NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: The UN will recognise the rights of fathers to appeal against the mothers wish to abort their child.
The UN recognises that the father is equally responbile in the conception of the child and therefore should be afforded

rights equal to that of the mother. The pains of bearing the child is not reason enough for aborting that child (see

Exceptions) if the child will be cared for in a suitable environment in accordance with the stipulations set forth here

within.

Fathers have the right to do so under the following stipualtions:

1. The father agrees to take full custody and responsibility for the child(Appendix 1).
2. The mother will have no further responsibilies beyond birth.
3. The mother forfeits any rights to the child(Appendix 2).
4. The father must provide evidence that he can provide basic physiological neccesities and education for the child.
5. The father must be a fit and proper person as decided by the court. No prior convictions, drug abuse or alcoholism.

Appendix 1

After the approval by the court of the fathers appeal, the father is legally bound to that decision.

Appendix 2

Within one month of birth, the women may appeal for basic rights to the child. No custodian rights are included in these. The

court will then prescribe a reasonable maintenance amount.

Exceptions:

1. Where the conception was not consensual.
2. Where one or more of the parties was a minor at the time of conception.
3. Where complications of carrying or birth endangers the life of the mother.

Hersfold and I both ran into troubles for using the word "Amendment" in the title of a proposal "Amendments to the UNEC", which we changed to "Defining the UNEC".

It seems to me that you are proposing something about Paternal Rights in Abortion Decisions. "Paternal Rights" might be one suggestion. "Father's Rights for Abortion Decisions" is another. etc.

The pains of bearing the child is not reason enough for aborting that child
Sez you. This appears to be interfering with the woman's right to have an abortion based on a ruling by the state (courts as a representative of the state)

Sez them:
no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion

So I think that conflicts but it might not. Best ask a mod.

On another note women do have abortions because the don't want a baby now or maybe they think they will get postpartum depression (or, even, psychosis) which isn't life threatening but it isn't exactly a good thing. Or a downright fear of pregnancy and child birth.

And why are you making men go through all these checks when other parents don't get them? (okay that bit was slightly sarcastic)

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Fathers have the right to do so under the following stipualtions:

1. The father agrees to take full custody and responsibility for the child(Appendix 1).
2. The mother will have no further responsibilies beyond birth.
3. The mother forfeits any rights to the child(Appendix 2).
4. The father must provide evidence that he can provide basic physiological neccesities and education for the child.
5. The father must be a fit and proper person as decided by the court. No prior convictions, drug abuse or alcoholism.


I think I have to agree with a previous poster - a father is not normally required to submit to these checks if he wants to have a child, so why should he have to in thise case?


Exceptions:

1. Where the conception was not consensual.
2. Where one or more of the parties was a minor at the time of conception.
3. Where complications of carrying or birth endangers the life of the mother.

What do you mean by not consensual? I can think of a lot of situations that could be covered by the term "consent" in the case of someone getting pregnant, and I would like to know which of these you consider are covered by this issue.

I would, first of all, defitely take the word "amendment" out of this proposal.

So I think that conflicts but it might not. Best ask a mod. My unofficial opinion is that it does not conflict, but a GM might potentially want to weigh in here as well.

Unfree People
Forum Moderator

The proposal says that the pains of bearing the child are not enough to abort it. Even if I agreed with this (I don't, although I also think it is ALOT more complicated), the proposal seems to be giving the father a free ride as far as the pregnancy is concerned. There will be doctors bills, potential loss of income for going on leave from a high-paying job, psychologist bills for post-partum depression, etc., etc. etc.., maybe even death (yes, people DO still die in childbirth, or suffer permanent disability, which everyone seems to forget). Even in cases of surrogates, or egg donation, these things are coverered by the "interested" (in this case the father) party.

Also, how are you going to determine whose child it is until it is born? There may be tests for obtaining genetics in the womb, but who will also pay for this? And who can say for certain if the mother was "co-erced"? What if the father said "of course I'm wearing a condom, honey" and he was lying (difficult to prove either way in a court, don't ya think?) Maybe he replaced her birth controlled pill with placebos. She could submit these as evidence, unless she has taken the last one, of course, which is likely given that she will probably be on the next pack by the time she finds out that she is pregnant.

Basically, I don't think that this is very well written, full of obvious loopholes, not to mention that it basically treats mothers as "walking wombs". I don't think it will get many endorsements, from either side of the abortion debate (unless they just vote for anything "that furthers their cause", which, unfortunately, there are quite a few).

Firsts of all thank you for commenting, your issue are dully noted.

Thanks for you concern mikivity, and thanks to the moderator.

I use the term ammendment simply because there is already a resolution that i do not want to completely recind merely to adjust or amend. but i will work on it.

Consent has to be taken in the broadest sense give that i have only half a page of text to work with and not a full on resolution for you to peruse at leisure.

basically all this means is that where the woman either doesnt have the capacity to consent ( from age, mental, intoxicaton). or is forced ie rape etc. Similar to law of contract (english common law)

as for men having to submit checks etc,this is due to the unnatural and possible problematic problem that could be encoutered.

noramally the farther would have the support of the mother in this case he doesnt. normally it is the choice of the parent to have the child. in this case it is, only the mother. It is an abnormal situation, and so as to avoid repacussions. these check must be put in place.

Unfortuanatly it is immposible to tell who the farther is etc etc.
you can find a million amazingly unlikly stories to substantiate a reason for not allowing this to happen. but what is the point of pedantry for the sake of pedantry.

The senario is simple you have a mistake. And unfortunatly there are sufferers in mistakes. A Man and a woman have conceived a child, there should be nothing stopping them from aborting the child. If one of them has absconded then the descision will be that of the woman's. How ever put yourself in the place of the man(*in yoursame condecending tone* Yes there are still men out there who are respnsible for there actions)would you not like to have a legal say in the decision. It would be heart breaking for me if i didnt(kind of like killing a part of me) i know that.
im not trying to be schovanist, i simply want the choice. And i think that it is a decent addition to the other resolution, give the quality of some of the possible resolution candidates out there.

More comments will be gratfully accepted, as would your support

Firsts of all thank you for commenting, your issue are dully noted.

Thanks for you concern mikivity, and thanks to the moderator.

I use the term ammendment simply because there is already a resolution that i do not want to completely recind merely to adjust or amend. but i will work on it.


Oh, I completely understand, because Hersfold and I felt the same way. I'll give a bit of backstory about what we were doing.

When the UNEC resolution hit the floor it had a few typos, and one of those typos implied that the UNEC was really benefiting a single nation. Now we all know that the UN Secretariat (game mods) would delete on sight a UN proposal that targeted a single nation, so it is now clear that the mistake was an honest one.

But the end result was there was a very nasty debate, including many over the top telegrams being sent around. Hersfold, to his credit took the debate for his resolution to many regional forums, and engaged in one of the most inclusive debates I've seen in the UN. (Not to suggest that debates don't happen elsewhere, but Hersfold was one of the first single player resolution authors to be found in 20 places at once.)

Anyway, the resolution passed, but Hersfold felt that some of the suggestions were valid, and at the time the UN policy of amendments and repeals was less clear. Specially we knew we couldn't repeal resolutions nor change the original meaning, but it was less clear if we could build upon the same idea. Hersfold and several other nations (mine included) started working on a draft proposal to fit the loopholes of the original UNEC ...

We spent over a month (IIRC it was in May, but I could be misremembering) working on our new draft, the "UNEC Amendments". The proposal was submitted to the resolution queue and went unnoticed by the UN Secretariat (game mods) for several passes.

Eventually the proposal was making progress in gaining support when the proposal was deleted and a warning issued. Several nations went to the moderation forum to advocate on behalf of this proposal, and the decision that was reached was that the UNEC Amendment proposal did not in fact change or amendment the original resolution but further defined it.

The warning was (supposed) to be removed, and while we were allowed to continue again, Hersfold and I were both so burnt out fighting the "good" fight in the UN Secretariat's office (moderation forum) that we both became trigger shy.

Since that time, the UN rules have changed several more times, and now the Defining the UNEC proposal would violate several new rules, specifically the ones that say that we can't describe membership requirements for committees. The proposal could be amended again and who knows ... when you least expect it, we just might! :)

Anyway, you are looking at one half of the reason that the word "Amendment" is considered off-limits in the title of a UN proposal. My apologies for that, but there is a solution.

If you are expanding upon an idea, make a reference to the resolution you are building upon.

For example, I often like to cite prior resolutions:


Recalling its resolution the IRCO, adopted on ...,


This is a legal way of saying, we respect and will follow with the requirements of this resolution. It also says, please see the justification of that resolution to understand why I want this body (the UN) to talk about our new problem.

There are several independent efforts underway for older nations to leave a trail of breadcrumbs so new resolution authors can point to old resolutions and re-read those debates.

Sez you. This appears to be interfering with the woman's right to have an abortion based on a ruling by the state (courts as a representative of the state)

Sez them:


So I think that conflicts but it might not. Best ask a mod.

On another note women do have abortions because the don't want a baby now or maybe they think they will get postpartum depression (or, even, psychosis) which isn't life threatening but it isn't exactly a good thing. Or a downright fear of pregnancy and child birth.

And why are you making men go through all these checks when other parents don't get them? (okay that bit was slightly sarcastic)

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I would generally state that the resolution could be rewritten to define the scope and limitations of the term "interference" in the original document...

Overall, I dislike the present "Abortion Rights" amendment as it stands, mostly due to its generality and non-specified nature... "interference" is a broad term, which can invalidate as many things as you can slap a name too... (Presently regulating abortion clinics can be deemed "interference", mandating safty procedures can be deemed "interference", hell even necessitating that the abortions can only be performed by doctors can be deemed "interference"...) Which was my initial problem when this resolution came up to bat... (and for which, in attempts to get the resolution shot down for its vaguity and dangerous wording, and for which I got labled as an "evil bigoted monster" by the moron leftists out there, who are all too incompitent to f***ing read....) [for the record I'm a libertarian]...

In any case, I would support any attempt to define the scope of "interference" or maybe anything that can add items that are not deemed as such as a good thing... and satisfy my qualms.

The proposal says that the pains of bearing the child are not enough to abort it. Even if I agreed with this (I don't, although I also think it is ALOT more complicated), the proposal seems to be giving the father a free ride as far as the pregnancy is concerned. There will be doctors bills, potential loss of income for going on leave from a high-paying job, psychologist bills for post-partum depression, etc., etc. etc.., maybe even death (yes, people DO still die in childbirth, or suffer permanent disability, which everyone seems to forget). Even in cases of surrogates, or egg donation, these things are coverered by the "interested" (in this case the father) party.

This is simply you being paranoid like most liberals. I agree with Marabini in almost everything except fot the checks that the father must pass. As you said it would be heartbreaking and it would be like taking something away from you (for those men that takes responsiblity) regardless of the type of man you are. If either the mother or father wants to take responsibility believe me they will both agree to have the abortion. Just to let you know my opinion on abortion, I am completley against it.

If you were curious, my question about the term "consent" goes to this :-

Man and Woman have sex. There is no question of rape - this is mutally acceptable sex on both sides.
They use protection, because neither of them want the child.

The protection fails, and the woman becomes pregnant.

Now in this case neither the man, nor the woman consented to having the child. They both did everything to prevent it happening, but the Powers conspired against them and they end up being in the situtation of having a baby on the way.

Is this classed as consensual conception? Or would it fall under the exceptions?

And further to this - another situation that could occur (this is slightly more off the wall, but hear me out!).
Mr Smith wants a child, but he doesn't have partner with whom he can fulfil this wish. So he buys a packet of condoms, puts small holes in each one (not enough to make it obvious, but enough to let sperm through). He then goes out on the pull, finds a suitable woman and, using his modified condoms, impregnates her.

The woman has not been raped, but she has been impregnanted against her will.

Does this fall under the category of non-consenual conception, and thus be exempted?

Because if it doesn't, you are, whether you realise it or not, giving men complete licence to treat women as baby making machines. Which is not something I am comfortable supporting.

This is simply you being paranoid like most liberals. I agree with Marabini in almost everything except fot the checks that the father must pass. As you said it would be heartbreaking and it would be like taking something away from you (for those men that takes responsiblity) regardless of the type of man you are. If either the mother or father wants to take responsibility believe me they will both agree to have the abortion. Just to let you know my opinion on abortion, I am completley against it.

As a self-declared liberal, I do not class the concerns you are responding to as paranoia.

If you force a woman to have a child against her will, you are stripping her of her freedom of choice. She will have to take time off work to do this, losing money and earnings and possibly her future in the company at best, and her job at worst.
She will have to go through the pain of childbirth - against her will - which is not something I think she will easily forget. And then she will have to live knowing that her child is out there somewhere.

And to wind the clock on a few years, what if the child later wants to get back in touch. Should a woman be forced to be confronted with a child she gave up - a child she didn't even want - years after the event?

As for agreement - I don't think that acceptance from both of them should be a requirement. The man is not going to have to deal with any of the above things, and so, while I agree he should have some say in the decision, ultimately it should be up to the woman.

Ok, make it so the man pays for all expenses, and assumes responsibility for the child irregardless of his actually being the father. Therefore, the father accounts for the risk before making the decision.

In cases where it is determined the woman has a propensity to be severely injured, or her life is endangered, then make the decision hers soley.

If the man has no say in abortion at all, it holds he should owe no responsibility at all to the child unless their is agreement prior to her having the child that he will act as the father. With sole choice comes sole responsibility.

With respect to consensual sex with precautions to avoid pregnancy. The probability for pregnancy is always greater than zero, therefore consenting to sex is accepting that risk. Ignorance is no excuse. So, if she becomes pregnant, and the father chooses to keep the child, that decision should be respected unless in cases stated above.

With respect to choice, again, consensual sex is an acceptance of the risk of pregnancy. So, if the act is consensual, but the woman is concerned about pregnancy, she should not consent. In such cases that is where the real choice lies.

On another note, allowing an act that terminates the life of another being without any tangible justification whatsoever is abhorent, and not well thought out.

With respect to consensual sex with precautions to avoid pregnancy. The probability for pregnancy is always greater than zero, therefore consenting to sex is accepting that risk. Ignorance is no excuse. So, if she becomes pregnant, and the father chooses to keep the child, that decision should be respected unless in cases stated above.

You understand the logic here.
I understand the logic here.

But my country is not populated only by college graduates or those capable of always making rational decisions ... that is why the crime rate is so high. (I would advise visiting diplomats to avoid leaving their doors opened, as the chances of your fridge being raided by some teens looking for power snacks are extremely high in Miervatia City --- mmmmm, doritos!)

So while I'm agreeing with your logic, I'm also saying that the pratical issue here is humans (and elves) are not logical decision makers. They make mistakes, and when they aren't prepared to live with those mistakes, it falls upon our governments to pick up the pieces and find homes and schools for these half-elven children. ;)

This raises an interesting question ... what about the case where a father claims he wants the child, and agrees to take care of the mother and the child (remember preganant mothers are super, but also need to rest and be well cared for ... and even after the birth, it can take mothers months to bounce back), but then bails out. That will leave governments again in the position to save the day, but this will happen because of an international (not local) law.

In a society that doesn't have a problem with fathers and a good medical system, this isn't an issue. But in a society with a different sort of dynamic the impact of a UN law like this could be different.

I'm not trying to advocate for or against here, but trying to push the thought process along in hopes that as the topic is discussed that my nation can make a decision.

You raise good points Miki, and the Empire Agrees.

Of note: points raised illustrate that the issue falls back to individual governments. AP feels it should be a domestic issue of Nat. Sov., and supports resolutions limiting circumstances under which abortion is allowed or repealing the Act altogether.

If there are reasons as to why abortion should not soley be a woman's right, or allowed under any circumstances, and the rebuttal is that individual governments may not be capable of meeting what is entailed with that reasoning, than it should be a NS choice whether or not to decide if the father has rights; if the gov will institute programs for the care of children; if it will allow abortion under limited circumstances; if it will allow abortion under any circumstance; or not allow it all.

With respect to choice, again, consensual sex is an acceptance of the risk of pregnancy. So, if the act is consensual, but the woman is concerned about pregnancy, she should not consent. In such cases that is where the real choice lies.

I do not agree. I do not believe that just because a woman is worried about getting pregnant that she should not consent to having sex. I understand that there are risks involved with sex, but because of the existence of contraceptives- and very highly reliable ones at that- a woman can consent to sex with the assurance that she won't get pregnant as a result of it. Yes, the only 100% reliable option is abstinence, but since current contraceptives are very close (98-99%) to that reliability, abstinence is not the only option.

Maybe it's not what you meant by what you said, but that paragraph suggests to me that you're saying that because there's a risk- no matter how small- that a woman can get pregnant because of sex she should not have it and should only have it when she wants a baby, which is not a stance that I agree with. It's like sky diving- yes, there's risks involved but because there are safety measures it's possible that one can enjoy sky diving without worrying about the risks.

As for this proposal as a whole: I thought of supporting it at first, but after reading the arguments it does not sound like a sound proposal. This seems to leave too much power at the hands of the father, which is not right. Since the father does not have to deal with the effects of pregnancy at all if he so chooses it is not right to give him "the final say" on the issue. Besides, if a mother and a father who are in a loving, committed relationship have an "accidental" pregnancy, I would imagine that the two would come to an agreement regarding the baby anyway, making this proposal pointless.

AP would like to refute what was presented by RomeW:

I do not agree. I do not believe that just because a woman is worried about getting pregnant that she should not consent to having sex. I understand that there are risks involved with sex, but because of the existence of contraceptives- and very highly reliable ones at that- a woman can consent to sex with the assurance that she won't get pregnant as a result of it. Yes, the only 100% reliable option is abstinence, but since current contraceptives are very close (98-99%) to that reliability, abstinence is not the only option.

AP can not except the reasoning proffered. If the only 100% effective method of avoiding pregnancy is Abstinence, then a woman cannot be assured that she will not become pregnant when engaged in protected sex. 98-99% is very close, but not the same, as pregnancy could still occur.

With respect to other comments:

Maybe it's not what you meant by what you said, but that paragraph suggests to me that you're saying that because there's a risk- no matter how small- that a woman can get pregnant because of sex she should not have it and should only have it when she wants a baby, which is not a stance that I agree with.

The Empire means that if a woman does engage in consensual sex, she does so understanding that she is consenting to the possibility of being impregnated, and by accepting that risk is consenting to the creation of another life, which should not be revoked unless it physically endangers hers. Therefore, if a woman does not desire to become pregnant she should refrain from consensual sex. This opinion is based on understanding the risk, and moving forward accepting responsibility of bringing the pregnancy to term, then keeping or putting the child up for adoption/any other scenario.

This leads us to:

It's like sky diving- yes, there's risks involved but because there are safety measures it's possible that one can enjoy sky diving without worrying about the risks.

Enjoy, yes, Not worry, no. Worry is lessened but still there. So is responsibility. Before jumping you understand there are safety mechanisms put into place to prevent you from falling straight down. You choose to jump. However, if while engaged in the activity, you pull the cord, and no parachute deploys, you fall to the ground. Accepting responsibility that your choice to engage the activity has lead to an undesired outcome. You can not stop from freefalling and say: "I choose not to accept responsibility for jumping and the parachute not working (especially if you packed the chute, either way you consented to the act)," and then magically find yourself safely on the ground. You fall. Maybe consensually killed yourself. But if you did not, after the pain and trauma have been indured, or maybe the pain never goes away and the memory never fades, you are still alive.

Posts by Miki and AP address the father issue, and the role of government, perhaps making the idea of it being an individual nations interest once again more appealing, perhaps not.

Have I misread this?

Is this saying that while a man can choose whether to have a baby or not, a woman cannot?

If that is what is intended by this proposal, then I must say that I simply cannot support this.

Our leader *would* sympathize with a man who has to sit by while an abortion is performed on a pregnancy for which he is half responsible and does not wish terminated.

However, replacing such a scenerio with forcing a woman to use her body as an incubator risking major life upheaval, possible disability and/or death does not seem like a fair solution. That, combined with giving the father "a free ride" as stated in our previous post make this proposal, as it stands, still not acceptable to my nation, although arguments from all sides are welcome.

Addressing a few comments that have been made:
1) True, abstention is the only 100% sure way of not getting pregnant, just as not driving a vehicle is a 100% sure way of not accidently hitting a pedestrian. However lots of people like to drive, and even if you are as careful as you can be, you may (let's hope not) accidently hit someone and it results in death. But it is an accident. Accidents can happen during sex even if the people involved have the best of intentions. Yes, true, they could have chosen not to have sex (see not driving above) but in the case of pregnancy only one of the two persons involved has to physically endure all the consequences.

2) How exactly is a pregnancy determined to be "endagering to a woman's health"? The truth is that *all* pregnancies, even ones that appear completely uncomplicated, even with modern medicine and good doctors, run a risk of severe complications or death. Hence, all pregnancies are potentially endangering to a woman's health. Hence why nobody (even the father) should be able to force a woman to endure it.

I would, first of all, defitely take the word "amendment" out of this proposal.Yes, as they are not allowed. You can repeal, then campaign for a new one, but you cannot do that.My unofficial opinion is that it does not conflict, but a GM might potentially want to weigh in here as well.Well, mine opinion is that it does ... but you are right, :) ... I'm going to try to lure Hack in here with candy from mIRC now, ;)

>.>

<.<

With respect to point one, the main issue is responsibility. You accept the risk, but, despite your best efforts, unintended consequences may occur. So, you accept that despite your best efforts their are still dangers associated with driving and still do so, assuming responsibility for your actions. If the thought of possibly killing someone is so great that someone would rather not drive-then that person should not drive.


With respect to the inherent dangers of pregnancy. It is dangerous when it is known with certainty that carrying and or bringing the pregnancy to term will pose an immediate and imminent danger to the life of the mother. This would typically be a mother with abnormal conditions affecting her ability to carry or bring the pregnancy to term. And would be above the expected risk of harm associated with childbirth.

What are a father's rights if the woman has the child? If it is the womans choice, he should owe no responsibility, even if married, unless the child was birthed based on a promise that he would take part either financially or emotionally with the child's development.

Okay, first of all, Ammendments are really, really frowned upon, and the chances of writing one that makes the grade are slim and none. However, it can be done. It's sort of like federal law vs. local law. The local law can be stricter than the federal, but it can't be looser. This is what we get with the UN. You can "ammend" a Resolution to tighten things, or explain, but you can't indroduce loopholes.

And with the creation of Repeals, it's even harder. Moving on to this specific case...

Abortion Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Vistadin

Description: Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.

Well, we run into a little problem, largely due to the writing of the original proposal. "[N]o nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion." By my reading, introducing a father's right to appeal would count as "interfering".

There is certainly room for argument about if the father should have veto power (or any power) in the decision to have an abortion, but right now, the concern is the legality of this proposal. Unfortunately for the ammendment writer, the original Resolution was very short and to the point, and left little wiggle room; none, in fact.

From where I'm sitting, Abortion Rights would have to be repealed in order to introduce a 'Father's Rights' clause.

In the nation of Spider Queen Lolth, we have no abortions. However, we do practice the ritual sacrifice of third-born male children, especially in the noble houses.

Ok, make it so the man pays for all expenses, and assumes responsibility for the child irregardless of his actually being the father. Therefore, the father accounts for the risk before making the decision.


Can we also kick the father in the balls, repeatedly, during the birth process? This would equal out the pain side of things as well.


If the man has no say in abortion at all, it holds he should owe no responsibility at all to the child unless their is agreement prior to her having the child that he will act as the father. With sole choice comes sole responsibility.


I did not say the father has no say in it. I just said that since it is the mother who has to go through it, while the father can just sit in the waiting room and smoke cigars, her voice should be the one that is most heard.


With respect to consensual sex with precautions to avoid pregnancy. The probability for pregnancy is always greater than zero, therefore consenting to sex is accepting that risk. Ignorance is no excuse. So, if she becomes pregnant, and the father chooses to keep the child, that decision should be respected unless in cases stated above.

With respect to choice, again, consensual sex is an acceptance of the risk of pregnancy. So, if the act is consensual, but the woman is concerned about pregnancy, she should not consent. In such cases that is where the real choice lies.


And what if the guy who wants to be the father DELIBERATELY screws with the contraception so the woman will get pregnant?

This proposal would basically allow females to be turned in to breeding machines if a male was so inclined to do so. Which is something I find unacceptable for the UN to be endorsing.


On another note, allowing an act that terminates the life of another being without any tangible justification whatsoever is abhorent, and not well thought out.

And to strip away someone's right to self-determination and risk turning women in to second class citizens is something I find equally abhorent.

Have I misread this?

Is this saying that while a man can choose whether to have a baby or not, a woman cannot?

If that is what is intended by this proposal, then I must say that I simply cannot support this.

Hear, hear.

This is not a document to take away womens rights, it is simply a document to bring about equality. The Mather and the father are equally a part of the childs conception. Its unconstitutional that only one party be given the right to decided. Thats discrimination based on sex.

Furthermore another argument was why should the man have to be subjected to a check. Thats simple, the same as a custody fight over a child, the parent granted custody of the child has to prove to be a decent person. The court is not going to give the child to an abusive mother. Hence the need to check if the father would be suitable.

Its not an issue of consenting to have a child. Its consenting to have sex. Its like consenting to go skiing and then saying "oh but I didnt consent to hit a tree".

Have I misread this?

Is this saying that while a man can choose whether to have a baby or not, a woman cannot?

If that is what is intended by this proposal, then I must say that I simply cannot support this.

The proposal is not saying the women has no say, simply that the father should have equal say. She doesnt have any responsibilities over that child after birth. Yes shes the one who has to carry that child and give birth to it, but that doesnt mean that she should have sole power over its life. There are a lot of medical drugs which are used to ease the pain of child birth as well as procedures such as a Cesarean Section.

If the guy did screw his gf over by switching her birth control pills, then he doesnt stand up as a fit and proper person and he will not be afforded the right to the child. Imagine that you and your gf are sleeping together and she gets pregnant, you want the child and she doesnt. Its YOUR child too!!!! It would tear me apart for her to go to the doctors and kill MY child without me being able to do a damn thing about it!

what all of you must realize is that this is not providing the man with free ride or anything like that. As southern puff said above

"this then he doesnt stand up as a fit and proper person and he will not be afforded the right to the child"

It simply provides a legal action for the farther to contend the mothers decision in court, who ever wins the decision of the court will be final, if a woman feels that she has been tricked then the evidence will. Be shown
a character reference can sway a jury.

This act does not say that the abortion act already in place is wholy wrong. But there can always be mistakes hence the fact that it is an ammendentment, not a repeal.

So please stop mentioning that it is in conflict with the original, one of the mods has already commented

What are a father's rights if the woman has the child? If it is the womans choice, he should owe no responsibility, even if married, unless the child was birthed based on a promise that he would take part either financially or emotionally with the child's development.

I'm fairly sure that this is not encompassed by this sect of the law. There will be specific goverment legislation on abandonment

Okay, first of all, Ammendments are really, really frowned upon, and the chances of writing one that makes the grade are slim and none. However, it can be done. It's sort of like federal law vs. local law. The local law can be stricter than the federal, but it can't be looser. This is what we get with the UN. You can "ammend" a Resolution to tighten things, or explain, but you can't indroduce loopholes.

And with the creation of Repeals, it's even harder. Moving on to this specific case...



Well, we run into a little problem, largely due to the writing of the original proposal. "[N]o nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion." By my reading, introducing a father's right to appeal would count as "interfering".

There is certainly room for argument about if the father should have veto power (or any power) in the decision to have an abortion, but right now, the concern is the legality of this proposal. Unfortunately for the ammendment writer, the original Resolution was very short and to the point, and left little wiggle room; none, in fact.

From where I'm sitting, Abortion Rights would have to be repealed in order to introduce a 'Father's Rights' clause.

Actually, not exactly... There is a open loophole to allow the UN to act... read again.

"no member nation will interfere with...", It says nothing about the UN imposing safty standards, defining the scope of 'interference', etc. which would be deemed interference if implimented by the member governments.

And I hate the existing "Abortion Rights" resolution.

The proposal is not saying the women has no say, simply that the father should have equal say. She doesnt have any responsibilities over that child after birth. Yes shes the one who has to carry that child and give birth to it, but that doesnt mean that she should have sole power over its life. There are a lot of medical drugs which are used to ease the pain of child birth as well as procedures such as a Cesarean Section.

If the guy did screw his gf over by switching her birth control pills, then he doesnt stand up as a fit and proper person and he will not be afforded the right to the child. Imagine that you and your gf are sleeping together and she gets pregnant, you want the child and she doesnt. Its YOUR child too!!!! It would tear me apart for her to go to the doctors and kill MY child without me being able to do a damn thing about it!

If it were possible for the child to be transferred from the mother to the father, so that he has to bear it and give birth to it, then I would have no problem with this.

But it can't.

And if a guy puts a tiny little whole in a condom, are you ever going to be able to prove that that was the case?

I realise that various resolutions grant equality in law to everyone, but this is one area of the law where equallity can not be granted.

Yes you can pass a law that says "you must force the father to carry the child to term" but it is pointless to do so.

Women carry the large (if not only) part of child birth - the pain, the time off work, the hospitals bills (if there are any), the risk to their life when giving birth, the trauma of the birth and any after affects and so on and so on. All the man has to do is squeeze out a little bit of sperm and his job is pretty much done. So why should he get the final say as to whether or not the woman has to go through all this pain and suffering? I can think of no other situation in law where the single choice of one person makes the other person a complete and total slave to that person.

Slavery was abolished by the UN a long time ago, but this proposal will bring it back in another form.

Can we also kick the father in the balls, repeatedly, during the birth process? This would equal out the pain side of things as well.

You mean so as to keep the process within the human rights initiative, sure, AP sees no reason why not.

No the law allows for the mother to take away the rights of the father! Its not slavery its concequences of their actions. If you cannot deal with the consequences then u should abstain. But to take away a fathers right to his child??? Thats plain injustice!

Okay, AP's main point is not so much the father not having a say, it is the justification for abortion being offered. Namely, since it is her body she can choose to terminate the fetus or not.

Let us say it is the mothers sole choice, her decision determines the outcome of the fetus. Now, should that choice come without restriction, or should it be absolute?

Does a fetus meet the biological standards used to consider beings alive?

In terms of genetics, would a fetus be considered human?

Does the law distinguish between persons and human beings?

Based on answers to those questions should the scope of excercising a right so as not to harm others apply to abortion?

If it were possible for the child to be transferred from the mother to the father, so that he has to bear it and give birth to it, then I would have no problem with this.

But it can't.

And if a guy puts a tiny little whole in a condom, are you ever going to be able to prove that that was the case?

I realise that various resolutions grant equality in law to everyone, but this is one area of the law where equallity can not be granted.

Yes you can pass a law that says "you must force the father to carry the child to term" but it is pointless to do so.

Women carry the large (if not only) part of child birth - the pain, the time off work, the hospitals bills (if there are any), the risk to their life when giving birth, the trauma of the birth and any after affects and so on and so on. All the man has to do is squeeze out a little bit of sperm and his job is pretty much done. So why should he get the final say as to whether or not the woman has to go through all this pain and suffering? I can think of no other situation in law where the single choice of one person makes the other person a complete and total slave to that person.

Slavery was abolished by the UN a long time ago, but this proposal will bring it back in another form.

As such, based on the whims and decisions of the female, the male can be turned into a slave at present. And while your argument seems to make sense, it in fact, from a distance, looks more like the rantings of a child, a child who wants to be treated as an adult, untill they are confronted with the responsibilities associated with being an adult.

Paternal rights make sense, as much as maternal rights. And we would support as such a UN definition of interference. As it fits within the scope of the UN's power to protect rights, freedoms and responsibies of individuals.

what all of you must realize is that this is not providing the man with free ride or anything like that. As southern puff said above

"this then he doesnt stand up as a fit and proper person and he will not be afforded the right to the child"

It simply provides a legal action for the farther to contend the mothers decision in court, who ever wins the decision of the court will be final, if a woman feels that she has been tricked then the evidence will. Be shown
a character reference can sway a jury.

This act does not say that the abortion act already in place is wholy wrong. But there can always be mistakes hence the fact that it is an ammendentment, not a repeal.

So please stop mentioning that it is in conflict with the original, one of the mods has already commented


First - once someone is done having sex using a condom, the condom is generally thrown away for health reasons. So if the guy has put a small hole in this there can be no way to prove it, because there would be no evidence.

Second - the people who make up a jury are only human - they can be fallible and they will all have their own agendas. Not to mention the judge.

Further if the court decision goes the way of the mother, the father could appeal it, stretching the whole thing out for - say - nine months.

Thirdly - one person's definition of "fit and proper" might not be the same as anothers. A man who does an honest day's work and provides for his family could be considered right and proper. But he might also be abusing his children and beating his wife - but no one knows. (Somewhat off the topic of abortion but most children are molested by either family members or close relatives, and almost all the people who know the ones doing the molesting would say "he is a stand up guy").

Finally the abortion rights repeal puts the decision in the hands of the woman - where it should be. And I will fight tooth and nail to see it stay that way.

EDIT

I think I got carried away with the ranting. Clearly that last section should have read

Finally the abortion rights resolution puts the decision in the hands of the woman - where it should be. And I will fight tooth and nail to see it stay that way.

Finally the abortion rights repeal puts the decision in the hands of the woman - where it should be.

Then why argue? Support the abortion rights repeal.

Then why argue? Support the abortion rights repeal.

Sorry - I mean the abortion rights resolution. The repeal is a step back in to the dark ages, something I really think would be a bad idea.

Of course the jury is only human... Are u suggesting that that should be the reason to abandon all laws? because the people enforcing them are subject to misjudgements? I dont see any intelligence in your argument

By men not having a say in their child being born when pregnancy is the result of consensual sex, men are being equated to sperm donors. They have no choice therefore they owe no responsibility. To be completely equitable, and within the scope of the Human Rights initiative, the UN should enforce this: if the woman has a right to an abortion, then so does a man. She is appropriating his sperm without his consent, or, it is being used in a way that was not consented. By that respect, should the man be allowed to force an abortion? Have the woman enjoined from childbirth?

The resolution makes no reference to a womans body being the source of choice, and resolutions can not discriminate in the granting of rights. The Human rights initiative makes laws neutral.

By men not having a say in their child being born when pregnancy is the result of consensual sex, men are being equated to sperm donors. They have no choice therefore they owe no responsibility. To be completely equitable, and within the scope of the Human Rights initiative, the UN should enforce this: if the woman has a right to an abortion, then so does a man. She is appropriating his sperm without his consent, or, it is being used in a way that was not consented. By that respect, should the man be allowed to force an abortion? Have the woman enjoined from childbirth?

The resolution makes no reference to a womans body being the source of choice, and resolutions can not discriminate in the granting of rights. The Human rights initiative makes laws neutral.

As I have said repeatedly I have no objection to the man having a say and being consulted. However it should just be that - the man should not be permitted to force his will upon the woman.

The other way round - a woman enforcing her will on the man - is admittidly not the best way, but since it is she that will be bearing most of the pain, suffering, anguish and generally the crappy parts of having a child, she knows this and is making up her mind that she wants to go through all that. It is not something men ever, ever have to go through, and so it is not something they should be able to force on someone else.

Of course the jury is only human... Are u suggesting that that should be the reason to abandon all laws? because the people enforcing them are subject to misjudgements? I dont see any intelligence in your argument

TilEnca does not have a death penalty partly because juries are human. We don't believe that killing somoene at the decision of 12 people is the way to go, because the 12 people (or a majority of them) could make a mistake, or let their own prejduices could the issue.

By the same extention we (my government and I) would not be willing to let 12 people decide whether a woman should be forced to have a child or not. Because if they are wrong in their decision - if it was indeed rape, or the father did indeed screw with the contraception, and it only comes up after the baby is born, there is not a lot they can do to change the fact this woman has been forced to bear a child against her will.

This should be left in the hands of the individual. Not the state, not the father, not the grandparents or second uncles, but the mother of the child. She is the ONLY person who can make the final decision. As the current resolution says.

Of note: points raised illustrate that the issue falls back to individual governments. AP feels it should be a domestic issue of Nat. Sov., and supports resolutions limiting circumstances under which abortion is allowed or repealing the Act altogether.


*looks through the debate cards on his notebook machine*

Hmmm, it seems I have no pre-made argument against THAT! ;)

There have been efforts to repeal that abortion law, and while abortion is legal in the CCSM my nation does not feel qualified to say anything about that issue.

I don't understand why the father should have any say over it at all. Its obviously his business, and I hope that he and the mother have a serious talk about the implications of an abortion, and I hope they have compassion for the child inside.

But no one has the right to force a woman to serve as a life-support system for anyone else, baby or no baby. The government doesn't have the right, her family doesn't have the right, the father doesn't have the right. It comes down to the basic principles of property rights- the woman owns her womb and she controls who and what lives in there.

To Anti Pharisaism: If, by your argument you suggest that once you consent to sex you should accept responsibility for whatever happens- including accidents- then that is an agreeable argument. If, however, you suggest that simply because there is a risk then one should not have sex that is not something I can agree with. What I would agree with is educating people about responsibility and ensuring they know the risks and how to best safeguard against those risks because it can be done and then go from there. I don't believe it is right to say "oh, there's a risk, so there's no point in doing it" because, by that logic, something as mundane as even going for a walk is something that no one should do, because there is a risk involved even in that (e.g. getting mugged), no matter how small.

Besides, 99% is so close to 100% that most people would feel very safe to the precautionary method.

We perverted and sick bastard children would love to see a solution that would be 100% fair to both parties. However, until as such a time (as some other nation mentioned earlier) that incubator status can be switched to the father, or an artifical womb can be developed (hooray!), our nation sees no way to settle than to choose the lesser of two "evils".

Evil 1: The man is sad to see a pregnancy that he helped create end in abortion. Worse that happens to him: mental anguish

Evil 2: The woman has to physically, for nine months or longer if there are unforeseen complications, bear the physical and mental pain, suffering, loss of work time and job pay with the possibility of long-term disability or death. Perhaps she doesn't even love the man anymore, so she has to deal with the anguish of undergoing all of this for some one she even potentially hates. Worst that happens to her: physical and mental disability or death

We in our nation feel that #1 comes no where near being equivalent in "evil" and "slavery" to number 2. Our nation's stand on this proposal, as written, remains the same.

Plus, on the legality, we agree that this proposal could be seen as "interfering" with the abortion rights resolution.

I'll put it this way...

Sexism is the belief or or opinion that one sex deserves to have more say or power over another by reason of sex or gender... Any argument which is based off of this principle is sexist in nature (of which persons in this debate have used, and therefore are sexists).

As such, under the principle of equality, all sexes/genders are given equal power and say over matters (including in interaction between the two), abuse of this principle, is bigotry and sexism...

As such, an argument that a woman has more say because it is her body, or she suffers, is sexist... As much as arguing that men have more say in this matter...

To not be "sexist" you must be FAIR and EQUAL towards both sides... and disproportionate giving to one or the other, is discrimination and sexism.

As such, as it stands now, the woman is given the complete pervue of choice, over the fact that she temporally suffers for a brief period... yet she can make decisions that can bring permanate suffering on others for a lifetime... As such, anyone adopting the position that the woman has more say in lieu of her being the one to go through the temporal pangs of childbirth, is arguing from a sexist position...

If anyone can STILL take offense to this, I cannot help you... You simply can no longer handle honest truth, and you are lost to all reason.

If someone can lable some of my positions as "barbaric" I can lable theirs as sexist... especially when it is proven by their own language. If being labled as a sexist or bigot, by your own words offends you, then change your position, or shut up...

However, until as such a time (as some other nation mentioned earlier) that incubator status can be switched to the father, or an artifical womb can be developed (hooray!), our nation sees no way to settle than to choose the lesser of two "evils".

OOC: OUCH! But I now know which nation I'll defer to on this issue, 100% of the time. ;)

an artifical womb can be developed (hooray!)

(OOC: According to this (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html) they are indeed a reality, but open up a whole new can of worms. It is something to look at though)

We perverted and sick bastard children would love to see a solution that would be 100% fair to both parties. However, until as such a time (as some other nation mentioned earlier) that incubator status can be switched to the father, or an artifical womb can be developed (hooray!), our nation sees no way to settle than to choose the lesser of two "evils".

Evil 1: The man is sad to see a pregnancy that he helped create end in abortion. Worse that happens to him: mental anguish

Evil 2: The woman has to physically, for nine months or longer if there are unforeseen complications, bear the physical and mental pain, suffering, loss of work time and job pay with the possibility of long-term disability or death. Perhaps she doesn't even love the man anymore, so she has to deal with the anguish of undergoing all of this for some one she even potentially hates. Worst that happens to her: physical and mental disability or death

We in our nation feel that #1 comes no where near being equivalent in "evil" and "slavery" to number 2. Our nation's stand on this proposal, as written, remains the same.

Plus, on the legality, we agree that this proposal could be seen as "interfering" with the abortion rights resolution.

Argument from illogic and deception...

At the same token, men have zero say, and can be forced to support children they do not want. Yet women get full pervue... The following is sexist mentality, and complete adverse to true equality... If you argue on a consistent basis on the principle of equlity, then your equality needs to be consistent, regardless of adversity in that can occur because of treating all people on a fair and equal basis, regardless of gender or sex. Anything less than a complete and consistent adoptation of the principle of equality, is hypocracy.

As such, in the name of equality, men should be provided with an equal right and say over an abortion as women are (including the abortion of a child the woman may want to keep)... Such is consistent sexual equality....

As for the argument of the woman bringing to term the child of a man she hates, she did have consenual sex with him, and therefore others should not be made to suffer from her poor judgment (remember, this deals with the parental rights as a result of a consentual sexual union)... The law is not designed to protect people from their responsibilities, including the responsibilities generated from initial poor judgment... And as such, her present feelings for the father of the child, are of no concern and a baseless and pointless argument to bring up...

I'll put it this way...

Sexism is the belief or or opinion that one sex deserves to have more say or power over another by reason of sex or gender... Any argument which is based off of this principle is sexist in nature (of which persons in this debate have used, and therefore are sexists).

As such, under the principle of equality, all sexes/genders are given equal power and say over matters (including in interaction between the two), abuse of this principle, is bigotry and sexism...

As such, an argument that a woman has more say because it is her body, or she suffers, is sexist... As much as arguing that men have more say in this matter...

To not be "sexist" you must be FAIR and EQUAL towards both sides... and disproportionate giving to one or the other, is discrimination and sexism.

As such, as it stands now, the woman is given the complete pervue of choice, over the fact that she temporally suffers for a brief period... yet she can make decisions that can bring permanate suffering on others for a lifetime... As such, anyone adopting the position that the woman has more say in lieu of her being the one to go through the temporal pangs of childbirth, is arguing from a sexist position...

If anyone can STILL take offense to this, I cannot help you... You simply can no longer handle honest truth, and you are lost to all reason.

If someone can lable some of my positions as "barbaric" I can lable theirs as sexist... especially when it is proven by their own language. If being labled as a sexist or bigot, by your own words offends you, then change your position, or shut up...

As much as I'd like to say that I agree with you, I simply can't. As others have pointed out there are simply too many loopholes for such a law to be considered, no matter how precautious a law can be. Besides, if a man and a woman are in a committed, loving relationship I'm sure that they'd talk beforehand what their solution to an "accidental" pregnancy would be anyway, making such a law pointless.

Please read through the earlier quotes and im sure that you will find the answers to your arguments.
As for coming up with ridiculous suggestions for possible scenarios where this resolution might fail, if you dont want to approve it then dont if you do make sure you do for good reasons.

Thank you :headbang:

Please read through the earlier quotes and im sure that you will find the answers to your arguments.
As for coming up with ridiculous suggestions for possible scenarios where this resolution might fail, if you dont want to approve it then dont if you do make sure you do for good reasons.

Thank you :headbang:

I have read every post in this argument, and I still side with those against the proposal. No matter how precautious any law can be the loopholes are still too large for any such law to be considered.

Loopholes? you worry about loopholes? And yet you side with the people who created the loophole ridden original resolution "Abortion Rights" ?

Any nation who regulates the places where abortion takes place, are violating the NSUN resolution "Abortion Rights"

Any nation who has state controled abortion clinics are violating the NSUN resolution "Abortion Rights"

Any nation which trains and mandates safty practices on doctors who perform abortions are violating the NSUN resolution "Abortion Rights"

The very FACT that the original Abortion Rights resolution was allowed to progress and pass is a mark of failure upon the effectiveness of this body... The Abortion Rights resolution was, in fact, illegal, and allowed to pass, even though it is directly in violation of the UBR and UFC. (Which provides equal rights and freedoms to all human beings)

In any case, in the name of Human Rights and Equality, this Republic will seek to support any resolution which repairs the damage and violation of rights, brought about by the illegal passage of the original "Abortion Rights" resolution.

I never suggested that I agree with the Abortion Rights Resolution (ARR)- I too think it's way too vague. I just don't believe this proposal would be effective to strengthen the ARR, as those who oppose this proposal have put forth- from my perspective anyway- far better arguments than those who have spoken in support of the proposal. I'm aware that several of them supported the ARR, but just because they do does not invalidate their arguments. Just because someone has a different view than you on something else does not mean that they'll ALWAYS have an unagreeable view on other issues.

I never suggested that I agree with the Abortion Rights Resolution (ARR)- I too think it's way too vague. I just don't believe this proposal would be effective to strengthen the ARR, as those who oppose this proposal have put forth- from my perspective anyway- far better arguments than those who have spoken in support of the proposal. I'm aware that several of them supported the ARR, but just because they do does not invalidate their arguments. Just because someone has a different view than you on something else does not mean that they'll ALWAYS have an unagreeable view on other issues.

Something I agree on... This resolution does not go far enough...

A delination of Paternal rights and responsibilities in relation to abortion, definitive scope of interference for the benefit of general safty and welfare, etc. all need to be encompassed. IOW the Definitive resolution to come up needs to address the issue of delineated responsibility in relation to the effects/costs of an abortion, delination of responsibilities in contest of abortion, delineated and equal judgment under the law of all parties to such...
(For example the part(y)(ies) advocating the abortion must accept incured costs of such; the part(y)(ies) refusing or challenging abortion must accept all parental rights and responsibilites as a result; a invalidation of declaring safty practices and standards of operation for the benefit of both socialist and capitalist economies as not being interferene in the scope of the ARR; etc).

My problem with the Father's Rights Proposal (FRP, which is what I'll call this proposal as that's what it is) is threefold: first of all, it forces a woman to endure all the physical hardships of a pregnancy for someone who won't have to endure any of those problems if he so chooses. It's like saying "I want you to carry that boulder on your back because I have a right to have that boulder." No you don't. If you so desperately want that boulder, carry it yourself, and since a man cannot physically carry a baby, I do not believe it is right to allow a man to force a woman to carry it for him if she does not want it.

Second of all, how do you know that a man is responsible enough to have a child? You can put in all the regulations that you want- e.g. must be over 18, must not have a criminal record, have any psychological problems, etc.- but it's easy to circumvent them. There are many men who are quite capable of leading a problem-free life (in terms of whatever precautions could be made) that would be incapable of bringing up a child. Plus, you run the risk of a man using this law to exact revenge on the woman, although conversely the same could happen with the woman aborting the child to spite the man. Furthermore, as pointed out before, a man could find a sly way to impregnate the woman and invoke this law to force her to keep the baby without the woman being able to prove it (e.g. by throwing out the condom as is the routine, changing the woman's birth control pills, etc.). Women could be made into breeding machines with no way of stopping it if such a resolution were to come to pass.

Thirdly- and lastly- I believe, as I stated before, that if a woman and a man were in a loving, committed relationship they'd be able to reach a binding agreement between themselves should an unwanted pregnancy occur. There is no need to invoke the law in such a case.

In my view of fairness and equity, this would be the text of a resolution to repair the damage...

---
Paternal Rights and Medical Safety

RECALLING the rights of human beings as delineated in the Universal Bill of Rights and Universal Freedom of Choice Resolution.

RECOGNIZING the need of nations, regardless of economic model, to provide for the safety of their citizens in regards to medical practices.

The United Nations hereby resolves to delineate rights and responsibilities that do not violate the interference clause in relation to abortion.

Article I.
Paternal, Maternal and Parental rights

Section 1.
In the event of a consensual sexual union resulting in conception. And where both parties are informed of the pregnancy. When abortion is called for, by the decision of either party…
A) Both parties have the right to challenge the abortion.
B) Should the abortion be challenged by either party, all parental rights, responsibilities and duties, delineated by law, shall be placed upon the challenging party, which includes any costs and debts incurred from the pregnancy and birth.
C) Should both parties be consenting of the abortion, the costs incurred by said abortion shall be shared equally by both parties, each in debt one half of the total costs incurred by the abortion.
D) In cases where, due to state economic model, all costs incurred are on the state, Delineation of debt or cost shall not apply.

Section 2.
In the event of conception due to non-consensual or forced sexual intercourse.
A) All legal power of choice shall be placed upon the bearer of the child.
B) The person accused of forcing the sexual union which has resulted in conception will be indebted on all incurred costs from either the pregnancy or abortion, as the bearer chooses, where applicable by state economic model. And must be subject to any and all state sanctioned punishment or rehabilitative programs.
C) In cases where, due to state economic model, all costs incurred are on the state. Delineation of debt or cost shall not apply.

Article II.
Scope and definition of Interference.

Understanding the need for safe and reliable medical practice in relation to abortion practices. The following shall not be considered as ‘interference’ under the Abortion Rights Resolution.

A) Cleanliness and sanitary regulation of institutions providing abortion services.
B) Limiting the practice of abortion to properly regulated and safe, private or governmental medical institutions.
C) Mandating safety requirements and licensure of medical personnel performing abortion services at either privatized or governmentally operated medical institutions.
D) Any regulation imposed by the state outside the scope of concern for sanitary requirements and safe medical practice shall be considered interference.
---

Does anyone know of any other resolution that would require any person to go through surgery against their own will, or because a legal system decided they must go through it?

And does no one else find that concept abhorrent and wrong?

Does anyone know of any other resolution that would require any person to go through surgery against their own will, or because a legal system decided they must go through it?

And does no one else find that concept abhorrent and wrong?

I do not see where the illustration consistently and logically follows from. Since no form of surgery is being forced by law upon another against their will.

Does anyone know of any other resolution that would require any person to go through surgery against their own will, or because a legal system decided they must go through it?

Nope.

And does no one else find that concept abhorrent and wrong?

I do.

That's my main contention with a "both parties" clause- the man does not have to feel the brunt of a pregnancy while the woman has to endure all the hardships it may cause (as the pregnancy affects the body of the woman like surgery does).

However, Tekania, I believe if a "both parties" clause were to be in place then the law should stipulate that both parties should also agree on whether or not to have an abortion, and, failing that, the decision should fall to the mother, who will have to face the full brunt of the pregnancy and not the man. You can even have the state offering counselling or requiring counselling should an unwanted pregnancy occur, so that an agreement on an abortion can be reached. You don't want the scenario of two bitter divorcees forcing the pregnancy on the other just to spite them- that would be wrong. You could even go further and state that should such a situation occur then abortion is required, but that just may create even more problems.

Nope.



I do.

That's my main contention with a "both parties" clause- the man does not have to feel the brunt of a pregnancy while the woman has to endure all the hardships it may cause (as the pregnancy affects the body of the woman like surgery does).

However, Tekania, I believe if a "both parties" clause were to be in place then the law should stipulate that both parties should also agree on whether or not to have an abortion, and, failing that, the decision should fall to the mother, who will have to face the full brunt of the pregnancy and not the man. You can even have the state offering counselling or requiring counselling should an unwanted pregnancy occur, so that an agreement on an abortion can be reached. You don't want the scenario of two bitter divorcees forcing the pregnancy on the other just to spite them- that would be wrong. You could even go further and state that should such a situation occur then abortion is required, but that just may create even more problems.

As does abortion, so arguing between an abortion (actual surgery) with child-birth (illusion to surgery) is a logically inconsistent illustration.

Your version of the "both parties" clause is also logically inconsistent, much like a politically motivated solution, it goes through a long process of satisfying clauses, which does absolutely nothing in the end.

As such, my version of "both clauses" does not create a "forcing factor" where the practice can be used to damage another (since the contender must accept all costs encurred, and all responsibilities and requirements of said. IOW the long term damage is encurred on the party contending against the abortion.)

Either that, or we start to mandating sterilization of all persons party to an aborted child (since none of them, appearantly, wish to contend with the responsibilities they have in lieu of biology as adult humans). Since that is at least, logically consistent, while distateful towards the view of individual rights.

I do not see where the illustration consistently and logically follows from. Since no form of surgery is being forced by law upon another against their will.

To ensure the health of the woman, a C-Section might be required to ensure the birth of the child. If the proposal is intent on making sure the woman gives birth, regardless of her wishes, then they would have to enforce this surgery on her.

I am not saying this will occur every time this proposal is used to force a woman to give birth against her will, but it might. And if you follow it through to this conclusion you are forcing surgery on the woman against her will.

And every surgical procedure carries a risk, however little. This includes C-sections and the actual act of giving birth.

As does abortion, so arguing between an abortion (actual surgery) with child-birth (illusion to surgery) is a logically inconsistent illustration.

Not necessarily. It would only if the abortion was forced. What this version of the "both parties" clause does is force the childbirth onto the woman, which is like forcing surgery on her.

Your version of the "both parties" clause is also logically inconsistent, much like a politically motivated solution, it goes through a long process of satisfying clauses, which does absolutely nothing in the end.

As such, my version of "both clauses" does not create a "forcing factor" where the practice can be used to damage another (since the contender must accept all costs encurred, and all responsibilities and requirements of said. IOW the long term damage is encurred on the party contending against the abortion.)

The problem with your version is that is still open for "women as breeding machines" to take place. Fine, the man has to assume full control over everything that happens to the mother- but that would not stop the practise of "revenge childbirth" from taking place. Hatred can run so deep that one party will do whatever they can to hurt the other person, and this can mean accepting full responsibility just so a spiteful childbirth can happen. Also, what is to stop a man from impregnanting so many women on several one-night stands with the intent of raising many babies? It is a possibility. Should, then, the clause only come into effect when the couple is in a committed relationship to avoid such a thing from happening? If that is the case, wouldn't that clause be pointless as a couple in such a situation would love each other so much that they'd negotiate a better deal anyway?

I still see way too many problems to accept the clause "as-is".

As does abortion, so arguing between an abortion (actual surgery) with child-birth (illusion to surgery) is a logically inconsistent illustration.


This has raised something else in my head, but I will get to that in a second.

If the woman wants the abortion, she would be willing to consent to the surgery it involves. Nothing would be forced upon her. And if she consents to the pregnancy again nothing is forced upon her.

But if she is forced to have the child against her will, then she faces the risk of surgery being performed on her against her will.

And - if I understand this proposal correctly - she wants the child but is ORDERED to have an abortion by the court under this proposoal, then she would have to go through the surgery against her will.

So this proposal has a fair to good possibility of ending up forcing a woman to have surgery against her will. While the man can just sit back and twiddle his thumbs with no-one forcing him to do anything, or risk anything, or have anything done to him against his will.

Clearly this is a violation of the woman's rights. I can't see how it can be viewed as anything else.

To Anti Pharisaism: If, by your argument you suggest that once you consent to sex you should accept responsibility for whatever happens- including accidents- then that is an agreeable argument. If, however, you suggest that simply because there is a risk then one should not have sex that is not something I can agree with. What I would agree with is educating people about responsibility and ensuring they know the risks and how to best safeguard against those risks because it can be done and then go from there. I don't believe it is right to say "oh, there's a risk, so there's no point in doing it" because, by that logic, something as mundane as even going for a walk is something that no one should do, because there is a risk involved even in that (e.g. getting mugged), no matter how small.

Besides, 99% is so close to 100% that most people would feel very safe to the precautionary method.

We are in agreement then. It is mutually shared that consent implies responsibility.

AP's logic is not that since their is a risk do not do it. AP is of the mindset that sense consent involves an analysis of the risk, responsibility comes into play. Again, 99 does not equal 100. So, bearing in mind responsibility and consent. If a person is incapable of meeting that responsibility he or she should remain risk averse. If you do not want to impregnate, or become impregnated, and know you are not capable of taking responsibility for a child then it is in your best interests not to engage in an activitiy that is not 100% sure of preventing pregnancy. The risk analysis is a personal choice. Once you make it be responsible.

Okay, AP's main point is not so much the father not having a say, it is the justification for abortion being offered. Namely, since it is her body she can choose to terminate the fetus or not.

Let us say it is the mothers sole choice, her decision determines the outcome of the fetus. Now, should that choice come without restriction, or should it be absolute?

Does a fetus meet the biological standards used to consider beings alive?

In terms of genetics, would a fetus be considered human?

Does the law distinguish between persons and human beings?

Would the Fetus then be a dependant with duties owed as opposed to the mother being an incubator?

Based on answers to those questions should the scope of excercising a right so as not to harm others apply to abortion?

When, then, would abortion be justified?

To ensure the health of the woman, a C-Section might be required to ensure the birth of the child. If the proposal is intent on making sure the woman gives birth, regardless of her wishes, then they would have to enforce this surgery on her.

I am not saying this will occur every time this proposal is used to force a woman to give birth against her will, but it might. And if you follow it through to this conclusion you are forcing surgery on the woman against her will.

And every surgical procedure carries a risk, however little. This includes C-sections and the actual act of giving birth.

... and the actual act of the abortion procedure...

Consistency, consistency, consistency.... something so simple, yet so lost to people these days.

Any act of removal of the fetus after conception, whether bringing to term, c-section, or the plethora of abortion procedures, aka "surgical procedures" can/will be neccessary... Therefore arguments of "forced surgical procedure" is a redundant term, since ANY would be forced regardless of her choice.

Not necessarily. It would only if the abortion was forced. What this version of the "both parties" clause does is force the childbirth onto the woman, which is like forcing surgery on her.



The problem with your version is that is still open for "women as breeding machines" to take place. Fine, the man has to assume full control over everything that happens to the mother- but that would not stop the practise of "revenge childbirth" from taking place. Hatred can run so deep that one party will do whatever they can to hurt the other person, and this can mean accepting full responsibility just so a spiteful childbirth can happen. Also, what is to stop a man from impregnanting so many women on several one-night stands with the intent of raising many babies? It is a possibility. Should, then, the clause only come into effect when the couple is in a committed relationship to avoid such a thing from happening? If that is the case, wouldn't that clause be pointless as a couple in such a situation would love each other so much that they'd negotiate a better deal anyway?

I still see way too many problems to accept the clause "as-is".

I got news for you... in lieu of biology, women ARE "breeding machines"...

If this is really so distasteful to some, they should either not have sex, or get themselves sterilized... the same goes for the irresponsible men...

Tsk Tsk Tsk, people want to be treated like adults, get to do things adults do, but then when that "r" word (responsibility) kicks in, they start ranting and raving against it like little children.

In any case, the off-the-wall scenario would lead to the absolute destruction of the man... (since the debts and cost of all those pregnancies and births, along with the mounting parental duties and responsibilities)... as such, I do not see it in any way as unfair, since the man would be absolutely wrecked by his own choice... In addition the idea of "Getting even" by making a woman come to term, when all rights, duties, responsibilities, and debts (which would likely include time lost from work if I ever made a final draft to submit as a proposal) incurred by the pregnancy and birth, would be upon the man, the guy would have to be a wacko...

This has raised something else in my head, but I will get to that in a second.

If the woman wants the abortion, she would be willing to consent to the surgery it involves. Nothing would be forced upon her. And if she consents to the pregnancy again nothing is forced upon her.

But if she is forced to have the child against her will, then she faces the risk of surgery being performed on her against her will.

And - if I understand this proposal correctly - she wants the child but is ORDERED to have an abortion by the court under this proposoal, then she would have to go through the surgery against her will.

So this proposal has a fair to good possibility of ending up forcing a woman to have surgery against her will. While the man can just sit back and twiddle his thumbs with no-one forcing him to do anything, or risk anything, or have anything done to him against his will.

Clearly this is a violation of the woman's rights. I can't see how it can be viewed as anything else.

Under the original, under my idea, no...

She can be "forced" to bring to term (however she would not be liable for costs/debts incurred, nor responsible for the child after-the-fact if she did not wish to bring to term (they would be placed upon the father), in the case of consenual sex, if she choose the abortion she would be liable for all costs/debts... Unless of course it was non-consensual, in which case the cost/debts would be incurred on the father, regardless of her choice... In addition, liability for the child, in terms of parental rights, duties and responsibilites would always fall on the contesting partner in consensual scenarios... but always fall upon the mother in non-consensual scenarios.

I got news for you... in lieu of biology, women ARE "breeding machines"...

If this is really so distasteful to some, they should either not have sex, or get themselves sterilized... the same goes for the irresponsible men...

Tsk Tsk Tsk, people want to be treated like adults, get to do things adults do, but then when that "r" word (responsibility) kicks in, they start ranting and raving against it like little children.

In terms of "breeding machines" I am implying that women's role in society may again be reduced to that of solely child-bearing should this proposal come to pass. My problem comes with regards to what "consent" means- is it consenting to sex or consenting to a pregnancy? If it is the former then it's very possible that one or both parties will not consent to a pregnancy even if they consented to sex.

Again, my contention is not that a father would get rights, it's the fear that the rights may be too large in scope. You still haven't answered how you can 100% safeguard against the prospect of one man engaging in consensual sex with, say, ten women, slying impregnating each with unprovable alterations to birth control methods (e.g. changing the birth control pills) and then invoking this proposal to ensure that they will receive all of the babies in question. Yes, you can make the man responsible for all the expenses regarding the pregnancy, but he does not have to sit through the physical hardships a pregnancy incurs, hardships which are greater than any monetary value. He may have to pay for the pregnancies, but he still makes the women suffer through them, something I don't believe it is right.

As long as we are going to look at women as "baby machines", let us look entirely as to what goes on to that "machine" while it is "making a baby".

Forcing someone to endure a pregnancy they do not want would be akin to torture and "Cruel and Unusual Punishment". Prison would be better then the 24 hour hell pregnancy can be.

To say elsewise means one does not comprehend the actions which occur within the body.

To therefore state one must undergo such, is in violation of article five of the Universal Bill of Human Rights:

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

AND

It is in violation of the End Barbaric Punishments resolution:

The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.

As there has been no "crime", to require such "punishment" is unethical and against this resolution.

AND

The Abortion Rights resolution (bold mine)

Description: Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.


Therefore, this proposal is illegal.

Tekania,

Is your group comprised of Navy and Marine Retirees? Or is the COL Army. Most of my work experience has been in Military Issues for the State Military Department (CA ANG) and the California State OMS, which has afforded me many friends in uniform. Am wondering if some may be mutual. Would ask outside of this forum, but it appears personal messages are disabled.

In terms of "breeding machines" I am implying that women's role in society may again be reduced to that of solely child-bearing should this proposal come to pass. My problem comes with regards to what "consent" means- is it consenting to sex or consenting to a pregnancy? If it is the former then it's very possible that one or both parties will not consent to a pregnancy even if they consented to sex.

Again, my contention is not that a father would get rights, it's the fear that the rights may be too large in scope. You still haven't answered how you can 100% safeguard against the prospect of one man engaging in consensual sex with, say, ten women, slying impregnating each with unprovable alterations to birth control methods (e.g. changing the birth control pills) and then invoking this proposal to ensure that they will receive all of the babies in question. Yes, you can make the man responsible for all the expenses regarding the pregnancy, but he does not have to sit through the physical hardships a pregnancy incurs, hardships which are greater than any monetary value. He may have to pay for the pregnancies, but he still makes the women suffer through them, something I don't believe it is right.

consenting to sex = consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.... The problem is with the illogical trend to disconnect the two. No form of contraceptive is 100% effective, therefore, regardless of contraceptive used, when sex is consensual, all parties have consenting as well to the possibility of pregnancy. The two are mutually inclusive... you cannot logically disconnect the two (no matter how hard you try)... If you have sexual intercourse, with or without contraceptive, whether you accept the concept or not, you are risking the posibility of incurred responsibility in lieu of pregnancy... If you do not want to incurr the posibility of pregnancy, then you can choose not to have sex... As such, the NSUN has already legalized irresponsible and childish behavior, and as such, I seek to actually repair it...

I'll throw this out to the wolves.

A fetus is biologically and genetically considered a living human being. The UN resolution does not disassociate between born and non born human beings. Abortion is a surgical act of battery against the fetus that is of no benefit to it. Therefore Abortion subjects a fetus to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment. Killing is not torture or cruel or inhumane if done in defense against being killed by one attempting to kill you, either with intent or negligently. Therefore, if the fetus poses pain of death to the mother, with known certainty, abortion is justified. Otherwise, no it is not. So a Nation may not interfere with a Woman's right to have an abortion in cases where the fetus poses pain of death with known certainty in AP by way of invoking both the human rights initiative and right to abortion.

Tekania,

Is your group comprised of Navy and Marine Retirees? Or is the COL Army. Most of my work experience has been in Military Issues for the State Military Department (CA ANG) and the California State OMS, which has afforded me many friends in uniform. Am wondering if some may be mutual. Would ask outside of this forum, but it appears personal messages are disabled.

And which group is that? If you are reffering the the CRoT site, that is in lieu of mandatory conscription in my nationstate (the VP character is a retired Tekanian Stellar Marine, as my nation is FT in RP)...

As for military, prior, USN... FT1/SS last command, USS Hampton, SSN-767 (1993-1997) left in 1997.

And yes, I know plenty of retirees, and as I was only in SUBLANT, I doubt I know many off the left coast.

The biological factors relating to life apply to a fetus.
Genetics dictate it is a human being.

Admiral Bettencourt (Retired)? He was in DC for awhile.

Belated Veteran's Day.
Thank you for your service.

consenting to sex = consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.... The problem is with the illogical trend to disconnect the two. No form of contraceptive is 100% effective, therefore, regardless of contraceptive used, when sex is consensual, all parties have consenting as well to the possibility of pregnancy. The two are mutually inclusive... you cannot logically disconnect the two (no matter how hard you try)... If you have sexual intercourse, with or without contraceptive, whether you accept the concept or not, you are risking the posibility of incurred responsibility in lieu of pregnancy... If you do not want to incurr the posibility of pregnancy, then you can choose not to have sex... As such, the NSUN has already legalized irresponsible and childish behavior, and as such, I seek to actually repair it...

Then there must be a clause stating that a man cannot trick a woman into an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there must be a stipulation requiring that a "challenge" be faced with checks and balances before it can pass (e.g. through an advisory commitee). I also believe such a scenario should strive to reach a consensus on the issue as opposed to one unilaterally imposing their rights on the other, which would be a violation of the Human Rights Resolution.

Fetus is therefore a term describing unborn living human being.

I'll throw this out to the wolves.

A fetus is biologically and genetically considered a living human being. The UN resolution does not disassociate between born and non born human beings. Abortion is a surgical act of battery against the fetus that is of no benefit to it. Therefore Abortion subjects a fetus to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment. Killing is not torture or cruel or inhumane if done in defense against being killed by one attempting to kill you, either with intent or negligently. Therefore, if the fetus poses pain of death to the mother, with known certainty, abortion is justified. Otherwise, no it is not. So a Nation may not interfere with a Woman's right to have an abortion in cases where the fetus poses pain of death with known certainty in AP by way of invoking both the human rights initiative and right to abortion.

The biological factors relating to life apply to a fetus.
Genetics dictate it is a human being.

Fetus is therefore a term describing unborn living human being.

Self awareness does not apply to infants, nor does the capacity for abstract thought, nor can it survive independantly. The UN does not define Human Being as possessing those qualities. So, this reintroduces sovereignty, AP legally does not have to allow abortions without such justification.

Then there must be a clause stating that a man cannot trick a woman into an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there must be a stipulation requiring that a "challenge" be faced with checks and balances before it can pass (e.g. through an advisory commitee). I also believe such a scenario should strive to reach a consensus on the issue as opposed to one unilaterally imposing their rights on the other, which would be a violation of the Human Rights Resolution.

The point of an advisory commitee would set the scenario at risk to far in the opposite direction, and would lead to abortions being harder to obtain... And as such would not sit well in the present scope.

On the issue of men tricking or what not, it becomes a meaningless and unprovable accusatory argument, which also does nothing but lengthen the process... And the issue primarily and rightly focuses on scenarios where there is no consensus (as if there was one, it would be meaningless)... Though maybe the addition of a 1 month or what - not counceling session, could satisfy the concept of consensus, as such that would have to be added within the realm of Article 2 in my idea, and implimented in Article 1, since mandating counceling on could be deemed "interference" unless specifically removed.

The UN dictates how we are to treat human beings, equally, fetuses are scientifically human beings in AP, so to be in full compliance with all UN resolutions, this is the law. Other NS may act accordingly.

Based On Real Applications Of Scientific Principles.

BASED ON REAL APPLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, FEEL FREE TO CONDUCT YOUR OWN ANALYSIS. (Any basic biology text will do (college Level, Genetic Analysis adv bio text recommended)

Yes, AP, that is actually consistent... Since the UBR and UFC apply to Human Beings, and not persons, within the scope of logically consistency accross laws, and prefference of established laws over newer, the ARR is an illegal document, illegally voted in, and which violates Human Rights and Freedoms, by the NSUN's own laws....

However, AP, one thing you'll learn, is very few people within the NSUN are logical or consistent... (A meandering through 98% of the NSUN passed resolutions will prove that)... I have some pretty tough standards one resolutions I'll vote for... I'm not like most of these people, who look at the title, vote yes, and be damned with teh consequences.... I have this stupid little thing I do, it's called THINKING... And THINKING is so out now-a-days.

I have this stupid little thing I do, it's called THINKING... And THINKING is so out now-a-days.

:eek: Oh dear, as usual I'm not trendy. :(

I'll throw this out to the wolves.

A fetus is biologically and genetically considered a living human being.

No.

Until it can exist on its own, it is a parasite.

Remainder of arguement moot.



The UN resolution does not disassociate between born and non born human beings. Abortion is a surgical act of battery against the fetus that is of no benefit to it. Therefore Abortion subjects a fetus to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment. Killing is not torture or cruel or inhumane if done in defense against being killed by one attempting to kill you, either with intent or negligently. Therefore, if the fetus poses pain of death to the mother, with known certainty, abortion is justified. Otherwise, no it is not. So a Nation may not interfere with a Woman's right to have an abortion in cases where the fetus poses pain of death with known certainty in AP by way of invoking both the human rights initiative and right to abortion.

AP thrives on validity, soundness, and consistency.

That banner that keeps showing:
"Choose your destiny" It is driving the Empire Crazy, as one can not choose their destiny. Nor can one expect the unexpected.

No, a parasite is considered a living being. A virus is not. Therefore it is Not moot.

The qualifier is Energy utilization, the source is moot.

Well... Virus is debatable..

No, a parasite is considered a living being. A virus is not. Therefore it is Not moot.

It is moot. It is not a "living human being". It is a parasite.

Ergo, the main support of the rest of your arguement does not exist.
Hence - it is moot.

It is still a living human being obtaining energy from a host. A fetus is not a fluke worm is not a heartworm because they are all parasites. Parasite denotes how it obtains energy.

That is cannot obtain its energy source independant of its host does not mean it is not alive while in the host. In the host it is a living human being. It is a developing living human being. A caterpillar is still a butterfly, just at different stages of development. Genetics denote what it is, biological factors are how you qualify an organism as living. Parasite describes how it obtains its energy source.

You are justified to kill parasites such as worms as they pose a a threat to your life and that threat is known with certainty. It is still alive while inside you. You kill it, then excrete it.

This discussion has grown horribly derailed.

This is not the General Forum, please don't treat it as such.

Simple.

Women have right to abortion, right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and/or torture.

Forced pregnancy could be classified as torture.

Ergo, proposal is not legal (quotes mentioned before).

Status of Fetus is not relevant - it is not a "living human being" and therefore is not protected by any other proposal or resolution.

Proof - removed, it dies. It requires the woman to live, ergo it is a parasitic organism.

Regardless of your feeling on the last, the first arguements are true, therefore this proposal is illegal.

How can it possibly be cruel and unusual punishment for a women to have to carry a baby to term? In that case I move towards a proposal that all childbirth should be outlawed if this is termed inhumane.

You are NOT forcing anything on the women against her will, she knew the risks before having sex, she should have discussed it with her partner before hand, if she knew her partners stance on abortion then she should not have put him in the position to have to exercise that right. If she didnt, she still knew she risked getting pregnant, knew that the father could, if he so desired, exercise that right, yet she still went ahead with it. NO contraceptive is 100%.

Sorry.

We are debating the necessity of the current resolution. One party dislikes it because it believes the right to abortion is absolute, the other dislikes it because consistency between resolutions makes it unnecessary.

All though both are now against it, one is calling into question the reasons of the other. As noted earlier, AP dissolved the requisite of this proposal by admitting the choice to women. Then stated a reason as to why the resolution is not necessary based on requirement of other UN Resolutions. Both groups, those supporting the resolution, and those against it on other grounds, should be allowed to question the reasoning of the dissenter. If the group for the resolution proves AP wrong for its deisagreement, then AP will again support the resolution, if the other dissenter proves AP, then it may oppose the resolution alongside other dissenters.

How can it possibly be cruel and unusual punishment for a women to have to carry a baby to term? In that case I move towards a proposal that all childbirth should be outlawed if this is termed inhumane.

You are NOT forcing anything on the women against her will, she knew the risks before having sex, she should have discussed it with her partner before hand, if she knew her partners stance on abortion then she should not have put him in the position to have to exercise that right. If she didnt, she still knew she risked getting pregnant, knew that the father could, if he so desired, exercise that right, yet she still went ahead with it. NO contraceptive is 100%.

Irrelevant.

Women have the right to abortions.
Forcing them to give up this right is a punishment - a restriction of rights.
On top of that, you are forcing biochemical changes, potentially harmful, on the woman without her consent. This is "Cruel and Unusual".

Ergo - you are forcing the issue. She wants an abortion, you say "no" and enforce your will then you are by definition forcing her.

Currently the father has no rights, so that is equally irrelevant.

As you're obviously not female - you aren't going to get it. It's not about power. But then again, I could fill you with tapeworms and suppress your immune system for nine months - you might understand then.

Finally, the "Ideology of the Perfect Decision" is void if you have ever "made a mistake" at any point in your life. As it is mathematically certain you have, your arguement is void and null.

"You hit my car! And you didn't discuss it with me first! You must have intended the action!" (illustration of the ridiculousness of the arguement)

People are not reasonable - people are by their nature, stupid. To expect otherwise is foolish. That is why they have legal protections, so they can make errors.

... and the actual act of the abortion procedure...

Consistency, consistency, consistency.... something so simple, yet so lost to people these days.

Any act of removal of the fetus after conception, whether bringing to term, c-section, or the plethora of abortion procedures, aka "surgical procedures" can/will be neccessary... Therefore arguments of "forced surgical procedure" is a redundant term, since ANY would be forced regardless of her choice.

I think you are missing my point. Which I thought I had explained, but maybe I didn't.

If the woman consents to giving birth, I am taking it as read she would consent to any surgery necessary to deliver the child. I would not class this as forced, even if it is required.

If the woman consents to the abortion, I am taking it as read she would consent to any surgery necessary to complete the procedure. I would not class this as forced, even if it is required.

If the woman DOESN'T consent to the birth, but is forced to go through with it under this proposal, then any surgery required to complete the process of the birth would be against her will. I would class this as forced, because it is against her will.

If the woman DOESN'T consent to the abortion, but is forced to go through with it under this proposals, then any surgery required to complete the process of the abortion would be against her will. I would class this as forced, because it is against her will.

If it dies when removed, then that is proof it is alive within. It is a human being as genetically it can be nothing else. Ergo, Article five applies to the living human being as it does not distinguish between born and unborn human beings.

Parasitic organisms, again, are still living organisms. There is no fundamental reason why they are not. The qualifier is energy utilization, the source is moot. So if you want, a fetus is a parasite, a parasite is a living organism, therefore a fetus is a living organism. Genetics make the fetus a human being, therefore a fetus is a living human being. The Bill of rights does not distinguish between born and unborn living human beings. Therefore, a fetus is protected by the bill of rights. Ergo, a woman can not abort the fetus unless pregnancy posses death with known certainty as abortion poses death with known certainty.

How can it possibly be cruel and unusual punishment for a women to have to carry a baby to term? In that case I move towards a proposal that all childbirth should be outlawed if this is termed inhumane.

You are NOT forcing anything on the women against her will, she knew the risks before having sex, she should have discussed it with her partner before hand, if she knew her partners stance on abortion then she should not have put him in the position to have to exercise that right. If she didnt, she still knew she risked getting pregnant, knew that the father could, if he so desired, exercise that right, yet she still went ahead with it. NO contraceptive is 100%.

It's not the act of bringing the baby to term that is cruel and unusual. It is FORCING someone to go through that against their will.

Then it is cruel and unusual to force laws upon people against their will. And all is lost.

It is almost morning, and therefore time for bed. Goodnight.

Then it is cruel and unusual to force laws upon people against their will. And all is lost.

Nope. You only lost laws. It's not so bad really. It's called anarchy.

AP stands corrected by the Texan.

It's not the act of bringing the baby to term that is cruel and unusual. It is FORCING someone to go through that against their will.

So then forcing a jail term against someone is cruel and unusual punishment? As I said in my previous post she knew the risks. Why should I have to sit by while she KILLS my child???????? For the simple reason that she doesnt want to face the consequences of her actions!!!! I would love and care for my child, and she gets to say "F#$% You, I'm gonna kill our child"! Where's the justice in that??? Sorry I'm ranting a bit now, but I feel very strongly about this for personal reasons...

Then it is cruel and unusual to force laws upon people against their will. And all is lost.

This is what I don't understand about those who want to appeal the resolution that exists.

It does NOT force women to get abortions. No one is putting a gun to their head and saying "do it!!"

So what is wrong with it?

All those who support this very important issue, please cast your approval in the UN.

The Region of Puff thanks you for you support.

I was paraphrasing your earlier comment.
Read my quote on the previous page, the final response to Vastiva. It illustrates that the ARR is already limited by the rights initiative. As their is a scientific basis for the classification of a fetus as a living human being, thus protected by article five as it does not distinguish between born and unborn.

Ultimately, what is wrong is the taking of a life without adequate justification. To kill out of inconveneince, not for sustenance or self preservation. If pregnancy is known to likely result in the death of the mother, than the need for self preservation justifies abortion. The same way killing in self defence is justified. But to take the life of another living being because of regret over an activity having occurred during one's life does not justify the taking of its life. It punishes that being for actions it was not a party to.

So then forcing a jail term against someone is cruel and unusual punishment? As I said in my previous post she knew the risks. Why should I have to sit by while she KILLS my child???????? For the simple reason that she doesnt want to face the consequences of her actions!!!! I would love and care for my child, and she gets to say "F#$% You, I'm gonna kill our child"! Where's the justice in that??? Sorry I'm ranting a bit now, but I feel very strongly about this for personal reasons...

As do I. Cause there has been a time in every nation (most nations at least) where abortion has not been legal except for very specific circumstances, so women who wanted one have had to go to back street doctor, with no training and very little skill. They ended up either being killed by the procedure, or not being able to have children again.

I do not want to see a return that to - I do not want women to have to beg for their rights. I do not want women to be treated like second class citizens because of something beyond their control. I do not want women to be turned in to slaves.

Clearly we both feel strongly about our respective sides of the arguement, and - as open minded as I am to debate of all forms - I am not going to be swayed from my view on this. I oppose any resolution that tries to take the decision out of the hands of the one who is giving birth, because it makes her a prisoner of the state when she has commited no crime, and hands over control of her body, her life, her future and her free will to the state - making her a slave to the very government that is supposedly protecting her rights with this proposal.

I can't support it for those reasons, and I won't

Has this proposal been deleted? I can't find it anywhere in the list.

nopr it should still be valid until tommorrow just type in act and you should find it... around page 10

I can only find 'Repeal "Abortion Rights"'

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

No.

Until it can exist on its own, it is a parasite.

Remainder of arguement moot.

Parasitical is a function, not a definition...

It is still by definition a homo sapien sapien, sic. a Human Being, regardless of how it is functioning at that time, Herr Vastiva... Now, whether it can be classified as a "person" or not is a point of debate that has been raging for some time, but one that is pointless since the UN grants rights to "Humans" and not "Persons"... However, there can be no point of debate as its status as a human, since that is defined by genetic classification...

As do I. Cause there has been a time in every nation (most nations at least) where abortion has not been legal except for very specific circumstances, so women who wanted one have had to go to back street doctor, with no training and very little skill. They ended up either being killed by the procedure, or not being able to have children again.

I do not want to see a return that to - I do not want women to have to beg for their rights. I do not want women to be treated like second class citizens because of something beyond their control. I do not want women to be turned in to slaves.

Clearly we both feel strongly about our respective sides of the arguement, and - as open minded as I am to debate of all forms - I am not going to be swayed from my view on this. I oppose any resolution that tries to take the decision out of the hands of the one who is giving birth, because it makes her a prisoner of the state when she has commited no crime, and hands over control of her body, her life, her future and her free will to the state - making her a slave to the very government that is supposedly protecting her rights with this proposal.

I can't support it for those reasons, and I won't

No one is trying to take away the woman's rights or treating her like a second class citizen. I think that we all would agree that falling pregnant is not a crime and one should not be condemed for it.

However, the fact of the matter is that she made a conscious decision to have sex and there are consequences to her actions (the act makes provision for non-consensual intercourse). Yes it is her body, but she is carrying the life of another human being and her falling pregnant does not give her the right to terminate another life. The act is by no means asking her to give up her life/future/free will, but if the father is willing to raise the child, he should be given the opportunity to do so - the mother can then carry on with her normal life, even forget about the child if she so wishes.

It takes two to create a life, why should only one have the power to destroy it?

No one is trying to take away the woman's rights or treating her like a second class citizen. I think that we all would agree that falling pregnant is not a crime and one should not be condemed for it.

However, the fact of the matter is that she made a conscious decision to have sex and there are consequences to her actions (the act makes provision for non-consensual intercourse). Yes it is her body, but she is carrying the life of another human being and her falling pregnant does not give her the right to terminate another life. The act is by no means asking her to give up her life/future/free will, but if the father is willing to raise the child, he should be given the opportunity to do so - the mother can then carry on with her normal life, even forget about the child if she so wishes.

It takes two to create a life, why should only one have the power to destroy it?

One of the definitions of a slave (at least as defined in my nation) is someone who is owned by someone else, so that they have no free will of their own, and their life belongs to that person.

If you tell a woman that she has no choice but to bear the child inside her, then you have turned her in to a slave of the father of the child. Her body, her free will and her life belongs to that man for as long as she is pregnant. Her only alternative to bearing the child is to kill herself, or to break the law and have an abortion. Which would then make her either dead or a criminal - in much the same way that slaves who absconded from their masters were treated as criminals.

I can find no justification for treating anyone this way, let alone someone who has comitted no crime.

She is not a slave, she is being held accountable (in terms of consensual conduct). Having a pregnancy does not mean she has to kill herself either. If the pregnancy is known to be lethal to her, than she can abort it.

No, it is not about sovereignty over one's body, especially in cases where one consented to the risk of their body being impregnated. It is about justification for the cessation of life. A parasite is considered a living being, a fetus meets the biological qualifications for life, as such it is a living parasite. However, genetics make it a human being, thus it is a living human being. Also, it is not sustaining itself on the host so as to reproduce, terminate, and populate a new host. It is sustaining itself until it is able to vacate the body. Its presence is limited, not indefinite until terminated or removed.

As a parasitic living human being it is a dependant, and worthy of a duty to be free from harm without justification. Just as an infant is a living human being, dependant on others for survival, and is owed that duty. The difference between the rights of those beeing born or not born is not one based on soundness or validity, or sovereignty over ones body, it is based on changerable documents. There is no other difference with respect to its biological and genetic classification as a living human being dependant upon a parent than such documents.

So, it is not about sovereignty over the body, it is about justification for the taking of a life owed a duty as a dependant. If it is a known danger to the life of its host mother, termination of the pregnancy is justified. If it is done out of convenience or regret for ones consensual actions, it is not justified.

It is about the soveriegnty of life to not be terminated without justification. It is Not about hiding behind a veil of personal sovereignty to be rid of the consequences of ones actions. Cleaning the slate of one life by ending another.

I am sorry, but I totally and untterly disagree with everything you are saying, for the reasons I have stated over and over again.

And, as I have said previously, I am done arguing this point. The two sides are never going to find a compromise that suits them both, as they both believe they are right.

I am not going to vote to repeal the resolution as it stands, as I believe it would be an intolerable breach of human rights to do so. And since there is no amendment procedure within the UN, the current resolution would have to be repealed first, with no way of ensuring a new one would take it's place.

And this proposal is just abhorrent in every single aspect, and would not get my support even if an amendment procedure were in place.

But as I said - I am done debating as I am sick of repeating myself when I know I am never going to convince those who I am trying to convince.

In light of no one validly and soundly refudiating that a fetus is not a living human being, nor proffering that sovereignty over ones body in light of UN rights for another is justification for taking life, AP will not support abortion rights as the inherent choice of a woman.

Nor does AP support this resolution, as, when taken as a whole, the UN only justifies abortion in instances where the life of the mother is in danger equal to that of the fetus being aborted.

As both are citizens of The Empire, it shall enforce UN Resolutions Equally.

Vastiva RomeW, Tekania, Mikitivity, and TilEnca, this has been better than most discussions conducted on this issue. AP recognizes all as outstanding UN Members. All illustrating fine points on the matter.

AP will also be leaving this discussion.

Further communications can be conducted by telegramming or emailing The Empire.

See you next time on rea.. in the UN Forum.