NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings,

One thing here noticed by my nation is everyone's apparent love of fetal executions (i.e. abortions). All efforts to have repealed the UN resolution against interfering in fetal execution have been shot down resolutely in favour of the mothers' rights.

Okay. That's fine. But let's not allow ourselves to be fooled. The "Abortion Rights" resolution is in existence because of the mother's rights; it makes no mention about the child's humanity or lack thereof, so the implication is that the mothers' right for comfort supercedes the child's right to life.

HOWEVER... it would be foolish, ignorant, untenable dogma to say that the unborn child is not a living human. To emphasise this, I have proposed a resolution entitled "Right of Humanity Recognition", which defines humanity as any living creature possessing its own, unique human DNA.

This provision does not of itself have the claim made that all humans are equal, that the unborn, infants, other minors, slaves, homosexuals, the genetically engineered, racial minorities, the poor, prostitutes, the dying, etc. are endowed with as many rights as anyone else, but it is only claimed that they are all human.

Please do not let this vote be abstained from. It is found appalling in my nation that in this global government where all marriages are recognised, all races and sexes are viewed as equal, and so many other civil rights advancements have been made that the lives of so many have been ignored simply so those who have them killed out of comfort can do so with "good conscience".

Let's have this charade ended. Please, if you are a delegate, have this proposal approved. If you are not a delegate, please have your regional delegate informed and asked to approve it.

It has two or three grammatical errors, sure, but it is deserving of a vote. Thank you.

Right of Humanity Recognition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Passivocalia

Description: WHEREAS Ignorance is an embarrassment to any nation, and state-perpetuated ignorance is a slap in the face to any culture. Emotional appeal, and faith-based belief cannot erase facts but can only work from them or against them.

WHEREAS one of the most vital of human rights is acknowledgment of humanity, and all civil rights can be easily taken from an individual once his/her humanity disappears. The UN has already taken measures against said ignorance in the areas of slavery, homosexuals, religion, children, the mentally-ill, the genetically engineered, and prostitutes.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be a living organism. He/she has a heartbeat, brainwaves, and, most tellingly, can be killed.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be human. He/she does not evolve from some lesser species in the womb but has human DNA from the moment of conception.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be unique from his/her parents. Unlike eggs or semen, which possess their creator’s DNA, the fetal child has DNA unique from both its mother and father, the same DNA he/she will have the rest of his/her life.

WHEREAS dependence is not a determining factor for humanity, as is affirmed by Resolutions #25 (The Child Protection Act) and #44 (Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill). A newborn baby feeds from his/her mother’s breast without his/her humanity coming into question.

WHEREAS Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) is based solely on the mother’s choice and makes no statement concerning the humanity of the executed child.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UN defines humanity, giving even oppressed peoples the paltry right of recognition.

ARTICLE I
Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).

ARTICLE II
Certificates of Birth and Death must be made available to all human citizens or humans born within a nation. In cases of fetal executions, the human’s Birth and Death dates will be set on the same day.

ARTICLE III
Any future repeal of resolutions protecting the rights homosexuals, potential slaves, women, children, the genetically engineered, etc. will not have any effect on the humanity of said individuals and groups. In such instances, this resolution will only form a bridge between the repeal and any infringements on human civil rights defined in other U.N. resolutions.

ARTICLE IV
This resolution does not counteract "Abortion Rights", which, despite its claim to “Significantly Increase Human Rights”, is a statement concerning moral values and personal belief, making it instead “Strongly Increase Moral Decency”. This resolution, contrastly, is a observance of scientific fact, allowing mothers to continue killing children but forcing governments to acknowledge the incident.

ARTICLE V
While no obligation can be created, it is heavily encouraged that this resolution be used as a stepping stone. If it fails to pass, one should draft a new resolution defining the limits and restrictions of humanity. Such a resolution should refute each above argument that affirms fetal humanity, and it should also present tenable arguments which discredit said humanity; a mother's choice should not be mentioned, as it has no effect on a child's humanity. If this resolution passes, it is highly recommended that the U.N. repeal Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights).

(ends Tuesday if not enough support exists)

ARTICLE I
Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).


You realise this excludes twins, triplets and so forth? Since they don't contain unique human DNA.

Also - if you can genetically engineer things - this would open it up to clones, which also would not be protected as they would not have unique DNA.

Finally what about computers that have partly human brains?

Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).

This means that snot would be given the same rights as a person. My snot has living creatures in it, that possess unique human DNA. (or at least a unique combination of pre-existing DNA) According to this definition, I should be charged with the murder of hundreds every time I blink my eyelashes.


Unlike eggs or semen, which possess their creator’s DNA, the fetal child has DNA unique from both its mother and father, the same DNA he/she will have the rest of his/her life.

The fetus has no unique DNA. Its simply half egg DNA and half semen DNA combined together.

The "Abortion Rights" resolution is in existence because of the mother's rights; it makes no mention about the child's humanity or lack thereof, so the implication is that the mothers' right for comfort supercedes the child's right to life.

Obviously you've done little or no research on the positions of abortion rights advocates. Its not the "right for comfort" vs "the right to life." Its the simple fact that we all have the right to life but we do not have the right to live at the expense of someone else. Even parents and guardians of the mentally ill can abort their dependents from their home. How is it we can uphold the right of property when it comes to a factory or a parking lot but not to a person's own body?

There are commonsense laws that can be passed to help save the lives of unwanted fetuses. This is not one of them.

Right of Humanity Recognition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Passivocalia

Description: WHEREAS Ignorance is an embarrassment to any nation, and state-perpetuated ignorance is a slap in the face to any culture. Emotional appeal, and faith-based belief cannot erase facts but can only work from them or against them.

WHEREAS one of the most vital of human rights is acknowledgment of humanity, and all civil rights can be easily taken from an individual once his/her humanity disappears. The UN has already taken measures against said ignorance in the areas of slavery, homosexuals, religion, children, the mentally-ill, the genetically engineered, and prostitutes.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be a living organism. He/she has a heartbeat, brainwaves, and, most tellingly, can be killed.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be human. He/she does not evolve from some lesser species in the womb but has human DNA from the moment of conception.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be unique from his/her parents. Unlike eggs or semen, which possess their creator’s DNA, the fetal child has DNA unique from both its mother and father, the same DNA he/she will have the rest of his/her life.

WHEREAS dependence is not a determining factor for humanity, as is affirmed by Resolutions #25 (The Child Protection Act) and #44 (Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill). A newborn baby feeds from his/her mother’s breast without his/her humanity coming into question.

WHEREAS Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) is based solely on the mother’s choice and makes no statement concerning the humanity of the executed child.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UN defines humanity, giving even oppressed peoples the paltry right of recognition.

ARTICLE I
Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).

ARTICLE II
Certificates of Birth and Death must be made available to all human citizens or humans born within a nation. In cases of fetal executions, the human’s Birth and Death dates will be set on the same day.

ARTICLE III
Any future repeal of resolutions protecting the rights homosexuals, potential slaves, women, children, the genetically engineered, etc. will not have any effect on the humanity of said individuals and groups. In such instances, this resolution will only form a bridge between the repeal and any infringements on human civil rights defined in other U.N. resolutions.

ARTICLE IV
This resolution does not counteract "Abortion Rights", which, despite its claim to “Significantly Increase Human Rights”, is a statement concerning moral values and personal belief, making it instead “Strongly Increase Moral Decency”. This resolution, contrastly, is a observance of scientific fact, allowing mothers to continue killing children but forcing governments to acknowledge the incident.

ARTICLE V
While no obligation can be created, it is heavily encouraged that this resolution be used as a stepping stone. If it fails to pass, one should draft a new resolution defining the limits and restrictions of humanity. Such a resolution should refute each above argument that affirms fetal humanity, and it should also present tenable arguments which discredit said humanity; a mother's choice should not be mentioned, as it has no effect on a child's humanity. If this resolution passes, it is highly recommended that the U.N. repeal Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights).

(ends Tuesday if not enough support exists)

This proposal is inhuman. Women who are seeking an abortion should not be required by law to be lectured about what they are doing. It is their choice, and their choice alone.

People's medical history is private, and should not be made of national interest. So forcing the government to "take notice" of a woman's right to chose is a huge invasion of privacy.

I realise you have written this with the best intentions, but it is just a way of getting round Resolution #61 without actually getting it repealed first. And hopefully I will not be the only person to see that, and it will get voted down as it should.

Right of Humanity Recognition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Passivocalia

Mild? This is a strong resolution if I have ever seen one in the strength of what it does.

Description: WHEREAS Ignorance is an embarrassment to any nation, and state-perpetuated ignorance is a slap in the face to any culture. Emotional appeal, and faith-based belief cannot erase facts but can only work from them or against them.

WHEREAS one of the most vital of human rights is acknowledgment of humanity, and all civil rights can be easily taken from an individual once his/her humanity disappears. The UN has already taken measures against said ignorance in the areas of slavery, homosexuals, religion, children, the mentally-ill, the genetically engineered, and prostitutes.

This is a strong opening. Bravo.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be a living organism. He/she has a heartbeat, brainwaves, and, most tellingly, can be killed.

So can my cat.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be human. He/she does not evolve from some lesser species in the womb but has human DNA from the moment of conception.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be unique from his/her parents. Unlike eggs or semen, which possess their creator’s DNA, the fetal child has DNA unique from both its mother and father, the same DNA he/she will have the rest of his/her life.

The DNA of a child is a mixture of the DNA from the parents coupled with whatever mutations a few genes make while in the womb.

Also, this is factually wrong. A person's DNA continues to mutate their entire life, but most of the mutations are extremely mild and have no affects. A more serious case of genetic mutation is cancer. The mutations are mostly not passed on to the children, but a few always are. In any case, the majority of the genetic structure is the same.

WHEREAS dependence is not a determining factor for humanity, as is affirmed by Resolutions #25 (The Child Protection Act) and #44 (Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill). A newborn baby feeds from his/her mother’s breast without his/her humanity coming into question.

WHEREAS Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) is based solely on the mother’s choice and makes no statement concerning the humanity of the executed child.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UN defines humanity, giving even oppressed peoples the paltry right of recognition.

This could get dangerous.

ARTICLE I
Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).

This is both a slap in the face and an insult to my nation, both to its people and leader. You are in effect saying the leader is not good enough to be human, despite the great effort and expense to make him seem as human as possible by those who built him, and that the people must be defined as a genetically inferior species just because they evolved from it and share genetic traits.

ARTICLE II
Certificates of Birth and Death must be made available to all human citizens or humans born within a nation. In cases of fetal executions, the human’s Birth and Death dates will be set on the same day.

See no problem here.

ARTICLE III
Any future repeal of resolutions protecting the rights homosexuals, potential slaves, women, children, the genetically engineered, etc. will not have any effect on the humanity of said individuals and groups. In such instances, this resolution will only form a bridge between the repeal and any infringements on human civil rights defined in other U.N. resolutions.

This is actually a good idea. I think this article by itself is worthy of passing.

ARTICLE IV
This resolution does not counteract "Abortion Rights", which, despite its claim to “Significantly Increase Human Rights”, is a statement concerning moral values and personal belief, making it instead “Strongly Increase Moral Decency”. This resolution, contrastly, is a observance of scientific fact, allowing mothers to continue killing children but forcing governments to acknowledge the incident.

You need to edit this to remove the personal comments and claims of scientific fact. They make you sound bitter and work against you.

ARTICLE V
While no obligation can be created, it is heavily encouraged that this resolution be used as a stepping stone. If it fails to pass, one should draft a new resolution defining the limits and restrictions of humanity. Such a resolution should refute each above argument that affirms fetal humanity, and it should also present tenable arguments which discredit said humanity; a mother's choice should not be mentioned, as it has no effect on a child's humanity. If this resolution passes, it is highly recommended that the U.N. repeal Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights).

Drop this section. Entirely.

You realise this excludes twins, triplets and so forth? Since they don't contain unique human DNA.

Also - if you can genetically engineer things - this would open it up to clones, which also would not be protected as they would not have unique DNA.

Bah. You are correct. But there is room in this document to interpret this as unique from the twins' source, namely, their parents. With clones, the proposal already cites a clone's rights repeatedly.

And perhaps a greater emphasis should have been placed on unique 46-chromosome genetic structure instead of DNA, as DemonLordEnigma notes.

Finally what about computers that have partly human brains?

Interesting consideration. Which part is doing the thinking? Is the mechanical aspect merely aiding and facilitating the biological part?
---------------
This means that snot would be given the same rights as a person. My snot has living creatures in it, that possess unique human DNA. (or at least a unique combination of pre-existing DNA) According to this definition, I should be charged with the murder of hundreds every time I blink my eyelashes.

Is the fetal child made up of a unique combination of a single person's pre-existing DNA? The child is a combination of two people made into one person. Snot 'snot unique.

The fetus has no unique DNA. Its simply half egg DNA and half semen DNA combined together.

...combined together to make a new organism, and that organism is a human, in the case of human semen and egg. But again, I likely should have emphasised the presence of those 46 chromosomes. I do not claim to be guru on this material, anymore than I am about infant or adolescent growth processes.

Obviously you've done little or no research on the positions of abortion rights advocates. Its not the "right for comfort" vs "the right to life." Its the simple fact that we all have the right to life but we do not have the right to live at the expense of someone else. Even parents and guardians of the mentally ill can abort their dependents from their home. How is it we can uphold the right of property when it comes to a factory or a parking lot but not to a person's own body?

There are commonsense laws that can be passed to help save the lives of unwanted fetuses. This is not one of them.

That statement you commented on was not concerning the positions of abortion rights advocates; it concerned the arguments made in the "Abortion Rights" resolution, which were, namely, none whatsoever. Just that the mother has the right to do this process. And do parents and guardians really have the right to throw their dependents into the streets to die? Are you saying that a fetus is not a living human now only because we do not have the technology to keep it alive as we eject it from the womb? Will this change once we develop the technology to do so? And what are these commonsense laws that can be passed to save the lives of unwanted fetuses? Because we U.N. members are not passing them.
---------------
This proposal is inhuman. Women who are seeking an abortion should not be required by law to be lectured about what they are doing. It is their choice, and their choice alone.

People's medical history is private, and should not be made of national interest. So forcing the government to "take notice" of a woman's right to chose is a huge invasion of privacy.

I realise you have written this with the best intentions, but it is just a way of getting round Resolution #61 without actually getting it repealed first. And hopefully I will not be the only person to see that, and it will get voted down as it should.

No, your response is inhuman. It solely concerns invasion of privacy. Social workers who rescue abused children invade someone else's privacy. Honestly, should choices really be made in IGNORANCE? Because that is what you seem to be saying in your first paragraph. Also, Resolution #61 CANNOT be gotten around WITHOUT repealing it; the proposal clearly acknowledges this.
---------------
Mild? This is a strong resolution if I have ever seen one in the strength of what it does.

Several corrupt dictatorships here in nationstates are proud to declare how many they execute and have no problem being forced to acknowledge it. Having a resolution that makes them stop executing is much, much more powerful. The significance of this resolution is not in its direct effects (certificates of existence), but in its implications.

This is both a slap in the face and an insult to my nation, both to its people and leader. You are in effect saying the leader is not good enough to be human, despite the great effort and expense to make him seem as human as possible by those who built him, and that the people must be defined as a genetically inferior species just because they evolved from it and share genetic traits.

The phrase "good enough to be human" might be offensive to elves, centaurs, etc. This proposal does not declare humans to be superior to any other group, including the artificially intelligent.

This is actually a good idea. I think this article by itself is worthy of passing.

Fortunately, we likely will not have to worry about "Ban Slavery" being repealed, much less worrying about a resolution entitled "Slavery Rights" being passed. Abortion is a social anomaly; it SEEMS like the rights of the unborn would be championed by liberalism.

You need to edit this to remove the personal comments and claims of scientific fact. They make you sound bitter and work against you.

Point taken. It's hard to not be bitter.

Drop this section. Entirely.

I did not want to pretend to hide the proposals implications. If this is NOT an acceptible definition of humanity, then efforts should be taken to explain precisely how a cut umbilical cord makes something human. Or, for those compromisers out there, which finger, toe, heartbeat, or brainwave turns that clump of cells into a human clump of cells. And, with that, what is the basis for such a claim, other than convenience of belief? There needs to be proof that the abortion stance is not a religious tenet.

And, if it is passed, then "Abortion Rights" cannot coexist with a significant portion of other UN Resolutions that have passed. It already cannot coexist, of course, but that has not stopped it yet.

Thanks to everyone so far for comments, praises, and complaints. What else? This is about education, so enlighten me or accept what is; do not just brush it way idly.

Several corrupt dictatorships here in nationstates are proud to declare how many they execute and have no problem being forced to acknowledge it. Having a resolution that makes them stop executing is much, much more powerful. The significance of this resolution is not in its direct effects (certificates of existence), but in its implications.

The resolution forces a social change in what people consider to be human and brings fetuses under laws not normally applying to them in many nations. That's pretty powerful.

The phrase "good enough to be human" might be offensive to elves, centaurs, etc. This proposal does not declare humans to be superior to any other group, including the artificially intelligent.

It is the tone of it tha struck me. I would throw in a clause for those not being human having the same rights as humans.

Fortunately, we likely will not have to worry about "Ban Slavery" being repealed, much less worrying about a resolution entitled "Slavery Rights" being passed. Abortion is a social anomaly; it SEEMS like the rights of the unborn would be championed by liberalism.

It is an anomaly in this case and one I do not feel qualified to argue over.

I did not want to pretend to hide the proposals implications. If this is NOT an acceptible definition of humanity, then efforts should be taken to explain precisely how a cut umbilical cord makes something human. Or, for those compromisers out there, which finger, toe, heartbeat, or brainwave turns that clump of cells into a human clump of cells. And, with that, what is the basis for such a claim, other than convenience of belief? There needs to be proof that the abortion stance is not a religious tenet.

Christianity and most religions are anti-abortion. I know because I get flak for being of the former and not being opposed to it.

Mostly, I say genetics and attitude determine humanity, but mostly attitude. A robot can be just as human as anyone else if advanced enough, while a person who is genetically human can be more cold-hearted and calculating than any computer. At birth, genetics is the only determining factor to use, though.

And, if it is passed, then "Abortion Rights" cannot coexist with a significant portion of other UN Resolutions that have passed. It already cannot coexist, of course, but that has not stopped it yet.

It coexists as a "necessary evil for freedom and civil rights." You run into those.

Bah. You are correct. But there is room in this document to interpret this as unique from the twins' source, namely, their parents. With clones, the proposal already cites a clone's rights repeatedly.


I am just saying that if there is room to interpret it the way you did, there is room to interpret it the way I did. Thus declaring twins, triplets and so forth to be "inhuman". Which I am pretty sure is not what you were going for :}




Interesting consideration. Which part is doing the thinking? Is the mechanical aspect merely aiding and facilitating the biological part?


I don't really know - I was just hypothesising. But if a computer is using a brain, or part thereof, as a CPU then could it be classed as alive, and therefore human?


No, your response is inhuman. It solely concerns invasion of privacy. Social workers who rescue abused children invade someone else's privacy. Honestly, should choices really be made in IGNORANCE? Because that is what you seem to be saying in your first paragraph. Also, Resolution #61 CANNOT be gotten around WITHOUT repealing it; the proposal clearly acknowledges this.


I am sorry, but you have totally misrepresented my reply. Yes - there was a comment on the right to privacy. (OOC - which, by the way, was the basis of the Roe vs Wade case when it was first brought, so clearly I am not the only person to think that mothers have a right to privacy in regard to their medical dealings).

But the other part - the part about lecturing women who want an abortion before they can have one - that is a pretty important part.
I am not saying women should not be given choices, but telling them that they are committing FETAL EXECUTION is not giving them a choice - it is making them feel like the scum of the earth. And I would have thought that, given that abortion is not the easiest thing to go through in the first place, doctors should be able to show a little tact, caring and discretion, rather than laying in to the woman about their moral values.

That is the part that is inhuman.

.

I would like to ask a question.

Is it possible that, since this proposal seeks to set out rules about abortions (the birth and death certificates for the fetuses for example), it is in direct violation of Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) since that says "the state shall have NO right to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion" (I may be paraphrasing that, but it's the gist).

If so, should it not be deleted for being in violation of game mechanics?

The resolution forces a social change in what people consider to be human and brings fetuses under laws not normally applying to them in many nations. That's pretty powerful.

Hmm. Fair enough. If it disappears into the night like so many other proposals or gets defeated, the next version will upgrade to "Significant". I would not say it is on the level of "Strong", however.

It is the tone of it tha struck me. I would throw in a clause for those not being human having the same rights as humans.

If it is the tone, then perhaps a better solution would be to quantify that humans are not necessarily the supreme race. A statement about racial/A.I. equality, however, might be better reserved for a different resolution.

I also do not feel educated enough to guess when artificial intelligence is developed enough to have rights equal to sentient species, considering that it generally does not attain that position through growth and time (of course, I could be mistaken).

Christianity and most religions are anti-abortion. I know because I get flak for being of the former and not being opposed to it.

I may be Christian, but I cannot justify the government imposing most of the moral tenets I hold over the general populace. Some beliefs, however, such as murder being frowned upon, are shared.

Mostly, I say genetics and attitude determine humanity, but mostly attitude. A robot can be just as human as anyone else if advanced enough, while a person who is genetically human can be more cold-hearted and calculating than any computer. At birth, genetics is the only determining factor to use, though.

Well, the problem is this would deny humanity to jerks, which, though perhaps appealing, would be difficult to justify. Regardless, as you said, at birth we only have genetics.

It coexists as a "necessary evil for freedom and civil rights." You run into those.

I would call it a "necessary evil for comfort and security". However, even if it is for freedom and civil rights, all this proposal would do is acknowledge that it IS, that it exists.
---------------
I am just saying that if there is room to interpret it the way you did, there is room to interpret it the way I did. Thus declaring twins, triplets and so forth to be "inhuman". Which I am pretty sure is not what you were going for :}

True. You would have to put it in perspective of all the other UN resolutions.

I am sorry, but you have totally misrepresented my reply. Yes - there was a comment on the right to privacy. (OOC - which, by the way, was the basis of the Roe vs Wade case when it was first brought, so clearly I am not the only person to think that mothers have a right to privacy in regard to their medical dealings).

(OOC - the Supreme Court is fickle, its position depending on who controls it at the time. And the fact that privacy was the basis for the Roe vs. Wade decision does not strike against fetal humanity. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Supreme Court also deemed slavery constitutional at some point.)

But the other part - the part about lecturing women who want an abortion before they can have one - that is a pretty important part.
I am not saying women should not be given choices, but telling them that they are committing FETAL EXECUTION is not giving them a choice - it is making them feel like the scum of the earth. And I would have thought that, given that abortion is not the easiest thing to go through in the first place, doctors should be able to show a little tact, caring and discretion, rather than laying in to the woman about their moral values.

That is the part that is inhuman.

The proposal actually mentions nothing about lecturing or education courses, though perhaps it should. You are not arguing that it is NOT a fetal execution; you are arguing that mothers should not have to KNOW that it is a fetal execution. That stance is the reason I drafted this proposal.

And, perhaps again misrepresenting you, I'll quote something you wrote on the Death Penalty issue:

I am not killing my people. Especially in the name of "human rights" and using the phrase "decent citizens" to do it.

Murder - the premeditated act of taking a life - is wrong. Even more so when it is someone who is defenceless and can't fight back.
So why is the death penalty just again?

The issue is not privacy. It is whether a child is living before its cord is cut.

I would like to ask a question.

Is it possible that, since this proposal seeks to set out rules about abortions (the birth and death certificates for the fetuses for example), it is in direct violation of Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) since that says "the state shall have NO right to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion" (I may be paraphrasing that, but it's the gist).

If so, should it not be deleted for being in violation of game mechanics?

The state SHALL NOT interfere in a woman's right to have an abortion. It shall simply note that the abortion occurred. And that the fetus was alive before being killed. And that it was a human fetus. The woman can go on about her merry way. But the state won't lie for her.

If it is the tone, then perhaps a better solution would be to quantify that humans are not necessarily the supreme race. A statement about racial/A.I. equality, however, might be better reserved for a different resolution.

Meh. Just change human and humanity to sentient life and suddenly you cover everyone.

I also do not feel educated enough to guess when artificial intelligence is developed enough to have rights equal to sentient species, considering that it generally does not attain that position through growth and time (of course, I could be mistaken).

True artificial intelligence arises from a learning and self-correcting computer program that eventually evolves to be aware and capable of adaptive thinking. It's actually not all that different from how humans go from being incoherent self-obsessed animals dependent on others for survival to becomming, in come cases, scientists who help advance the world.

I may be Christian, but I cannot justify the government imposing most of the moral tenets I hold over the general populace. Some beliefs, however, such as murder being frowned upon, are shared.

Agreed. There are certain actions that do not require religious belief to justify as wrong. While it does vary from group to group, there are still many basic beliefs humanity as a whole holds and many things most of humanity views as wrong. The rest are best dealt with on a societal level.

Well, the problem is this would deny humanity to jerks, which, though perhaps appealing, would be difficult to justify. Regardless, as you said, at birth we only have genetics.

And since this topic is dealing with birth, I cannot justify the inclusion of personality as a factor.

I would call it a "necessary evil for comfort and security". However, even if it is for freedom and civil rights, all this proposal would do is acknowledge that it IS, that it exists.

True.

OK, OK, obviously this debate on abortion rights isn't helping because the proposal doesn't even limit abortion rights. All it is doing is saying that all nations have to recognize any living thing with "unique human DNA" (whatever that is supposed to mean) as humans. Abortion rights, although related, is a seperate issue, and I apologize for getting sidetracked.

OK, here's my problem- first of all, if you're going to change it and add a part about humans not being superior to any other group, I don't see the point of the resolution at all.

Secondly, I'm not willing to state that as soon as the egg and the sperm hit each other there is a person. A person is much, much more than just strands of DNA. It's human, and its alive, and it has the potential to develop into a person, but its not a person. You can make a very excellent case for a late-term fetus as a human being, (I support mandating C-sections instead of abortions in the latest terms if it will not adversly impact the health and life of the mother) but the definition provided in the resolution makes a mockery of what it means to be a human being.

I find the tone and the venom embodied in the text of the proposal distasteful, but I feel that interesting points are being raised concerning definition.

Not all of us who are 'pro-choice' supported the Abortion Rights resolution, you know. The Anti-Capitalist Alliance - a region of predominantly pro-choice nations - is considering submitting a repeal, for example.

(OOC - the Supreme Court is fickle, its position depending on who controls it at the time. And the fact that privacy was the basis for the Roe vs. Wade decision does not strike against fetal humanity. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the Supreme Court also deemed slavery constitutional at some point.)


(OOC - I didn't say that it did. And I have little faith in the Supreme Court. I was just making the point that privacy concerns about this can't be ignored)


The proposal actually mentions nothing about lecturing or education courses, though perhaps it should. You are not arguing that it is NOT a fetal execution; you are arguing that mothers should not have to KNOW that it is a fetal execution. That stance is the reason I drafted this proposal.


I didn't argue that it wasn't a fetal execution because I don't believe that. And if you don't think that mothers have EVERY understanding of what they are doing when they do it, then I think you are proceeding from a false premise.


And, perhaps again misrepresenting you, I'll quote something you wrote on the Death Penalty issue:
(snipped)
The issue is not privacy. It is whether a child is living before its cord is cut.

I know what I wrote on the death penalty issue. And - on that topic - I have seen a fair number of people who are against abortion but for the death pentaly, but that is beside the point.

I am not a doctor (I am a magician and President) but I am willing to accept what my doctors tell me, and use their standard of around three months.

And this is where we disagree. I do not consider a fetus a living human being, with all the rights and privildeges that involves. I never have and I never will. And I consider this whole proposal as an emotive attempt to repeal resolution 61 without actually having the bother of repealing it. Which is the worst kind of law making.

So that's where I stand. And it is where I will continue to stand.

Right of Humanity Recognition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Passivocalia

Description: WHEREAS Ignorance is an embarrassment to any nation, and state-perpetuated ignorance is a slap in the face to any culture. Emotional appeal, and faith-based belief cannot erase facts but can only work from them or against them.

Ok.... I can see that.


WHEREAS one of the most vital of human rights is acknowledgment of humanity, and all civil rights can be easily taken from an individual once his/her humanity disappears. The UN has already taken measures against said ignorance in the areas of slavery, homosexuals, religion, children, the mentally-ill, the genetically engineered, and prostitutes.

Yes, horrible things can happen, which directly impact personal liberty and freedom.


WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be a living organism. He/she has a heartbeat, brainwaves, and, most tellingly, can be killed.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be human. He/she does not evolve from some lesser species in the womb but has human DNA from the moment of conception.

WHEREAS the unborn child has been proven to be unique from his/her parents. Unlike eggs or semen, which possess their creator’s DNA, the fetal child has DNA unique from both its mother and father, the same DNA he/she will have the rest of his/her life.

Which we cannot address in relation to NSUN Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights" with out first repealing.


WHEREAS dependence is not a determining factor for humanity, as is affirmed by Resolutions #25 (The Child Protection Act) and #44 (Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill). A newborn baby feeds from his/her mother’s breast without his/her humanity coming into question.

Agreed.


WHEREAS Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) is based solely on the mother’s choice and makes no statement concerning the humanity of the executed child.

Yes, it does... However it is a resolution, and can only be repealed, and not ammended.


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UN defines humanity, giving even oppressed peoples the paltry right of recognition.

ARTICLE I
Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).

So we are to remove the rights of machines; even if they are sentient, conscious and intelligent? Sorry, cannot agree with that.


ARTICLE II
Certificates of Birth and Death must be made available to all human citizens or humans born within a nation. In cases of fetal executions, the human’s Birth and Death dates will be set on the same day.

Ok, fair enough.


ARTICLE III
Any future repeal of resolutions protecting the rights homosexuals, potential slaves, women, children, the genetically engineered, etc. will not have any effect on the humanity of said individuals and groups. In such instances, this resolution will only form a bridge between the repeal and any infringements on human civil rights defined in other U.N. resolutions.

Ok, sounds realitic and ethical.


ARTICLE IV
This resolution does not counteract "Abortion Rights", which, despite its claim to “Significantly Increase Human Rights”, is a statement concerning moral values and personal belief, making it instead “Strongly Increase Moral Decency”. This resolution, contrastly, is a observance of scientific fact, allowing mothers to continue killing children but forcing governments to acknowledge the incident.

Ok, fair enough.


ARTICLE V
While no obligation can be created, it is heavily encouraged that this resolution be used as a stepping stone. If it fails to pass, one should draft a new resolution defining the limits and restrictions of humanity. Such a resolution should refute each above argument that affirms fetal humanity, and it should also present tenable arguments which discredit said humanity; a mother's choice should not be mentioned, as it has no effect on a child's humanity. If this resolution passes, it is highly recommended that the U.N. repeal Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights).

Eh, sketchy... I'd have to look at a rulling on this.

OK, here's my problem- first of all, if you're going to change it and add a part about humans not being superior to any other group, I don't see the point of the resolution at all.

It wouldn't be any other group; it would be any species/creature whose adult form is sentient. A sperm is not sentient, and it does not grow to sentiency; it is unlikely to have a resolution stating that human sperm and humans are equal. Artificial intelligence (OOC: apparently :D ) DOES attain sentiency through its own mechanations, or whatnot.

(OOC: If Koko the signing gorilla or any of her descendants attain sentiency, we can grant them rights equal to a human. We cannot, however, claim that a gorilla is a human. Besides, it would be a metaphorical slap in the face to gorilla pride! ;) )

Still, this would probably be better saved for a different resolution.

Secondly, I'm not willing to state that as soon as the egg and the sperm hit each other there is a person. A person is much, much more than just strands of DNA.

Saying that a person is much, much more than just strands of DNA, or genetic structure, or what have you gets dangerously close to a religious undertone, which is a thing I am trying to avoid because, frankly, the argument for fetal life does not NEED a religious undertone to maintain its potency.

It's human, and its alive, and it has the potential to develop into a person, but its not a person.

The newborn child is human, alive, and has the potential to develop into a person, but it is not a person. It is an aimless, defenseless, weak thing with fewer survival skills than an insect. It quite literally still feeds off the mother's body; it doesn't have to at this point in technology, true, but we'll eventually have the technology for a child to grow and develop outside of the womb as well.

You can make a very excellent case for a late-term fetus as a human being, (I support mandating C-sections instead of abortions in the latest terms if it will not adversly impact the health and life of the mother) but the definition provided in the resolution makes a mockery of what it means to be a human being.

What makes the late-term fetus more human? And at what point does "late-term" begin? The sperm and egg attach for 46 chromosomes; from there the child grows. He/she will continue growing for the duration of his/her life. Some points of his/her life (adolescence comes to mind) will have significantly more drastic leaps than other portions. You can't just SAY that the definition makes a mockery. Again, broken record, some might be mocked at the statement that a woman is as intelligent or as qualified for a job as a man.
---------------
I find the tone and the venom embodied in the text of the proposal distasteful, but I feel that interesting points are being raised concerning definition.

Not all of us who are 'pro-choice' supported the Abortion Rights resolution, you know. The Anti-Capitalist Alliance - a region of predominantly pro-choice nations - is considering submitting a repeal, for example.

Well, I am bitter. Look at the author of the Euthanasia Bill; he/she generally details a scenario and is aghast at how no one can be on his/her side. And it got passed because others were aghast. But you are not the first to mention this problem; I'll correct it in the future, thank you.

I personally do not feel a repeal can possibly pass at this point. If you have a better suggestion, or if you feel this proposal can be better written by your region, then by all means go ahead and get it done right. At this point I just want this atrocity to NOT BE MANDATORY, especially considering the fact that Passivocalia is a "Love-It-Or-Leave-It" issue state.
---------------
I didn't argue that it wasn't a fetal execution because I don't believe that. And if you don't think that mothers have EVERY understanding of what they are doing when they do it, then I think you are proceeding from a false premise.

Please, then, what are your problems with this proposal if you don't believe it isn't a fetal execution, and if you believe that mothers already have every understanding of it? It's not a lecture course or even more red tape for the mothers; it's a requirement that governments have that very same understanding.

I know what I wrote on the death penalty issue. And - on that topic - I have seen a fair number of people who are against abortion but for the death pentaly, but that is beside the point.

I think "fair number" is awfully generous of you. :(
In case you start to feel we lack common ground, perhaps you should know that I am also against the death penalty.

I am not a doctor (I am a magician and President) but I am willing to accept what my doctors tell me, and use their standard of around three months.

Does the standard have to deal with how safe the procedure is for the mother? Or how "human-looking" the child is? Because I know of doctors in some nations that will have no problem killing off a child even after it's newly born (OOC example: the Netherlands), which holds dangerous undertones that even humanity recognition would have no effect on the perceived social morality of abortion. "Newborn Euthanasia". :mad:

And this is where we disagree. I do not consider a fetus a living human being, with all the rights and privildeges that involves. I never have and I never will. And I consider this whole proposal as an emotive attempt to repeal resolution 61 without actually having the bother of repealing it. Which is the worst kind of law making.

So that's where I stand. And it is where I will continue to stand.

"Never have and never will" is a powerful statement. I'd expect to hear it more from fundamentalists opposing interracial marriage than in this context. "It's wrong because it just is". And, of course, one of the Articles specifically states that it does not repeal "Abortion Rights". The final article suggesting the repeal of "Abortion Rights" emphasises that the abortion resolution cannot be repealed without it actually being repealed. So please, not that claim.
---------------
Eh, sketchy... I'd have to look at a rulling on this.

Of course, therein lies the key. There will be no ruling, as there will not be sufficient approvals from delegates.

Is this all? A warning against dangerous interpretation concerning twins, which can be counteracted with existing UN resolutions, and a cry of concern over the rights of machines, which can be addressed in a future resolution? This, coupled with a slightly bitter undertone and a few further points that could have been made to prove fetal humanity? Oh, and a few grammatical errors, too. My nation particularly hates those. But STILL, is there nothing MORE?!

And so, it will just die into the night, like our final group of discriminated peoples. Ah well. Perhaps next time.

A rulling as to regards of advocating repeal by resolution, instead of the normal repeal process... I'd have to see a mod ruling; no bearing on NSUN floor vote.

Please, then, what are your problems with this proposal if you don't believe it isn't a fetal execution, and if you believe that mothers already have every understanding of it? It's not a lecture course or even more red tape for the mothers; it's a requirement that governments have that very same understanding.


Because, as I said, this appears to be a backdoor method of circumventing the "Abortion Rights" resolution. The text of the proposal says that once this is passed, abortion rights should be repealed. Leading to a ban in some nations, and if the sentiments you are expressing are any indication, a proposal to ban abortion throughout the UN.

That's my problem with the proposal :}


I think "fair number" is awfully generous of you. :(
In case you start to feel we lack common ground, perhaps you should know that I am also against the death penalty.


Fair enough.


Does the standard have to deal with how safe the procedure is for the mother? Or how "human-looking" the child is? Because I know of doctors in some nations that will have no problem killing off a child even after it's newly born (OOC example: the Netherlands), which holds dangerous undertones that even humanity recognition would have no effect on the perceived social morality of abortion. "Newborn Euthanasia". :mad:


(OOC - I am not a doctor, and quite honestly the definition should be down to them, not down to law makers. Because they can be unbiased and not cowed by the will of the public).

(In Character)
Like I said - the standard is set by the doctors in TilEnca, and at the moment the standard is mandated by "no right to interfere" in Resolution #61.


"Never have and never will" is a powerful statement. I'd expect to hear it more from fundamentalists opposing interracial marriage than in this context.


So it's something I feel strongly about. And comparing me to racists is not the way to convince me to change my mind :}

I didn't say that :}


And, of course, one of the Articles specifically states that it does not repeal "Abortion Rights". The final article suggesting the repeal of "Abortion Rights" emphasises that the abortion resolution cannot be repealed without it actually being repealed. So please, not that claim.


I realise it does say that. But the whole tone of the proposal indicates that abortion is a bad thing, and that you think it should be banned. And then goes on to suggest that Abortion Rights is repealed. How am I meant to interpret it as anything other than a prelude to getting Resolution #61 repealed, and then banning abortion throughout the UN?

Well, I am bitter. Look at the author of the Euthanasia Bill; he/she generally details a scenario and is aghast at how no one can be on his/her side. And it got passed because others were aghast. But you are not the first to mention this problem; I'll correct it in the future, thank you.
Well, the Euthanasia Bill was horrendous - delegates seemed to vote on the issue, rather than the resolution.

I personally do not feel a repeal can possibly pass at this point. If you have a better suggestion, or if you feel this proposal can be better written by your region, then by all means go ahead and get it done right. At this point I just want this atrocity to NOT BE MANDATORY, especially considering the fact that Passivocalia is a "Love-It-Or-Leave-It" issue state.
I agree, to a point. While I'm very determinedly against the death penalty and would like to see it completely disappear, my perspective on abortion is that it is not a morally clear-cut issue. So, in deference to the whacking great grey area at the heart of the problem, I'm content to leave national governments to make their own decisions.

That said, my nation would make no attempt to prevent an Ecopoeian-registered sea-based vessel with the appropriate facilities making its services available to those who are unable to obtain abortions in their own country.

One final point, I do not see the necessity for birth and death certificates. Agreeing that something is human is not equivalent to agreeing that it is born and has died.

Because, as I said, this appears to be a backdoor method of circumventing the "Abortion Rights" resolution. The text of the proposal says that once this is passed, abortion rights should be repealed. Leading to a ban in some nations, and if the sentiments you are expressing are any indication, a proposal to ban abortion throughout the UN.

It appears to circumvent nothing. Though I admit it was poor strategy on my part to include the last article--a mistake I will likely not be making anytime soon-- the article itself claims to have no power to repeal. There are ALREADY numerous resolutions that imply "Abortion Rights" should be repealed:

#6 (End Slavery) for the provision against “the selling or purchasing of people”, which implies a refutation of one human owning another as property.

#12 (Gay Rights) for the provision that nations “must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life”.

#25 (The Child Protection Act), which defines a minor as “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier”.

#26 (The Universal Bill of Rights) for the provisions that all “human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation” and a “human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative”.

#27 (Due Process) for the provision that no person “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

#43 (Legalise Euthanasia) for the provision that “in the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice”, as opposed to being made on the basis of other family members’ comfort or pleasure.

#53 (Universal Freedom of Choice) for the stipulation that “decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others”.

#76 (Good Samaritan Laws), which recalls its IRCO resolution to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”.

But there's still no danger of the odious resolution being repealed, so don't worry.

That's my problem with the proposal :}

You have just admitted that your problem with the proposal is NOT that it's WRONG; your problem is that it implies other things ARE wrong. Which, frankly, they are. You have it set in your mind, like so many others, that the "right of a mother to choose" to kill her child is one of those progressive liberal values. And, for the life of me, I just cannot see the logic, unless the children are second-class citizens. This proposal allows room for that.

(OOC - I am not a doctor, and quite honestly the definition should be down to them, not down to law makers. Because they can be unbiased and not cowed by the will of the public).

(In Character)
Like I said - the standard is set by the doctors in TilEnca, and at the moment the standard is mandated by "no right to interfere" in Resolution #61.

So, the standard set by your doctors is that set forward in UN Resolution #61? It is nice to know that they are unbiased and not cowed by the will of the public.

(OOC - Do you really believe that doctors are untouchable by profit, or that all doctors agree with abortion?)

So it's something I feel strongly about. And comparing me to racists is not the way to convince me to change my mind :}

I didn't say that :}

Ageism. It's arguably comparable with racism. Sure, it changes over time whereas race does not, but it doesn't change if you kill the subject in question.

I'm not sure what your "I didn't say that" refers to.

I realise it does say that. But the whole tone of the proposal indicates that abortion is a bad thing, and that you think it should be banned. And then goes on to suggest that Abortion Rights is repealed. How am I meant to interpret it as anything other than a prelude to getting Resolution #61 repealed, and then banning abortion throughout the UN?

You fear a slippery slope, of the metaphorical curtain being cast aside to reveal truth. If you think this is wrong, say it is and why. If you think it could lead to things your citizens will not like... well, that's not a very good reason to stop it.
---------------
I agree, to a point. While I'm very determinedly against the death penalty and would like to see it completely disappear, my perspective on abortion is that it is not a morally clear-cut issue. So, in deference to the whacking great grey area at the heart of the problem, I'm content to leave national governments to make their own decisions.

That said, my nation would make no attempt to prevent an Ecopoeian-registered sea-based vessel with the appropriate facilities making its services available to those who are unable to obtain abortions in their own country.

Honestly, my nation does not have the manpower to fight for human rights on a global scale. We do, however, want the ability to not kill our children whenever a citizen demands it, in the proper context.

As of now a small, private citizen-militia band funded by Passivocalia's Gambling Industry has blocked off the UN-required abortion clinics in our country. Our police have long ago been asked to stay away from said clinic--in order to not interfere with any mothers trying to terminate their children-- so they incidentally are not interfering with this group's right to take their own action. They'll get involved if the band takes any measures greater than a generic blockade (OOC-- That would explain where the significant increase in civil rights is applied in my nation)

Our government does not like ignoring the spirit of UN resolutions, but sometimes a stance must be taken.

One final point, I do not see the necessity for birth and death certificates. Agreeing that something is human is not equivalent to agreeing that it is born and has died.

Birth and death certificates are actually the ONLY THING this resolution does. Even those for abortion are not foolish enough to deny the fetus has died. If it comes out of the womb, and it is human, then it's been born; even Caesarian births get birth certificates (despite the loophole in Shakespeare's Macbeth), and it deserves acknowledgment like anyone else.

Well, what other concerns are there, before this proposal dies off today? Any vegetarians want bring up the right of a mother's choice?

It appears to circumvent nothing. Though I admit it was poor strategy on my part to include the last article--a mistake I will likely not be making anytime soon-- the article itself claims to have no power to repeal.


I accept that. I don't think I have ever denied. But you could easily pass a proposal to legalise marriage at any age, which is a backdoor method of circumventing the "outlaw pedophillia" resolution, because anyone who is married can be said to have consented to sex with their partner.

So you would have one resolution that would allow people to "repeal" the pedophillia resolution, without actually repealing it.

Which is what I think this is.


There are ALREADY numerous resolutions that imply "Abortion Rights" should be repealed:

#6 (End Slavery) for the provision against “the selling or purchasing of people”, which implies a refutation of one human owning another as property.

#12 (Gay Rights) for the provision that nations “must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life”.

#25 (The Child Protection Act), which defines a minor as “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier”.

#26 (The Universal Bill of Rights) for the provisions that all “human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation” and a “human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative”.

#27 (Due Process) for the provision that no person “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

#43 (Legalise Euthanasia) for the provision that “in the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice”, as opposed to being made on the basis of other family members’ comfort or pleasure.

#53 (Universal Freedom of Choice) for the stipulation that “decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others”.

#76 (Good Samaritan Laws), which recalls its IRCO resolution to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”.

But there's still no danger of the odious resolution being repealed, so don't worry.


They all apply to people. Which fetuses aren't.


You have just admitted that your problem with the proposal is NOT that it's WRONG; your problem is that it implies other things ARE wrong. Which, frankly, they are. You have it set in your mind, like so many others, that the "right of a mother to choose" to kill her child is one of those progressive liberal values. And, for the life of me, I just cannot see the logic, unless the children are second-class citizens. This proposal allows room for that.


Fetuses ARE NOT CHILDREN. Children are not to be treated as second class citizens, but fetuses ARE NOT CHILDREN.


So, the standard set by your doctors is that set forward in UN Resolution #61? It is nice to know that they are unbiased and not cowed by the will of the public.


We are duty bound to follow the UN resolutions. We can not oppose them because that is not permissible under the laws of the game. So how else are they supposed to set the standard?


(OOC - Do you really believe that doctors are untouchable by profit, or that all doctors agree with abortion?)


(OOC - Both valid points. But in comparrison to politicians, I would rather have experts making the choices than those who think they are experts. But this really is outside of the scope of the discussion, as I have no desire to get in to my real world beliefs about this).


Ageism. It's arguably comparable with racism. Sure, it changes over time whereas race does not, but it doesn't change if you kill the subject in question.


I refer you to my "fetuses are not children" comment from before :}


I'm not sure what your "I didn't say that" refers to.


Doesn't matter - I misunderstood what you were writing :}


You fear a slippery slope, of the metaphorical curtain being cast aside to reveal truth. If you think this is wrong, say it is and why. If you think it could lead to things your citizens will not like... well, that's not a very good reason to stop it.


Now you have lost me completely.

I am not really a big believer as abortion being used as contraception. It is not the right way to do something.
But if the contraception fails (which it can), or someone is raped, or the mother's life is in danger, or any other reason that can be viewed as "not using it as contraception" then I don't have an issue with it.
And if you are going to make them legal, you can't make it illegal for any other reason, because you will either end up with a lot of false rape allegations so women can get abortions, or you will end up with a lot of "back-ally surgery" which is far, far, far more dangerous than anything in the current resolution (#61).

And for those reasons I will be stand against any attempt to repeal Resolution #61, because once that is gone there is no way to be sure anything will replace it.

And finally - and I admit this is mostly hypothetical, but it could happen - if this proposal passes, and fetuses are given the rights of humanity, then that will affect any future resolution. So that if a proposal to ban the death penalty - to stop the execution of any human being - is passed, that would, in conjunction with this - effectively outlaw abortion.

So that's pretty much why I oppose this proposal.

Saying that a person is much, much more than just strands of DNA, or genetic structure, or what have you gets dangerously close to a religious undertone, which is a thing I am trying to avoid because, frankly, the argument for fetal life does not NEED a religious undertone to maintain its potency.

Hmmm. I'm not religious at all, I'm an atheist, but I still see a person as more than just strands of DNA. A tiny little cluster of genes and cells is not a person. It cannot think, emote, love, learn, anything. It's not even sentient. It has less rights than a chicken.


The newborn child is human, alive, and has the potential to develop into a person, but it is not a person. It is an aimless, defenseless, weak thing with fewer survival skills than an insect. It quite literally still feeds off the mother's body; it doesn't have to at this point in technology, true, but we'll eventually have the technology for a child to grow and develop outside of the womb as well.

Whether or not someone can survive or not doesn't make them human or not. A born baby is often socially dependent on the mother, but not always (I drank apple juice as an infant instead of breastmilk) and if you think about it, we're all socially dependent on either other people or other living creatures or we will die. The difference is that a baby is physically and physiologically and independent creature whereas a fetus is not.



What makes the late-term fetus more human? And at what point does "late-term" begin? The sperm and egg attach for 46 chromosomes; from there the child grows. He/she will continue growing for the duration of his/her life. Some points of his/her life (adolescence comes to mind) will have significantly more drastic leaps than other portions. You can't just SAY that the definition makes a mockery. Again, broken record, some might be mocked at the statement that a woman is as intelligent or as qualified for a job as a man.

Once again, chromosomes does not a person make. Making a cluster of non-sentient cells and DNA strands legally equivilent a child is ridiculous on face.

As the fetus develops, it becomes more and more like a human person. When it is near the time of birth, the fetus is usually developed so much that it is "viable" and physiologically independent. This means that is has the ability to live outside the womb. By this time it is sentient, concious, emotive, thoughtful, etc., all things we associate with being human.

There are ALREADY numerous resolutions that imply "Abortion Rights" should be repealed:

#6 (End Slavery) for the provision against “the selling or purchasing of people”, which implies a refutation of one human owning another as property.

#12 (Gay Rights) for the provision that nations “must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life”.

#25 (The Child Protection Act), which defines a minor as “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier”.

#26 (The Universal Bill of Rights) for the provisions that all “human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation” and a “human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative”.

#27 (Due Process) for the provision that no person “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

#43 (Legalise Euthanasia) for the provision that “in the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice”, as opposed to being made on the basis of other family members’ comfort or pleasure.

#53 (Universal Freedom of Choice) for the stipulation that “decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others”.

#76 (Good Samaritan Laws), which recalls its IRCO resolution to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”.

But there's still no danger of the odious resolution being repealed, so don't worry.

None of these deal with abortion at all. If someone or something is living in your home, you are allowed to kick them out. Abortion is the same principle. We can't give a fetus the right to enslave a woman just because it's not a person yet.

Hmmm. I'm not religious at all, I'm an atheist, but I still see a person as more than just strands of DNA. A tiny little cluster of genes and cells is not a person. It cannot think, emote, love, learn, anything. It's not even sentient. It has less rights than a chicken.


Because wouldn't the definition of "unique DNA" apply to dead people as well as living ones?

The Collapsia post is me. This is the nation I meant to post as.
Now, on to the post.

Because wouldn't the definition of "unique DNA" apply to dead people as well as living ones?

I agree. Dead people have unique DNA too. This proposal not only appears to attempt to limit the right to abortion (by giving fetuses recognition as citizens via birth and death certificates. Yes, it doesn't attack the right, or the resolution defending it, yet, but it prepares for one), but changes the definition of life.

In the Federation, a human life is defined simply: Something is a human life if it has a human brain that is capable of functioning. If it is not, then it is not a human life, either by not being human, not being alive, or being part of a larger human life (how fetuses are defined in the FMIV before brain functionality).

This resolution, demanding recognition as a human life for everything with human DNA, changes the definition of life, and of death. A dead person still has his/her DNA. If this resolution passes, all UN member nations will have to severely overhaul their murder laws, because death would only result from the scattering of the 46 chromosomes, or their breakdown (such as in fire), as a cadaver with intact cells and intact DNA is still alive.

Another important part of abortion rights, and one that has been brought up only once in this thread, is the control of one's property (if one is allowed to own any), or one's body. You have the right to kick anyone (well, not quite, police are a notable exception, as are people with contracts) off of your property, and, if need be, remove them by force, or have others do so. A fetus, even once it becomes a separate human life (separate brain), is still inside the woman, and making use of her womb and blood, feeding off her blood and using it as a dump for its wastes. If she does not own her internal organs, what does she own? Because the fetus is unable to leave when ordered to, it must be removed by force.

Yes, it is tragic when those evicted from another's property die due to it, whether evicted tenants or squatters, or aborted fetuses. However, it is the right of the property owner, be they a landlord or a pregnant woman, to evict people from their property. An analogy would be a landlord who has a tenant who would die in the cold of the streets in minutes if evicted, but poisons his landlord (fetuses do this with their waste), steals the landlord's food, and pays no rent. Surely this landlord should be allowed to evict his or her tenant? Why the change if the landlord is a woman, the tenant a fetus, and the place the womb, not a house or apartment?

Well, the proposal might have failed, but I'll keep arguing this so long as the thread stays open.

I accept that. I don't think I have ever denied. But you could easily pass a proposal to legalise marriage at any age, which is a backdoor method of circumventing the "outlaw pedophillia" resolution, because anyone who is married can be said to have consented to sex with their partner.

So you would have one resolution that would allow people to "repeal" the pedophillia resolution, without actually repealing it.

Which is what I think this is.

No. No, no, no, no, NO. Non sequitur. You said yourself, "I accept that. I don't think I have ever denied", but then you go on to reassert the claim that it circumvents the resolution, so I will explain it again.

An early-age marriage resolution would allow children to marry, circumventing "Outlaw Pedophilia", yes. A ban on late-term abortion would circumvent "Abortion Rights", yes. A requirement that mothers pass a competency exam to kill their children would circumvent "Abortion Rights", yes. A recognition that abortions kill people will NOT circumvent "Abortion Rights". We are arguing the same points over and over again; you make a baseless accusation, I refer you to the document for clarification, you say that you acknowledge that such an accusation cannot be made, but then you proceed to make the SAME ONE AGAIN. Can we stop this, or do I have to keep reminding you for eternities on end that this does not stop mothers from killing their children and it does not even HINDER them?

Fetuses ARE NOT CHILDREN. Children are not to be treated as second class citizens, but fetuses ARE NOT CHILDREN.

Fetuses ARE CHILDREN. There. How's that for an argument?

Living. Human. Distinct from the parent. Growing; nothing more other than life-giving nutrients, which we all rely on. Nothing is added that could make it any more a child than it already is. If you think that the fetal child suddenly becomes human in the womb, then you believe in spontaneous generation.

We are duty bound to follow the UN resolutions. We can not oppose them because that is not permissible under the laws of the game. So how else are they supposed to set the standard?

This was made to refute my statement that your doctors are cowed by public opinion. You COULD have asserted that your doctors' opinions, all of them, coincidentially coincide with the UN resolution. I would have doubted this.

But, instead, you reaffirm that your doctors' standards are set by international politicians. I do not doubt this at all.

I refer you to my "fetuses are not children" comment from before :}

This was in response to my calling you ageist. And it only supports my claim.

"Women aren't people, Lois, they're merely playthings God created for men's enjoyment." -Peter Griffin, Family Guy. You're going to need a little more explanation for such an outrageous claim, especially in light of all the evidence that they ARE people.

I am not really a big believer as abortion being used as contraception. It is not the right way to do something.

And why not?

But if the contraception fails (which it can), or someone is raped, or the mother's life is in danger, or any other reason that can be viewed as "not using it as contraception" then I don't have an issue with it.
And if you are going to make them legal, you can't make it illegal for any other reason, because you will either end up with a lot of false rape allegations so women can get abortions, or you will end up with a lot of "back-ally surgery" which is far, far, far more dangerous than anything in the current resolution (#61).

A mother's life in danger is a separate issue that would take into account a humanity recognition resolution; that would involve a life versus another life, which would be an ethical call.

And if you are going to argue that outlawing abortions will lead to illegal abortions... well, that argument simply will not do. Right now generic murder is illegal, so it also takes place in back allys, etc.

This rationale is the likes that tried to keep segregation in the schools here in the southern United States. Because, even if segregation is lifted, whites and blacks will NOT live and work together. In fact, this segregation PROTECTS the blacks from the crimes whites will commit, that we cannot stop. See, doesn't that make sense?

(OOC: When I outlawed abortion on my nationstate, the profile description said my country was filled with back-ally abortions. Later down, it said that crime was completely unknown due to my police force and progressive social policies. Contradiction? Even game mechanics has bought into the lie.)

And finally - and I admit this is mostly hypothetical, but it could happen - if this proposal passes, and fetuses are given the rights of humanity, then that will affect any future resolution. So that if a proposal to ban the death penalty - to stop the execution of any human being - is passed, that would, in conjunction with this - effectively outlaw abortion.

So that's pretty much why I oppose this proposal.

What do you know. This proposal WOULD affect future resolutions. MOST OF THEM DO, including the Abortion one. If a proposal pops up to stop the execution of any human being, it will be in conflict with "Abortion Rights", yes. I've noticed some people here acknowledge that a fetal child is human, but not a person (whatever that means), so that would effect abortion regardless.

I could circumvent a death penalty ban with the statement that anyone I execute in my state are enemies of the Passive Voice, and thus not human and non-applicable to said resolution. This is hypothetical, though; we don't have the death penalty for criminals in Passivocalia--the UN has not made us enact it.
---------------
Hmmm. I'm not religious at all, I'm an atheist, but I still see a person as more than just strands of DNA. A tiny little cluster of genes and cells is not a person. It cannot think, emote, love, learn, anything. It's not even sentient. It has less rights than a chicken.

If you have a belief, then you are just as "religious" as anyone. And this looks a whole lot like part of your moral values you are trying to impose on me. Purist evolutionists will argue that the only thing distinguishing humans from any other creature is their brain--intelligence is the effect of that brain. Our brains don't stop developing before we leave the womb, you know. An ignorant, bitter man living in his basement cannot think, emote, love, learn, anything. These are hardly qualifications.

The difference is that a baby is physically and physiologically and independent creature whereas a fetus is not.

The comatose on life support--even those capable of recovery--are not humans, as per your definition.

As the fetus develops, it becomes more and more like a human person. When it is near the time of birth, the fetus is usually developed so much that it is "viable" and physiologically independent. This means that is has the ability to live outside the womb. By this time it is sentient, concious, emotive, thoughtful, etc., all things we associate with being human.

"Viable". So, a fetus is not a living human right now. When we develop the technology to keep a fetus alive outside of the womb, then it suddenly will be a living human. Is that what you're getting at? Because it seems to fit all of your requirements.
---------------
None of these deal with abortion at all. If someone or something is living in your home, you are allowed to kick them out. Abortion is the same principle. We can't give a fetus the right to enslave a woman just because it's not a person yet.

No, NOT because it's not a person yet, but because he/she is.
And, the beginning of your statement is conceded. You do still acknowledge that you "kicked them out" of your home; you don't pretend they weren't people in the first place.

And, besides, I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to leave a baby on a hillside to die anymore.
---------------
Because wouldn't the definition of "unique DNA" apply to dead people as well as living ones?
---------------
I agree. Dead people have unique DNA too. This proposal not only appears to attempt to limit the right to abortion (by giving fetuses recognition as citizens via birth and death certificates. Yes, it doesn't attack the right, or the resolution defending it, yet, but it prepares for one), but changes the definition of life.

Oh. Wow. Looks like you guys got me. Because, as it clearly stated in the proposal, anyone with DNA would have been given human status, which qualifies the dead. See?

ARTICLE I
Any living creature possessing unique human DNA, natural or genetically engineered, shall be recognised by every U.N. Nation as a human, with exception to those possessing non-biological brains (i.e. machines).

No. No, wait. Does it say "living" at the beginning of that? SHEESH, peoples!!!! :D

In the Federation, a human life is defined simply: Something is a human life if it has a human brain that is capable of functioning. If it is not, then it is not a human life, either by not being human, not being alive, or being part of a larger human life (how fetuses are defined in the FMIV before brain functionality).

Define "functioning", because you've limited those on life support, the mentally retarded, and the downright unintelligent otherwise. The brain is growing as part of the child from the beginning, as with any other part of it. Denying it humanity before that single part "fully develops" is highly, highly arbitrary.

Another important part of abortion rights, and one that has been brought up only once in this thread, is the control of one's property (if one is allowed to own any), or one's body. You have the right to kick anyone (well, not quite, police are a notable exception, as are people with contracts) off of your property, and, if need be, remove them by force, or have others do so. A fetus, even once it becomes a separate human life (separate brain), is still inside the woman, and making use of her womb and blood, feeding off her blood and using it as a dump for its wastes. If she does not own her internal organs, what does she own? Because the fetus is unable to leave when ordered to, it must be removed by force.

Yes, it is tragic when those evicted from another's property die due to it, whether evicted tenants or squatters, or aborted fetuses. However, it is the right of the property owner, be they a landlord or a pregnant woman, to evict people from their property. An analogy would be a landlord who has a tenant who would die in the cold of the streets in minutes if evicted, but poisons his landlord (fetuses do this with their waste), steals the landlord's food, and pays no rent. Surely this landlord should be allowed to evict his or her tenant? Why the change if the landlord is a woman, the tenant a fetus, and the place the womb, not a house or apartment?

I have no problem with any of this. Conceded. Someone CAN die when you evict him/her, even if they deserved it.

Effect on the recognition proposal: none.
---------------

I notice there's a new thread concerning the repeal of "Abortion Rights". Should we move there, considering there is no longer a "Right of Humanity Recognition" proposal?

Well, the proposal might have failed, but I'll keep arguing this so long as the thread stays open.
Since threads don't get closed here, that's a rather broad statement. I'd suggest you take this argument to one of the many open topics in General, or try to persuade people in topics that are actually current UN proposals.

I'd also like to point out to ALL respondents that it is highly unlikely that ANYONE will cross over to the other side based on the agruments I've read here. Stating, "A fetus IS a human being" or "A fetus ISN'T a human being" is opinion, never fact. I don't care how many sources you quote, an equal number can be found for the other side. If you continue to restate your opinion over and over, getting more strident and pissy with each passing point, all you're doing is wasting bandwidth. Do it if you want to, but don't clog up the UN Forums with it.