can go to the UN and approve it.

Then don't repeal the act. The UN is the only thing that can protect women, by making sure it is not banned.

Well... I kind of agree with you... but...

This is going out on a limb a little, but I feel that if this resolution was repealed, and the UN member states were allowed to outlaw abortion, they would find themselves in violation of the following resolutions :-

Resolution 6 - End To Slavery
Part of this was the right for every person "determine their own destiny" - if the nation is going to force a woman to have a child against her will then that is not allowing her to determine her own destiny.

Resolution 10 - Privacy Intrustion
This says that it relates to privacy, which includes wiretapping, but does not limit it to that. The right of someone to have privacy in their medical dealings could be said to be covered by this - and so the government can not interfere in them.

Resolution 26 - The Bill Of Rights
Article 4 - Equal treatment under the law. No law forces men to carry children to term, so why should there be a law that forces a woman to?
Article 5 - Prohibits inhumane and cruel treatment. I would argue that forcing a woman to give birth against her will is inhumane and cruel.

I am not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert in UN law. So if anyone would like to show me why repealing abortion rights would not be in violation of the above resolutions, I will be happy to conceed my error.
Sorry, those are weak arguments. If these arguments apply in this case, then you can take every slightly vague UN resolution and make it mean almost anything you wanted to. The spirit of the slavery law is obviously meant to prevent slavery. You can't arbirarily expand it. I could claim that a resolution that made everyone in control of their own destiny meant that it would be illegal to ever lock up a criminal. Putting someone in prison removes their control over their own destiny, but no one would seriously argue it was slavery.

Medical privacy does not mean that any type of medical procedure can't be outlawed, by that argument any type of medical experimentation would have to be allowed as long as the experimental subject was willing. That's obviously not the case, nor should it be.

The equal treatment under law is the funniest of these arguments, obviously no one can force a man to bear a child. However, the man traditionally has little say in abortion one way or the other. Under equal treatment, wouldn't it be wrong to either force a man to become a father, or to deny him that fatherhood if a woman decided to have an abortion? Either way, that could be a violation of equal treatment, so the current UN stance on abortion could just as easily violate that resolution if this is how it is interpreted.

And as far as inhumane and cruel, some would argue that abortion itself is cruel. I'm not one of them. But the point could be made my some, your opinion depends on where you stand on the issue.

Arguments on the resolution at hand will be much more effective than twisting the meanings of previous resolutions. As I said before, we are rabidly pro-choice in my nation, but I am uncomfortable with forcing my nation's standards on the world without respect for their practices or culture.

That's an interesting argument. Individual sovereignty rather than national sovereignty...

There are certain issues that The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights believe are strictly international, strictly national, and strictly individual. This, one, is individual being regulated internationally but without impositions on the individual, which is why we are adamant against repealing this resolution.

You want Nations to make their own decisions about Abortion.
How 'bout this: You decide weather or not you want to get an abortion, and let everybody else make that decision for themselves.
And by the way, you don't join the U.N. if you want everything to be 100% up to you.

The United Imperium of Crossman proposes that UN Resolution #61, the "Abortion Rights" resolution be repealed. We find it unacceptable to force a moral position on member nations.

But you find it acceptable to force a moral position to citizens ???

The UN should be focused on the rights of the induvidual, making efforts to promote human rights over the soverignty of the state. My government is strong supporter of promoting civil rights, not just within our own borders, but worldwide. I'd rather tread on the toes of a few Conservative nations than see a person restricted from their fundamental rights.

The national soverignty arguement holds no substance - when you join the UN, you sacrifice an element of self-determination. It's mentioned in several places.

But you find it acceptable to force a moral position to citizens ???There is no force involved. Whilst citizens have the right to an abortion/gay marriage etc, there is no actual obligation involved.

As I said before, we are rabidly pro-choice in my nation, but I am uncomfortable with forcing my nation's standards on the world without respect for their practices or culture. It is not just your nations standards......many nations are strongly pro-choice. My government is strongly supportive of any measures that allow a citizen to decide what to do with their body - abortion is part of that right

There is no force involved. Whilst citizens have the right to an abortion/gay marriage etc, there is no actual obligation involved.

I know. If you give the right, you give the choice.

I was answering to Crossman.

PS. And my english is to bad to explain that if you insist to give rights to the foetus, it is necessary also to assume the consequences once that this one will be adult.

But you find it acceptable to force a moral position to citizens ???Nations force moral positions on their people all the time. That's part of what government is. There are laws against murder, theft, rape, and countless other things that all boil down to morality. Some nations also regulate more victimless crimes such as drug and alcohol use, smoking, and gambling. Now you can make the argument that some moral transgressions hurt society more (like murder), and that's why they are illegal. But what if some nations honestly think that abortion is extremely harmful to the fabric of their societies, much in the same way as other moral issues that most nations already regulate? Are the rights of some of the people in a nation always more important than that nation's sovereignty, traditions, religion, and culture? Are the opinions of some of the people in a nation that agree with a particular UN resolution always more important than the views of the majority of its citizens that disagree?

And frankly, the resolution is so vague and poorly written that I'm surprised it made it to the floor, let alone passed. First of all, who defines women? Is it any female or is there a set age? Are any types of age limits or parental notification rules acceptable? If so, that should have been defined. If not, saying that every nation must allow girls of any age to have a medical procedure without even telling their parents is preposterous. Are nations allowed to make any rules requiring notification of the potential fathers? If not, are men's rights as potential fathers somehow less important than women's?

There's nothing to the resolution other than saying that abortion must be legal and the governments can't restrict it. But that has no teeth. There are no requirements that there must be a certain number of abortion providers per capita, or in fact any providers at all. If abortion is legal in a nation with a privatized health care system, but no clinics choose to offer the procedure, then the government is not restricting access and yet abortion is still not available. There are no requirements saying that it should be affordable, so I'd imagine that some pro-life nations may only offer the operation in very expensive clinics, so it is still out of reach of many of their citizens. But if a country doesn't have nationalized health care, you can't blame them for the lack of abortion access. Even if they do have nationalized health care, they may only have a small amount of doctors willing to perform an abortion. Or they could only have a small part of their budget dedicated to it.

The current resolution is not only restrictive, it also lacks any specifics and has plenty of loopholes. So to me, that's not worth stepping on the rights of all member nations. As I mentioned, my nation is rabidly pro choice, and will remain so regardless of what the UN does. However, I do not find it acceptable to condescend to conservative or religious nations that disagree with me, and force my more liberal views on them. Pushing through social resolutions like this simply seems like a way to encourage the conservative countries to leave the UN, and many of them are the ones that we should be trying most desperately to help (in less restrictive ways).

Saying that national sovereignty isn't a good argument against any UN resolution because by joining you give a little of that up is laughable. It's true that you give up a bit of your sovereignty. But that doesn't mean that it should never be a concern, or that we shouldn't guard against the UN stripping too many decisions (especially on what can be seen as moral, social, or religious issues) from its member states. The UN has to walk a fine line between helping the citizens of the world and letting each nation retain most of its sovereignty. If members start consistently disregarding the rights of nations, then the UN will start to become the one world government that some paranoid citizens of the world fear it may already be.

One could argue that in certain situations of life-or-death, or rape, abortion would seem imperative. I think it should stay the way it is. Majority rule, etc.

The underlying meaning of this statement is that abortion is permissible in those cases where the woman was an unwilling participant in the conception (except in the very rare case where pregnancy threatens the life of the woman.) Most people who list 'exemptions' from an abortion ban also list cases of incest or minors who are legally not permitted to give consent.

Therefore, refusing to permit abortion in situations where the woman is a willing participant in the conception is tantamount to saying that the woman is at fault and therefore must permit the embryo or foetus to develop, even if unwanted.

How is it different for the embryo or the foetus regardless of the willingness of the mother? Is it murder if the mother was willing, but not murder if the mother is a minor or the victim of incest or rape?

Thus, the entire motive of the people who would ban abortions in all cases except where the mother was an unwilling participant in the conception is laid bare -- they aren't so concerned about the 'murder' of an embryo; they want to hold the mother accountable for willingly copulating.

So, folks, let's remember that the argument against abortion is usually about punishing women for having sex, and not about saving embryos from 'murder.' The only people who should speak of abortion as 'murder' are those who do NOT make the exceptions for women who are unwilling participants in conception.

For my part, I feel that each case has its own merits and moral issues and that the only people who are fit to take part in the decision in each case are the mother, the father (sometimes -- if he raped her, committed incest, whatever, he has forfeited his parental rights.) and the woman's physician. Where there is disagreement on a given case, it is the mother who should have the ultimate decision as the embryo is in her body.

I support the resolution as it exists.

(Edited to provide ref numbers)



1) Sorry, those are weak arguments. If these arguments apply in this case, then you can take every slightly vague UN resolution and make it mean almost anything you wanted to.

2) The spirit of the slavery law is obviously meant to prevent slavery. You can't arbirarily expand it. I could claim that a resolution that made everyone in control of their own destiny meant that it would be illegal to ever lock up a criminal. Putting someone in prison removes their control over their own destiny, but no one would seriously argue it was slavery.

3) Medical privacy does not mean that any type of medical procedure can't be outlawed, by that argument any type of medical experimentation would have to be allowed as long as the experimental subject was willing. That's obviously not the case, nor should it be.

4) The equal treatment under law is the funniest of these arguments, obviously no one can force a man to bear a child. However, the man traditionally has little say in abortion one way or the other. Under equal treatment, wouldn't it be wrong to either force a man to become a father, or to deny him that fatherhood if a woman decided to have an abortion? Either way, that could be a violation of equal treatment, so the current UN stance on abortion could just as easily violate that resolution if this is how it is interpreted.

5) And as far as inhumane and cruel, some would argue that abortion itself is cruel. I'm not one of them. But the point could be made my some, your opinion depends on where you stand on the issue.

6) Arguments on the resolution at hand will be much more effective than twisting the meanings of previous resolutions. As I said before, we are rabidly pro-choice in my nation, but I am uncomfortable with forcing my nation's standards on the world without respect for their practices or culture.

1) If you class the links as weak then yes - this is pointless. But I will try explaining again in a different manner to see if they are more convincing :}

2) But if you are telling a woman who is pregnant through no fault of her own that she HAS to have this child against her will then you are removing her right to chose for herself. And if (for example) she has a one night stand, and uses protection, but the guy who provides the condom puts a little hole in it, because he REALLY wants a child, you are basically saying that that man has more of a choice over the future of the woman's body than the woman does. It puts the control of the woman's body in the hands of the man, and of the nation.

3) In the fictional country of the USA a case called "Roe vs Wade" was brought initially on the invasion of privacy. And this is the case, in that country, that has made aborition legal for over thirty years now.

4) The Article says that "All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation". But my arguement is - as it was before - that this law has the potential to specifically harm women. As I said it can turn women in to second class citizens by putting their bodies under the control of the state. So this is quite obviously a violation of this article - you are enacting a law that has an adverse effect on women.

5) I guess the inhumane and cruel punishment is a matter of perspective.

1 and 6) I didn't just grab any of the resolutions - for exampe I didn't say that a ban on single hulled tankers is a reason not to repeal this resolution. I put a lot of thought in to it, and all these laws that I cited all have some relevence to the issue. And I think that if we are going to pass multiple resolutions about human rights, then they should all be checked if one of the resolutions is repealed.

And a woman who has been raped in a nation halfway around the world is going to be able to afford to come to my country to have an abortion of course.

But I thought that you previously argued that the banning of abortion by any single country was pointless as that's precisely what women would do?

Oh no - wait - they might not. So instead of going to a state trained doctor that is clean and healthy, they end up at some back alley clinic where not only the pregnancy is terminated, but their life as well. But hey - it would stop them doing it again, and since the banning of abortion would make them a slave to your government, it wouldn't be so serious if they died would it?I think the idea that the banning of abortion would make women "slaves" is something of a overstatement to say the least. We have a large adoption service. Our goverment and our church are also prepared to bring up unwanted children so no-one is being forced to bring up a child against their will. And our policy of free subsidised childcare till the age of 18 also reduces the demand. Unlike some more "pro-women" countries nobody in the Holy Word is forced into abortion by their financial situation.

I realise that that sounds a bit harsh, but to suggest that your nation can ban abortion, but it's not a problem because a pregnant woman can go somewhere else to have it done, is the worst kind of hypocracy. If abortion is so wrong that you want to outlaw it in your country, you should take steps to ensure no one in your country could have one. Otherwise you are just pretending to be better than you are.We naturally disagree and we'll explain why. We don't believe their is much demand for abortion in our country anyway- our citizens are all devout followers of the Church of the Holy Word. Hence we don't wish to condone a service that the vast majority of our citizens would be offended by. Indeed, we would go as far as to say that would be causing needless offence for the sake of it- surely an assault on our citizens human's rights. However we are neither going to a) try to impose our view on other soverign nations who don't share our beliefs or b) restrict the free movement of our citizens. I hope that clarifys our position.

And on another topic, that has very little to do with abortion but has brought up an interesting point - no. The government should not be allowed to decide what operations are important and what aren't. Doctors should treat the sick on the basis of need, not on the basis of money.

If a country is being expected to spend hard stretched health funding on abortion services then we do believe it is relevant to the discussion. We agree with your other point. People who need saving from death would qualify to us as being most in need. People who need curing of illness are secondarily most needy. We don't believe pregnancy qualifies by either defination (with the exception of the tiny minority of life threatining cases).

This is going out on a limb a little, but I feel that if this resolution was repealed, and the UN member states were allowed to outlaw abortion, they would find themselves in violation of the following resolutions :-

Resolution 6 - End To Slavery
Part of this was the right for every person "determine their own destiny" - if the nation is going to force a woman to have a child against her will then that is not allowing her to determine her own destiny.

Forcing a women to bring up a child would be stopping her from determining her own destiny. Allowing a child to live is allowing them to have a destiny in the first place.

Resolution 10 - Privacy Intrustion
This says that it relates to privacy, which includes wiretapping, but does not limit it to that. The right of someone to have privacy in their medical dealings could be said to be covered by this - and so the government can not interfere in them.

This would make medical records confidental. We don't believe it covers the provision of medical services. Otherwise your argument would also force goverments to provide cosmetic surgery.

Resolution 26 - The Bill Of Rights
Article 4 - Equal treatment under the law. No law forces men to carry children to term, so why should there be a law that forces a woman to?

Firstly a repeal is not the same as outlawing abortion throughout the UN. Secondly, technically speaking men are equally bound by any law on abortion as women are. This is less of a lingustic game then it sounds. Not all nations in the UN have the same species biology yours and ours do. Again, if we took your interpretation to it's logical conclusion then foolishness could result. By that argument maternity leave is illegal.
Article 5 - Prohibits inhumane and cruel treatment. I would argue that forcing a woman to give birth against her will is inhumane and cruel.Treatment suggests that something is being done. That's different then letting nature take it's course.

(broken up for clarity)


I think the idea that the banning of abortion would make women "slaves" is something of a overstatement to say the least. We have a large adoption service. Our goverment and our church are also prepared to bring up unwanted children so no-one is being forced to bring up a child against their will. And our policy of free subsidised childcare till the age of 18 also reduces the demand. Unlike some more "pro-women" countries nobody in the Holy Word is forced into abortion by their financial situation.


Ok - there is a man called Mr Smith. He wants a child but for various reasons no single women will talk to him. So one night he goes out and rapes a women. She ends up pregnant. She doesn't want the child, but because abortion is now illegal in her country (except where her life is threatened, which is isn't) she is forced to bring it to term and go through the pain of childbirth. She gives the child up for adoption, and it is adopted by a friend of Mr Smith's. Mr Smith comes out of jail and now has a child of his own.
In this example the woman is basically a baby machine for Mr Smith - with no rights of her own to say she doesn't want to be.

There is another man named Mr Jones. He wants a child too. So he goes out on a one night stand, and the woman makes him use a condom because she doesn't want a child. But he puts a pin hole in it, and she ends up pregnant. There is no evidence to suggest this, but it is the truth. Now she is forced to bear his child, against her will, because abortion has been outlawed.

How does that not equate to making women second class citizens? You take away their free will and allow men to use them to make babies whether they want to or not.


We naturally disagree and we'll explain why. We don't believe their is much demand for abortion in our country anyway- our citizens are all devout followers of the Church of the Holy Word. Hence we don't wish to condone a service that the vast majority of our citizens would be offended by. Indeed, we would go as far as to say that would be causing needless offence for the sake of it- surely an assault on our citizens human's rights. However we are neither going to a) try to impose our view on other soverign nations who don't share our beliefs or b) restrict the free movement of our citizens. I hope that clarifys our position.


You are sure you can speak for ALL of your citizens all of the time? Even those who are raped and forced to have kids against their will? Colour me unconvinced.


If a country is being expected to spend hard stretched health funding on abortion services then we do believe it is relevant to the discussion. We agree with your other point. People who need saving from death would qualify to us as being most in need. People who need curing of illness are secondarily most needy. We don't believe pregnancy qualifies by either defination (with the exception of the tiny minority of life threatining cases).


And if a women came to you telling you she didn't want the child, and she would kill herself if she was forced to have it? Would that qualify?


Forcing a women to bring up a child would be stopping her from determining her own destiny. Allowing a child to live is allowing them to have a destiny in the first place.


Forcing anyone to do anything against their will is stopping them from determining their own destiny.


This would make medical records confidental. We don't believe it covers the provision of medical services. Otherwise your argument would also force goverments to provide cosmetic surgery.


Medical records should be confidential. As should what is said between a doctor and a patient. And - as I alluded to before - Roe Vs Wade was brought on privacy grounds in the "USA"


Firstly a repeal is not the same as outlawing abortion throughout the UN. Secondly, technically speaking men are equally bound by any law on abortion as women are. This is less of a lingustic game then it sounds. Not all nations in the UN have the same species biology yours and ours do. Again, if we took your interpretation to it's logical conclusion then foolishness could result. By that argument maternity leave is illegal.


Maternity leave is balanced by paternity leave in my nation.
And as I said before you condem women to be forced to do something against their will. This law makes pregnant women "lesser beings" in the eyes of the law than men who are father's to be.


Treatment suggests that something is being done. That's different then letting nature take it's course.

Treatment is the act of treating someone, and a description of the way you treat them. You are treating the women with an iron fist by forcing them to go through child-birth.

I speak as the delagate for PROTECTORATES OF KNOTEIPHERE and I would like to just add my word that we are against abortion. For the simple fact of with the extra amount of people, we could have a huge slave/labor force. And we could have the unwanted babies raised up as military fighters, much like the ancient Spartans. Just think of it, sending your own army that has no fear, and is willing to die for any cause!

I speak as the delagate for PROTECTORATES OF KNOTEIPHERE and I would like to just add my word that we are against abortion. For the simple fact of with the extra amount of people, we could have a huge slave/labor force. And we could have the unwanted babies raised up as military fighters, much like the ancient Spartans. Just think of it, sending your own army that has no fear, and is willing to die for any cause!

Of all the arguements I have heard against abortion, this has to be the most entertaining. Thank you for making me laugh :}

Sorry I haven't been in here much, being the author and all. I've had some loose ends that needed tying up. Anyway, I'm in no mood to deabte right now... I'm very tired. Been busy defending my religion from some lousy intolerant bigot.

And with that, I leave you. Good day.

Tyrandis, having noted the ridiculous socialistic policies of the United Nations, is not a member of the U.N.

However, we feel that we can chime in a bit on this issue, as it pertains to national sovereignity.

Why not simply amend the current issue? There's a bit of loophole involved: while it says that "Abortion must be legal in all member states", it never said that the state itself could not punish those individuals who get them...

In Tyrandis, we have a simple solution: while you may get an abortion, the few people who do wind up being deported to a more liberal nation. It's a win-win situation.

One could argue that in certain situations of life-or-death, or rape, abortion would seem imperative. I think it should stay the way it is. Majority rule, etc.

man i totally agree. this is exactly where i stand on the issue

The Most Serene Republic of Merridonia would like to make a few minor statements without getting into those foul, foul religious arguments that do so plague these issues like maggots on the flesh of a necrotic spider-bite.

As always, the current leader would note that these are simply her opinions, and she recognizes the right of other nations to continue to hold theirs.

The woman has the right to choose, one way or the other. (It is preferable if her lover, regardless of gender or status, should he/she be present, helps her with this decision, but we do not pretend to hold an entirely idealistic view of how such things work.)

However, said woman is a citizen of a government. This government has the right to run its nation as it will in this department, as long as it can hold onto said nation--people will revolt, other countries will attack. Fact of life.

I believe this abortion resolution to be improper. If it is one of the most important things to a nation that abortion be illegal, they should be allowed to make it illegal. It is most unseemly to force a nation founded on extreme religious principles to violate these principles. Merridonia will, of course, keep it legal and welcome any female needing or wanting one into its borders for the operation. Our best thinkers are puzzling out how we could possibly help the most desperate--that is to say, poor or at-risk--women in getting here and obtaining them when it is necessary without creating too much strain on our own economy as I speak. I digress.

Perhaps what would be more appropriate is a resolution stating that each nation may decide whether or not abortion will be legal in their own lands, but may not persecute women for seeking one in another country that allows it. This would be slightly more sensible, I think.

I cannot help but feel I am playing some sort of devil's advocate, here, to one party of thinking or another. Ah, well. A little chaos never hurt.

---C. Merridew

The United Socialist States of Snoogit agreee that the Choice of an abortion is entirely up to the Woman, and/or the state she dwells in.

We propose that the resolution be amended to state that the UN and its members will provide a cooperative, and well intentioned parental planning program to the nations who are currently lacking sufficient resources for parental planning.

It is most unseemly to force a nation founded on extreme religious principles to violate these principles.

You are aware that making abortion legal doesn't force every pregnant woman to have an abortion right? That the reason the a lot of people refer to it as "pro-choice" is that PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE!

You are aware that making abortion legal doesn't force every pregnant woman to have an abortion right? That the reason the a lot of people refer to it as "pro-choice" is that PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE!

Of course I realize that. Do not presume to preach to me on semantics, I know perfectly well what "pro-choice" is. I do not run around my nation carrying pictures of dead babies on posters and telling my people that it is deplorable.

This is why I mentioned that the amended resolution should state that, should their particular government make it illegal within their borders, women should be allowed to go to other nation to have it done without persecution before or after their return, or during their absence. I also, if you recall, mentioned my nation offering to find some way to help them do it should they turn to us for assistance. They would still have the choice, although, sadly, it may take some doing.

Speaking of, I do like Snoogit's idea, for the record.

Thinking that people need to double-check statements before jumping down the throat of someone who is already for their cause,
--Miss C. Merridew

Edited because the Loving Guide to Merridonia stayed up a bit too late last night reading, and made a silly spelling error.

Of course I realize that. Do not presume to preach to me on semantics, I know perfectly well what "pro-choice" is. I do not run around my nation carrying pictures of dead babies on posters and telling my people that it is deplorable.

This is why I mentioned that the amended resolution should state that, should their particular government make it illegal within their borders, women should be allowed to go to other nation to have it done without persecution before or after their return, or during their absence. I also, if you recall, mentioned my nation offering to find some way to help them do it should they turn to us for assistance. They would still have the choice, although, sadly, it may take some doing.

Speaking of, I do like Snoogit's idea, for the record.

Thinking that people need to double-check statements before jumping down the throat of someone who is already for their cause,
--Miss C. Merridew

Edited because the Loving Guide to Merridonia stayed up a bit too late last night reading, and made a silly spelling error.


I apologise if I sounded a touch over the top, but this is an issue I feel strongly about. And the way every one who supports this resolution is phrasing it sounds like they all believe that if they keep abortion on the law books it will force every single woman who gets pregnant to have one.

And although the idea of allowing women to go to another nations is one I support, it is the rankest hypocracy I have ever seen.

"Yeah - we think abortion is a crime against nature, and we don't want it going on in our country. But we don't mind someone else doing it to our people, just so long as we can pretend we are above all that by not allowing it in our nation. So we are mor moral than you cause we don't let mother's kill their babies within our borders, we make them go else where to do it"

It should come down to the woman's choice, and repealing this resolution would put the power of EVERY woman in EVERY nation in the hands of someone else - generally (from my experience) men. Who can sit and preach all they want, but will never have to be forced to go through the pain and suffering of labour and so can pontificate on what is moral and what isn't without dealing with any of the consequences of their decisions.

"If men needed abortions, there would be drive-thru windows with beer on tap and football on the TVs" (from a discussion in one of the council chambers)

why is it so important to become a murderer just because you dont feel like being pregnant for 9 months of life?

why is it so important to become a murderer just because you dont feel like being pregnant for 9 months of life?

Why are you so sure you know what is best for someone you have never met?

I apologise if I sounded a touch over the top, but this is an issue I feel strongly about.

No need for apologies, comrade. I am more for abortion rights than I often sound; quietly causing chaos is one of my preferred ways to get people to think and make clearer their intentions and/or beliefs on touchy issues.

And although the idea of allowing women to go to another nations is one I support, it is the rankest hypocracy I have ever seen.

If it lets them sleep at night...

Still supporting Snoogit's help with planned parenthood systems idea, whether in place of or in addition to the abortion rights resolution.

Too tired and not really giving a jackal's arse about the usual decent closing,
--C.M.

Ok - there is a man called Mr Smith. He wants a child but for various reasons no single women will talk to him. So one night he goes out and rapes a women. She ends up pregnant. She doesn't want the child, but because abortion is now illegal in her country (except where her life is threatened, which is isn't) she is forced to bring it to term and go through the pain of childbirth. She gives the child up for adoption, and it is adopted by a friend of Mr Smith's. Mr Smith comes out of jail and now has a child of his own.
In this example the woman is basically a baby machine for Mr Smith - with no rights of her own to say she doesn't want to be.That wouldn't happen in our country- we have the automatic death penalty for rapists and extensive police funding which keeps all crime minimal.

There is another man named Mr Jones. He wants a child too. So he goes out on a one night stand, and the woman makes him use a condom because she doesn't want a child. But he puts a pin hole in it, and she ends up pregnant. There is no evidence to suggest this, but it is the truth. Now she is forced to bear his child, against her will, because abortion has been outlawed.

We also have outlawed "one night stands".

How does that not equate to making women second class citizens? You take away their free will and allow men to use them to make babies whether they want to or not.

How does suggesting that the beauty of childbirth is somehow an illness that needs treating not making women second class citizens.


You are sure you can speak for ALL of your citizens all of the time? Even those who are raped and forced to have kids against their will? Colour me unconvinced.

As I said, crime in our nation is almost non-existent. And as there have been no significant calls for support of this motion within our nation I think it is reasonable to assume that we are upholding the views of the vast majority. Do you not think your stance of forcing our citizens to pay (through their taxes) for something against their religious beliefs is somewhat imperialistic?


And if a women came to you telling you she didn't want the child, and she would kill herself if she was forced to have it? Would that qualify?

No. That is emotional blackmail and should not influence policy making.


Forcing anyone to do anything against their will is stopping them from determining their own destiny.

Do you not think that the potential of life (we do not follow the unscientific bunkum that a foetus is somehow a baby) should also have a destiny?



Medical records should be confidential. As should what is said between a doctor and a patient. And - as I alluded to before - Roe Vs Wade was brought on privacy grounds in the "USA"

While I acknowledge that is your belief, I don't think the motion you cited specifically covers that.


Maternity leave is balanced by paternity leave in my nation.
And as I said before you condem women to be forced to do something against their will. This law makes pregnant women "lesser beings" in the eyes of the law than men who are father's to be.
Good. But it is not the case in every country. Equally it could be argued that funding of specifically gender related diseases (for example testicular cancer or breast cancer) is favouring one gender over another. Recognising equality before the law is not the same as treating the two sexes identically.


Treatment is the act of treating someone, and a description of the way you treat them. You are treating the women with an iron fist by forcing them to go through child-birth.But you are telling the women of our nation that their religious beliefs are wrong. Which do you think they feel more oppressed by?

(From another post)
Why are you so sure you know what is best for someone you have never met?
With all due respect, we believe you need to ask yourself the same question.

That wouldn't happen in our country- we have the automatic death penalty for rapists and extensive police funding which keeps all crime minimal.


So you support the murder of sentient beings, but not of unsentient beings?


We also have outlawed "one night stands".


And yet you lecture me about forcing morals on people?



How does suggesting that the beauty of childbirth is somehow an illness that needs treating not making women second class citizens.


Being forced to have a child by someone who raped you is not a beautiful thing. It is an horrific thing.


As I said, crime in our nation is almost non-existent. And as there have been no significant calls for support of this motion within our nation I think it is reasonable to assume that we are upholding the views of the vast majority.


There is a slight difference between "no significant calls for support" and everyone wanting it overturned. People (at least in my experience) have no tendecy to discuss something unless they want it to change.


Do you not think your stance of forcing our citizens to pay (through their taxes) for something against their religious beliefs is somewhat imperialistic?


Huh?


No. That is emotional blackmail and should not influence policy making.


And those who bemoan the rights of unborn innocents that are to be murdered are of course not using emotional blackmail.


Do you not think that the potential of life (we do not follow the unscientific bunkum that a foetus is somehow a baby) should also have a destiny?


Honestly? No. Because I have the potential to become a terrorist, and I have the potential to become the next messiah. But what if neither is true?


While I acknowledge that is your belief, I don't think the motion you cited specifically covers that.


"Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated"
(http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/)



But you are telling the women of our nation that their religious beliefs are wrong. Which do you think they feel more oppressed by?


I am not telling them they are wrong. I am not telling them they have to get an abortion. They can still chose not to have one if they are pregnant.


With all due respect, we believe you need to ask yourself the same question.

I do not believe that I know best for everybody. That is why I am wanting to ensure the choice stays in the hands of individuals, who do know what is best for themselves.

So you support the murder of sentient beings, but not of unsentient beings?As we've stated, we consider it to be to be a matter of spiritual potential, we don't consider a foetus to be a "being" in any meaningful sense of the word. So we believe a rapist has already shown that their potential is evil. And we choose to uphold the rights of a women not to be raped over the rights of a rapist.


And yet you lecture me about forcing morals on people?We lecture you on trying to force your nation's morals on other nations. We certainly are not planning to force our policys on other UN nations.


Being forced to have a child by someone who raped you is not a beautiful thing. It is an horrific thing.
If we agree to support a future motion allowing abortion in the case of rape then will you agree to support this repeal? Or does a compromise hold no interest for you?


There is a slight difference between "no significant calls for support" and everyone wanting it overturned. People (at least in my experience) have no tendecy to discuss something unless they want it to change.
Then the lack of criticism within our nation for our church's policy on abortion could surely be taken as satisfaction?



Huh?Put simply, you are forcing our nation's populace to pay through taxes for a procedure most of them are opposed for, to make them fall into line with your nation's beliefs. And you are also forcing our nation to divert funding away from life saving operations.



And those who bemoan the rights of unborn innocents that are to be murdered are of course not using emotional blackmail.I don't believe we've done that at any point



Honestly? No. Because I have the potential to become a terrorist, and I have the potential to become the next messiah. But what if neither is true?So surely you should have a chance to show what your potential can lead too. A policy of innocent till proven guilty.


"Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated"
(http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/)
OOC: I don't mean this in any way offensively (it's just the way I chose to play the game) but I don't reply to RL examples in the UN forum. I prefer to keep it purely in the realms of RP. Otherwise I'd end up talking about my RL views and I'd rather do that in the General Forum.



I am not telling them they are wrong. I am not telling them they have to get an abortion. They can still chose not to have one if they are pregnant. You are telling them they must fund abortion clinics.



I do not believe that I know best for everybody. That is why I am wanting to ensure the choice stays in the hands of individuals, who do know what is best for themselves.How does insisting that states provide abortion facilities ensure the choice stays in the hands of individuals?

I think we are just going to go round and round on this. You are not going to convince me I am wrong, and I am not going to convince you of the same thing.

So shall we just stop?

Agreed. (It's all somewhat irrelevant at the moment as there is no repeal motion up for vote anyway).

Surely there is a reason why people voted for this to be passed earlier. I say that the original proposal should still stand, as it is not logical to displease the majority just to please you.

Please contact my regional delegate, Wade's Wise Words inc from the Protectorates of Knoteiphere about this flagrant denial of national soverienty. Let me put it this way, pro-choice people. There are pro-after-birth-murderers out there. Shouldn't THEY be allowed to exercise their free choice of morality instead of the law compeling them to not murder? No! It is the same way with murder before birth. The human body has fingers and toes by 21 days old. Don't argue that it is not human, or that the soul doesn't come into play until the third trimester. (The only "good" reason to argue the later is "Aristole said so!" -science has passed Aristotle.) Or that consiousness determines wether there is a right to life. Might as well legally injure me into a coma, and THEN kill me, if that is what your idea of legalized life ending is. If you argue "health of the mother" - wait a sec, who had the child in the first place? If you argue "life of the mother"-yes, life is a resonable reason to end life. But let soveriegn nations decide. Or else the Protectorates and others may boycott the UN!

Please contact my regional delegate, Wade's Wise Words inc from the Protectorates of Knoteiphere about this flagrant denial of national soverienty. Let me put it this way, pro-choice people. There are pro-after-birth-murderers out there. Shouldn't THEY be allowed to exercise their free choice of morality instead of the law compeling them to not murder? No! It is the same way with murder before birth. The human body has fingers and toes by 21 days old. Don't argue that it is not human, or that the soul doesn't come into play until the third trimester. (The only "good" reason to argue the later is "Aristole said so!" -science has passed Aristotle.) Or that consiousness determines wether there is a right to life. Might as well legally injure me into a coma, and THEN kill me, if that is what your idea of legalized life ending is. If you argue "health of the mother" - wait a sec, who had the child in the first place? If you argue "life of the mother"-yes, life is a resonable reason to end life. But let soveriegn nations decide. Or else the Protectorates and others may boycott the UN!

And by that arguement killing animals for food, for pleasure or even accidentally stepping on an ant should be considered murder. Would you support resolutions that outlaw all of the above to defend outlawing abortion?

Bredagh is a pro-choice country and certainly was before we joined. We believe that a woman has the right to bodily integrity and that it's not up to the UN to tell individual countries how to govern their abortion policies.