NationStates Jolt Archive

I vote NO because its sick to kill a child, no matter what "stage" in development they're at. Unless she was raped or giving birth threatened her life, the mother cant simply "change her mind"! What has the world come to?

I vote NO because its sick to kill a child, no matter what "stage" in development they're at. Unless she was raped or giving birth threatened her life, the mother cant simply "change her mind"! What has the world come to?

Abortion is already legal... So the question you SHOULD be asking is should it be illegal...

I Agree

Abortion is already legal... So the question you SHOULD be asking is should it be illegal...

Obviously the person isn't from the UK or US where abortion is legal.
Stuff happens. Unless you've been in the situation it's very hard to give a def yes or no. As for the posters "a mother can't change her mind" Not every one's situation is as rosey as yours and if you can say you can provide fully and supportively t o a child you're in a lucky position

A human embryoid cannot be considered anatomically alive (or concious) until the last 2 weeks of the second trimester. A woman should have the right to have an abortion under any circumstances until this point. After this point, there must be an express medical reason for the child to be aborted, or another extreme circumstance.

Greetings,

There are, of course, orphanages and you can give your child up for adoption. I understand this may be a difficult decision, but this is what I think should be done if one does not have the means to support an extra member in the family or simply does not want the child in one's life.

In any case, I agree with the first poster: only when there is a collision of rights, or in the case of rape, should the abortion be legal.

Regards,

Hakopam

I must disagree with Hakopam. While it is conceeded that adoption is an ulitmately more desirable option for "unwanted" children, adoption cannot be guaranteed, available, or in a humane situation. Thus, abortion must remain an option for women who do not have access to adoption services, or cannot otherwise care or assure care for the child.

We believe that it is wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world.

We believe that human does not necessarily equal person

We also believe that it is already legal in The United Nations.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The problem with trying to create a law that would allow abortion to be legal in some cases and not in others is who decides when it is right and when it is wrong? They tried this before and it must be extremely difficult for a women to get up in front of a panel of doctors and explain why she thinks that she should be allowed an abortion. It is really easy to say that in the case of rape an aborition should be given, however would the person have to prove that she was raped or would her word be enough? Should there be a criminal conviction before the women is allowed an abortion?

The problem with trying to create a law that would allow abortion to be legal in some cases and not in others is who decides when it is right and when it is wrong? They tried this before and it must be extremely difficult for a women to get up in front of a panel of doctors and explain why she thinks that she should be allowed an abortion. It is really easy to say that in the case of rape an aborition should be given, however would the person have to prove that she was raped or would her word be enough? Should there be a criminal conviction before the women is allowed an abortion?
Try repealing the existing resolution legalising abortion first.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

because its sick to kill a child,
So once it gets over 16... 18(?) it's okay to kill?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Obviously the person isn't from the UK or US where abortion is legal.
Stuff happens. Unless you've been in the situation it's very hard to give a def yes or no. As for the posters "a mother can't change her mind" Not every one's situation is as rosey as yours and if you can say you can provide fully and supportively t o a child you're in a lucky position

If you are in the NationStates United Nations, abortion is legal...

The issue was already handled under NSUN Resolution #61 (however much I disagree with the wording of said resolution).

So arguing legality for that which is already legal, rather, the question that should be asked, is if the present legality be repealed.

I for one would rather have a more robust Resolution in place of #61...

in the united states, less than 1% of all abortions are for medical reasons.

use a condom if you dont want a kid

Condoms fail. 'the united states' does not exist.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

A person cannot be living until they are breathing, surely? I'm no biologist but I know that a baby doesn't breathe until it is born. Until then, I think it isn't really a person. Anyway, how can it be cruel, because it doesn't feel pain, and it expresses no sorrow.

Anyway, surely it is the mother's body and therefore the mother's choice? What if the condom split, or the pill didn't work for some reason? No form of contraception is completely fail-safe. It is extremely unfair for a normal woman who doesn't want kids but for whom contraception failed to be forced to have a baby when the option of abortion is available.

I don't think the government has the right to tell peopel whether or not they can decide. At the end of the day, it shoudl be down to the mothers own personal judgement as it is the mother whose life will be changed as a result of the child's birth.

Therefore, abortion shoud remain legal, though limits shoudl be placed upon it's use in order to prevent abuse of the practice.

It depends on what you see life as.

I for one, don't see an un-born "child" as person. Also, we don't exactly have room for all these unwanted babies. Baby killer, murderer, call me what you will. I merely look at the bigger picture.

~Potentate Andrew Schuster

I don't think the government has the right to tell peopel whether or not they can decide. At the end of the day, it shoudl be down to the mothers own personal judgement as it is the mother whose life will be changed as a result of the child's birth.

Therefore, abortion shoud remain legal, though limits shoudl be placed upon it's use in order to prevent abuse of the practice.

But what ever limits you put on it - only in the cases of rape, or medical need, and so on - will only cause people to lie about the reasons they want it.

It either has to be available for everyone, with no moral judgements about why someone would want it, or available for no one, including those raped, or who would die if they had the child.

I am quite happy it is legal in all UN nations, and plan to oppose any moves to ban it.

The problem with trying to create a law that would allow abortion to be legal in some cases and not in others is who decides when it is right and when it is wrong? They tried this before and it must be extremely difficult for a women to get up in front of a panel of doctors and explain why she thinks that she should be allowed an abortion. It is really easy to say that in the case of rape an aborition should be given, however would the person have to prove that she was raped or would her word be enough? Should there be a criminal conviction before the women is allowed an abortion?

Aside from The Black New World's remarks, this is totally humiliating. A woman seeking an abortion should not have to be lectured about what she has done, nor should she have to beg for the procedure infront of a group of people she has never met. It's a hard enough time in a woman's life when she decides to terminate a pregnancy - she should not have to be dragged through the gauntlet first!

A woman's right to choose the freedoms to which her body and her soul can live with is more paramount than denying anyone anything based on the moral quandries of others.

Some seem to be of the mindset that a fetus is not a human being until it is born. Biologically speaking that is not the case. To be considered alive a being must be able to:

(a)Have order;
(b)Growth and develoment;
(c)Reproduction;
(d)Energy utilization;
(e)response to the environment;
(f)evolutionary adaptation

Some would say that a fetus is incapable of reproduction and thus not a living organis. However, for consistency, initiatives protecting endangered species protect their offspring prior to reaching full form (tadpoles, caterpillars) and the use of chemicals to intentionally inhibit animal fetal development, indicating that it is accepted that the ability to reproduce is weighted equally. Also, rejecting the classification of being alive to individuals incapable of reproduction would also be inconsistent. Studies indicate fetuses are responsive to environmental factors (hormone levels, stress..etc), and have the ability to maintain cellular homeostasis, and complex homeostasis as the need develops.

So, if a fetus is alive, is it a human being?
Does it contain the homosapien genetic code, yes.
Does it replicate that genetic code, yes.
Does it transcribe that genetic code, yes.

Well, if it is the product of humans engaged in the reproductive cycle, and contains their genetic coding, replicates, and transcribes it... then it is a human being.

This leads to abortion being a value judgment on two counts depending on philosophical ideologies: 1) Do we distinguish between the taking of the life of a person from that of a human being, which leads to when is a human being a person, and/or 2) If a spiritual component to life exists-when does it materialize.

AP, believes that laws, as written do not distinguish between persons and human beings, and protect both equally, and that if a spiritual essence exists independant of the physical manifestation of a being than it comes into existence at the moment of fertilization-when a human being comes into being (genetically and biologically)

So, the question becomes when is ending the life of another human being justified?

Well, AP believes the only time the taking of the life of another is when the existence of one being poses an imminent threat to the life of another.

A woman's right to choose the freedoms to which her body and her soul can live with is more paramount than denying anyone anything based on the moral quandries of others.

A right is a moral quandry, there is no such thing as an inherent right. Just those which a collective conscious grant to themselves.

A right is an endowment which, when conducted by one, does not intrude on the rights of another. And exists so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

So, does a woman truely have the right to choose?
There is a strong argument to say no.

First, is the killing of another being justified under the circumstances? (see previous post)
If yes, then it is the woman's right to choose as her life is in danger by bringing the pregnancy to term.

Second, irrespective of justification, does that choice only affect the woman? And thus solely her right?

Some would argue that since pregnancy and abortion invade her physical person it is her choice whether the pregnancy is brought to term or not.

This also is not a strong argument. To say that since it is her person she has the right to choose means that actually bringing the pregnancy to term only affects the woman as well. For this to be true-no man should be considered in any way to owe emotional or fiduciary responsibility to the woman or upbringing of the child-even if married, single, or divorced. This, currently is not the case. But could be a subconscious consequence of abortion rights-leading to men feeling it is alright to abandon wives or the mothers of their children (i.e justifies their providing no support).

Does rape justify abortion?
Well, does the assault and battery of one being justify her taking the life of another?
No, as the third being is not a party to the original assault and battery.

But what about emotional distress brought about by bringing the pregnancy to term?
This creates an entitlement to kill another based on their unintentional infliction of emotional distress, is that justified? The emotional distress of being raped will always exist, bring the pregnancy to term may increase or decrease this stress: there are case studies supporting both conclusions, so it goes back to the entitlement question.

A right is a moral quandry, there is no such thing as an inherent right. Just those which a collective conscious grant to themselves.

The human right to individuality is as inherent as the need for breathing. Period. I'd kill someone, anyone, who dared tried to limit my individuality for posing morality not defined by myself on me.

First you are confusing biological neccessity to continue life processes with rights. You can not do so and support that by saying Period.

How is a desire the same as a physical act neccessary to remain alive? This requires more reasoning than PERIOD.

You imply that you would drop dead once individuality is taken away, which is what happens once you are no longer capable of breathing. Which would have to be the case if the two are to be considered inherently equal in importance.

How is a desire the same as a physical act neccessary to remain alive? This requires more reasoning than PERIOD.

No, it doesn't.

Walk a day in the life of a woman who's chosen to abort a child, then, tell me whether or not she had the right to make that choice.

That's what this is all about it. It's about an individual's right to choose to abort or not. The government should stay out of abortion clinics, out of the moral decisions an individual makes, and out of the individual's desire to do what they want to do not want to do.

That's it. End of story.

Freedom of man to do as he pleases is a fundamental right. Even God realized that, hence, free will.

T_T

I suspect this thread is more suited to the General Forum, as

a) The initial post is in the form of a " I VOTE NO ! " statement, and the Nation States United Nations has already granted women the right in member countries to abortions. In a past resolution. See " c " below.

b) Further more, the follow on posts refer to RL U.S.A. AND United Kingdom. And and go on in to what is as far as this forum should be concerned a redundant ethical debate. Unless " c " is in action ...

c) So unless you are clearly sounding out about opinion to which you could decide upon to write a repeal or have written a repeal and are going to present it here or there is a repeal in que which you will specifically post a copy of here to draw our attention to it I would assume,

This thread should maybe be shifted into General Forum ?

Tuesday,

Okay, that was completely devoid of thought and rationalization.

Like everyoe else she maintains the ability to make a choice. Whether or not it is a right is a whole other question. Because a person can do something does not mean they have a right or entitlement to do it. Your last comment is at best blasphemy, and a gross misinterpretation of free will with respect to morality-of which it is a concept. (Also, Free will is a moral theory developed by a man, with no indication of devine inspiration)

What you are saying flies in the face of reason and morality. Do what you desire, negate thought, consequence, and its impact to others. Then there is no need for government, or civilized society at large.

You are correct Komokon, absent a resolution this has evolved into a general forum discussion.

You are correct Komokon, absent a resolution this has evolved into a general forum discussion.
Where there are probably several hundred such topics already, to match the several dozen in the back pages of the UN forum.

Let's just lock it, like we do with all the trolling topics that don't support a proposal.

http://www.seniorennet.be/Images/Huisdieren/Hamster/hamster.jpg