NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a proposal to eliminate Regulation #61 on the grounds that it is a decission which falls into a moral catagory that should not be regulated by a body such as the UN. The decission should be placed in the hands of each individual government.

Please show your support for the proposal. It's a matter of national rights and any nation should appriciate the added power it gives to the government and citizens of your respective nations.

If such a proposal cannot be passed, then I will resign from the United Nations, as I will not support a body that would effect the wellfare of nations this way.

I have submitted a proposal to eliminate Regulation #61 on the grounds that it is a decission which falls into a moral catagory that should not be regulated by a body such as the UN. The decission should be placed in the hands of each individual government.

Please show your support for the proposal. It's a matter of national rights and any nation should appriciate the added power it gives to the government and citizens of your respective nations.

If such a proposal cannot be passed, then I will resign from the United Nations, as I will not support a body that would effect the wellfare of nations this way.

Nobody cares what the number of the resolution is, and we should have to hunt it down ourselves. Link to it and name it, please, and explain why you are against it in better detail. A bulk of what the NSUN does is a matter of "national rights" so that's not good enough.

This gets old after the 42,539th time.

You didn't post your proposed repeal, you didn't post the resolution you wanted to repeal, and you pretty much assumed that we all knew what you were talking about without actually telling us what you were talking about.

So, g'head, resign already. We don't really need yet another incoherent voice at the podium.

Man, if everyone on the boards is like that, I'm not sure I want to be here.

Man, if everyone on the boards is like that, I'm not sure I want to be here.

While I can't speak for anyone else, I would be happy to read your proposal. Only it helps to post the proposal here, because I have a REALLY slow connection, and trawling through 19 pages of proposals to find it is - frankly - not something I have time to spend on.

So if you could post a copy here, along with the original resolution you are trying to repeal, I am sure most people here would be happy to look at it.

(And just to illustrate a point, can you tell me what Resolutions #5, #21, #5, #67 and #31 cover without looking them up? If you can - good for you. If not then hopefully you might understand why it is generally preferred that someone post their proposal here, and refer to it by name, rather than number :})

and trawling through 19 pages of proposals
Wishful thinking.
There are currently 33 pages and I can't find the one they are talking about.

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

Ok, then. The 61st regulation is the Abortion law. I'm not saying we should make it illegal, I'm saying we should allow the individual governments to decide for themselves.

Ok, then. The 61st regulation is the Abortion law. I'm not saying we should make it illegal, I'm saying we should allow the individual governments to decide for themselves.
But what is the exact text of your proposal, or haven't you submitted it yet?

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

I have submitted a proposal to eliminate Regulation #61 on the grounds that it is a decission which falls into a moral catagory that should not be regulated by a body such as the UN. The decission should be placed in the hands of each individual government.

The primary job the NSUN is to override the wills of the individual countries for the betterment of all members. It was that way with my previous nation and that hasn't changed.

Please show your support for the proposal. It's a matter of national rights and any nation should appriciate the added power it gives to the government and citizens of your respective nations.

Considering the fact the majority approved it, the majority disagree. Also, if you want national rights, don't join the UN.

If such a proposal cannot be passed, then I will resign from the United Nations, as I will not support a body that would effect the wellfare of nations this way.

Bye. Feel free to slam the door on your way out. It'll help shake the dust off the old resolutions no one bothers to read.

Man, if everyone on the boards is like that, I'm not sure I want to be here.

I work in marketting. I deal with over 100 bad proposals a day. You are also far from the first people to not understand the purpose of the UN, not bother to post a copy of what you are proposing, and refer to a resolution by number when that doesn't actually tell us anything. One gets hostile after awhile because one has to put up with it too much.

Ok, then. The 61st regulation is the Abortion law. I'm not saying we should make it illegal, I'm saying we should allow the individual governments to decide for themselves.

I want the wording of the proposal. Otherwise, I can't know what you are wanting me to bug my very-busy delegate to support.

On page 32 today (Tuesday), here. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/34830/page=UN_proposal/start=155)


Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: The Lagonia States

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This sort of regulation should really be in the hands of each individual country. It effects the morals, economy and population growth of a nation and should not be a uniform principle.
I could make my argument against abortion, but this really isn't the time or the place for that. My argument today is simply to place the decssion in the hands of each country. You may continue to have abortions in your country, this repeal will not effect that in any way, but it will not force a nation to comply with the morals of another country.
As of the vote, 6,549 nation were against this proposal. Whether or not they were against abortion as a whole is not nessissarily shown in the statistics, but it is clear that many decided that this decission should not be placed in the hands of an august body. It should be placed in the hands of the individual governments.
Once again, repealing this ammendment will NOT MAKE ABORTIONS ILLEGAL, it will simply leave the dicission to soverign governments.

Approvals: 3 (WZ Forums, East Hackney, Nationalist Britian)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Nov 26 2004


~PC

Originally Posted by Lagonia States
Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: The Lagonia States

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This sort of regulation should really be in the hands of each individual country. It effects the morals, economy and population growth of a nation and should not be a uniform principle.
I could make my argument against abortion, but this really isn't the time or the place for that. My argument today is simply to place the decssion in the hands of each country. You may continue to have abortions in your country, this repeal will not effect that in any way, but it will not force a nation to comply with the morals of another country.
As of the vote, 6,549 nation were against this proposal. Whether or not they were against abortion as a whole is not nessissarily shown in the statistics, but it is clear that many decided that this decission should not be placed in the hands of an august body. It should be placed in the hands of the individual governments.
Once again, repealing this ammendment will NOT MAKE ABORTIONS ILLEGAL, it will simply leave the dicission to soverign governments.

Approvals: 3 (WZ Forums, East Hackney, Nationalist Britian)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Nov 26 2004


Well - I will start by saying it is a pretty well worded repeal. Except for some of the spelling, but (to me at least) that is neither here nor there.

The arguement that 6,549 nations were against the resolution is kind of pointless, because it can easily be countered with the fact that 9,368 nations were for it. And the rest of the nations did not care either way to vote for or against it. So the fact that six and a half thousand nations voted against it is not a good enough to repeal it (in my view at least).

The right for women to make up their own minds about their destiny is not something that should be specific to a single nation. But that is neither here nor there, because as you said this is not an arguement against abortion, but against the resolution.

Repealing the resolution isn't going to make them stop, not in my nation or in yours. Those who want them will still want them, and so if they are illegal in one nation, they will simply find another nation where they are not. It will not stop the acts, nor the process of abortion. It will just make it harder, and will - ultimately (or possibly very quickly) lead to illegal abortions being performed with no real concern for the "nicities" of the procedure. Women could end up being butured, maimed or killed because they can not afford to travel, and the guy next door said he would perform the procedure for five gold pieces.

Repealing this resolution will not make a country more moral - I believe it will lead to more crimes. It will not stop abortions, it will just take them out of the public eye, allowing the more "moral" members of society to pretend what is happening isn't happening, and to look down on those who continue to do it. It will lead to more people going abroad to have the operation, which is (from what I can gather) not good for the ecconomics of the nation that banned it. And it will not alter the population all that much - those who don't want children can still have an abortion, and it's quite possible they will die during the process, or be unable to have any future children, if it is not done right.

So although you have given a good and reasoned arguement, I can't agree with any of it, and so have to not support your attempt at the repeal.

(But I am not a delegate, I am just your average diplomat. So this might not be as serious a blow as it sounds!)

Some general spelling errors... "dcssision"

How-ever the spelling is inline...

For refference, within grammatical rules of English, you can adopt either UK Standard, or American Standard, as long as you maintain the standard throughout the text [though it is best to know the differentiation of standards for the purpose of edit].. (sic, do not say flavour.... and then later say color or argument........ it should be consistent "flavour", "colour", "arguement" or "flavor", "color", "argument")

Note: I've actually seen debates where "arguement" is flagged as a spelling error; and others where "argument" is.... both are valid spellings under two authorotative English standards...

Some general spelling errors... "dcssision"

How-ever the spelling is inline...

For refference, within grammatical rules of English, you can adopt either UK Standard, or American Standard, as long as you maintain the standard throughout the text [though it is best to know the differentiation of standards for the purpose of edit].. (sic, do not say flavour.... and then later say color or argument........ it should be consistent "flavour", "colour", "arguement" or "flavor", "color", "argument")

Note: I've actually seen debates where "arguement" is flagged as a spelling error; and others where "argument" is.... both are valid spellings under two authorotative English standards...

See to me argument just seems wrong, because if you shorten it to the verb you get "argu" which just looks odd :}

Some general spelling errors... "dcssision"

How-ever the spelling is inline...

For refference, within grammatical rules of English, you can adopt either UK Standard, or American Standard, as long as you maintain the standard throughout the text [though it is best to know the differentiation of standards for the purpose of edit].. (sic, do not say flavour.... and then later say color or argument........ it should be consistent "flavour", "colour", "arguement" or "flavor", "color", "argument")

Note: I've actually seen debates where "arguement" is flagged as a spelling error; and others where "argument" is.... both are valid spellings under two authorotative English standards...

Actually, there is a third standard being taught in the US, where I am from. I was taught, while growing up, the proper spellings are grey, color, flavor, and arguement. The American standard itself is not being taught as a coherent whole everywhere.

See to me argument just seems wrong, because if you shorten it to the verb you get "argu" which just looks odd :}

American standard... merely removed redundant traits from the original etymological descent of the words

colour
flavour
arguement
programme
catalogue

In some cases alterations of suffix
connexion/connection
analyse/analyze

Some redundancies are kept (knight/knife)... even though etymological evolution of English has rendered them null (in Middle English KNIGHT would actually have the "K" verbally pronounced).

And of course, in many cases, some formerly silent content is reverbalized (within American Horse, Henry, House, the "H" is actually forced, rather than eluded)

It's something you get used to...

It's generally the best practice to write towards the audience; so you should follow the UK standard when addressing UK peoples, and American Standard to the US peoples... Canada operates more on the internation grammatical rules setup (aforementioned), so it can be either/or (as long as it is consistent standard).

When writting to an international group of English speakers, you merely need to maintain the same uniform standard.

See to me argument just seems wrong, because if you shorten it to the verb you get "argu" which just looks odd :}

Well, if it were more consistent, we would shorten it to argue... But then we would all sound like pirates! ARG!!! :D

Actually, there is a third standard being taught in the US, where I am from. I was taught, while growing up, the proper spellings are grey, color, flavor, and arguement. The American standard itself is not being taught as a coherent whole everywhere.

Well, it's not so much that, as standard intermixing; It has become more common in the UK for -ize (American) to surplant -ise (UK), though caligraphers still stick to the -ise. (The more recent Oxford Dictionaries have replaced -ise with -ize). Officially there are still two standards, but with the level of international cooperation (and likely because of intermixing due to the web shrinking cultural borders) UK and American will combine into a universal English standard.

American standard... merely removed redundant traits from the original etymological descent of the words

colour
flavour
arguement
programme
catalogue

In some cases alterations of suffix
connexion/connection
analyse/analyze

Actually, "catalogue" is still used with frequency in the US and shows signs of forcing "catalog" out of usage.

Some redundancies are kept (knight/knife)... even though etymological evolution of English has rendered them null (in Middle English KNIGHT would actually have the "K" verbally pronounced).

And of course, in many cases, some formerly silent content is reverbalized (within American Horse, Henry, House, the "H" is actually forced, rather than eluded)

It's something you get used to...

That depends on the dialect. Some dialects of American have the "H" as silent, while others have it or even overemphasize it.

Well, it's not so much that, as standard intermixing; It has become more common in the UK for -ize (American) to surplant -ise (UK), though caligraphers still stick to the -ise. (The more recent Oxford Dictionaries have replaced -ise with -ize). Officially there are still two standards, but with the level of international cooperation (and likely because of intermixing due to the web shrinking cultural borders) UK and American will combine into a universal English standard.

I was actually taught those spellings before the intermixing the Internet forced. I'm already out of college.

I was actually taught those spellings before the intermixing the Internet forced. I'm already out of college.

Well, there has been some intermixing going on over the last 70 years or so... Oxford's adaptation of the american -ize has occured alone since the internet boom. It's likely within another 60 years (or less), UK/US/CA/AU/NZ/etc. will be using the same rules as a standard. (It's quite common in Tidewater to see arguement and neighbour for instance, which I do alot, in regards to being from that region)

My arguement still stands, as argument and arguement being both valid spellings of the same word.

Ok, back on topic.

This proposal should be enacted. Even if it is not passed, it will bring the matter up for debate once more. I do not believe the UN should be a pro-abortion or a pro-life body. This is a right of a soverign nation to use its own set of morals.

One of the strongest pro-abortion arguements is that a country has no right enforce your morals on someone else. Should the UN then become a symbol of hypocracy by enforcing it's own morals on it's members?

Ah, yes, but then should human rights be enforced then? Should the UN be trampling over sovereign nations to enforce the resolution against slavery? Should the UN be trampling over national sovereignity to enforce habeas corpus (the right not to be detained without being charged of a crime)? I think it should.

Many pro-choicers, myself included, see this as a matter of human rights, which has nothing to do with morality. I say this a lot - if you have a moral objection to abortion, then don't get one. If you have a moral objection to homosexuality, don't have buttsex. If you have a moral objection to eating meat, don't eat it. Make it legal; let the individual have the right to decide for themselves.

It's a matter of children dying, and I take offense to that.

But that is niether here, nor there. Abortion is not on trial here. Though at some point I'd like to see a partial-birth abortion bill of some sort, I don't believe that there should be a bill in the UN that outlaws abortions either. Each country has a different set of morals, and to enforce something like this is to force your morals on others.

Therefor, the debate is not pro-life vs. Pro-abortion, it's whether or not the UN should decide one way or the other. I could give you a litany of reasons why abortion is wrong, I won't, but I will tell you why the UN should not decide for me.

I believe I approved that, and I'd ask you to support my initiative, "UN Encroachment". We really have to stop all these idiotic resolutions from passing.

This was my original arguement that got swamped by other discussions.


The arguement that 6,549 nations were against the resolution is kind of pointless, because it can easily be countered with the fact that 9,368 nations were for it. And the rest of the nations did not care either way to vote for or against it. So the fact that six and a half thousand nations voted against it is not a good enough to repeal it (in my view at least).

The right for women to make up their own minds about their destiny is not something that should be specific to a single nation. But that is neither here nor there, because as you said this is not an arguement against abortion, but against the resolution.

Repealing the resolution isn't going to make them stop, not in my nation or in yours. Those who want them will still want them, and so if they are illegal in one nation, they will simply find another nation where they are not. It will not stop the acts, nor the process of abortion. It will just make it harder, and will - ultimately (or possibly very quickly) lead to illegal abortions being performed with no real concern for the "nicities" of the procedure. Women could end up being butured, maimed or killed because they can not afford to travel, and the guy next door said he would perform the procedure for five gold pieces.

Repealing this resolution will not make a country more moral - I believe it will lead to more crimes. It will not stop abortions, it will just take them out of the public eye, allowing the more "moral" members of society to pretend what is happening isn't happening, and to look down on those who continue to do it. It will lead to more people going abroad to have the operation, which is (from what I can gather) not good for the ecconomics of the nation that banned it. And it will not alter the population all that much - those who don't want children can still have an abortion, and it's quite possible they will die during the process, or be unable to have any future children, if it is not done right.

So although you have given a good and reasoned arguement, I can't agree with any of it, and so have to not support your attempt at the repeal.

(But I am not a delegate, I am just your average diplomat. So this might not be as serious a blow as it sounds!)

It's a matter of children dying, and I take offense to that.

But that is niether here, nor there. Abortion is not on trial here. Though at some point I'd like to see a partial-birth abortion bill of some sort, I don't believe that there should be a bill in the UN that outlaws abortions either. Each country has a different set of morals, and to enforce something like this is to force your morals on others.

Therefor, the debate is not pro-life vs. Pro-abortion, it's whether or not the UN should decide one way or the other. I could give you a litany of reasons why abortion is wrong, I won't, but I will tell you why the UN should not decide for me.

As I have said in a number of other threads, fetuses are not children.

And the UN is not a anti-choice or pro-choice body by default - it is what it's members make it.

What I personally object to is the translating of Harry Potter from English into "American". If we can read Shakespeare in it's original, I think we can handle modern British.

Hello!

As I have said in a number of other threads, fetuses are not children.

Yeah, you've said that. Until you provide some rationale for that belief, however, it cannot be taken seriously.

And the UN is not a anti-choice or pro-choice body by default - it is what it's members make it.

Agreed. Its members have made it pro-mother's-choice. The repeal is trying to make it pro-nation's-choice.

Repealing the resolution isn't going to make them stop, not in my nation or in yours. Those who want them will still want them, and so if they are illegal in one nation, they will simply find another nation where they are not. It will not stop the acts, nor the process of abortion. It will just make it harder, and will - ultimately (or possibly very quickly) lead to illegal abortions being performed with no real concern for the "nicities" of the procedure. Women could end up being butured, maimed or killed because they can not afford to travel, and the guy next door said he would perform the procedure for five gold pieces.

And only hiring out government-funded contract killers will greatly decrease accidents in that realm and keep it out of the back allys. This is not part of the issue.

Repealing this resolution will not make a country more moral - I believe it will lead to more crimes. It will not stop abortions, it will just take them out of the public eye, allowing the more "moral" members of society to pretend what is happening isn't happening, and to look down on those who continue to do it. It will lead to more people going abroad to have the operation, which is (from what I can gather) not good for the ecconomics of the nation that banned it. And it will not alter the population all that much - those who don't want children can still have an abortion, and it's quite possible they will die during the process, or be unable to have any future children, if it is not done right.

Many nation states I see HAVE been able to stamp out ALL crime in their countries. It can be enforced (OOC- even MORE SO with game mechanics than in the real world). BESIDES.... I believe this resolution is only about not making abortion mandatory for nations; am I correct? Considering the (apparent) gray area of the issue, is probably for the best.

Personally I am against abortion on the whole but I believe that there are certain situations where it should be allowed. For instance if the pregnancy is the result of a rape or having the child threatens the life of the mother as with such cases where the baby develops back in the tube.

This is not a debate about abortion. I believe it to be murder, but that's not at stake with this bill. It's simply saying that counrties should decide this. It's a matter of moral value

This is not a debate about abortion. I believe it to be murder, but that's not at stake with this bill. It's simply saying that counrties should decide this. It's a matter of moral value

Actually you were the person who said "It's a matter of children dying, and I take offense to that", which started the part about it being a debate on abortion.

I realise that repealing the resolution will not force me to ban abortion in my country, but it will let others do it - most notably you. Because if you didn't want to ban abortions you would not be trying to repeal the resolution.

And I honestly think that by repealing this, the world will become a less good place. Not just in my nation - I am not going to ban abortions even if someone puts a sword to my throat - but in all nations. So I am going to fight for it to be kept, and for the world to stay as safe as it is.

Because if you didn't want to ban abortions you would not be trying to repeal the resolution.

Ahem. Some people actually agree with legalising abortions, but do not agree that the U.N. should be dictating that policy to all member nations.

It's simply saying that counrties should decide this. It's a matter of moral value
Exactly how is national sovereignty a moral value? Or is it that the UN isn't moral, but nations are? Or is it that only national governments have the right to tell their citizens how they must live? Explain this to me without using null statements like "It's a matter of moral value", please.

Ahem. Some people actually agree with legalising abortions, but do not agree that the U.N. should be dictating that policy to all member nations.

I accept that, but I am just playing the odds that the author is going to ban them if the resolution is repealed. And also the author used the phrase "It's about children dying and I don't like that" (paraphrasing).

I accept that, but I am just playing the odds that the author is going to ban them if the resolution is repealed. And also the author used the phrase "It's about children dying and I don't like that" (paraphrasing).

Understood. Carry on. Hup, hup!

Actually, in lieu of the encoded sovereignty, National Sovereignty takes precedence over UN power (in lieu of the ability of nations to leave the UN).

BUT: National Sovereignty is a non-issue in relation to UN Membership; Membership in this body, means you have temporaly suspended a large chunk of your sovereignty to the legislative body of these United Nations.

But to resign from the UN is to lose a forum for world debate and lose all ability to defend against militeristic nations. This is a no-win situation. All I can do is refuse to enforce your regulations, and wait for someone to complain.

I have a very religious nation, and we are not about to let someone else tell us what to do with moral issues. I'll let things like gay marrage go, since they're really not effecting the majority of the population, but things like this I simply won't stand for.

But to resign from the UN is to lose a forum for world debate and lose all ability to defend against militeristic nations. This is a no-win situation. All I can do is refuse to enforce your regulations, and wait for someone to complain.

You can't even do that. For one, the UN overrides your legal system and forces you to enforce it whether or not you like it. For two, the UN is pretty much not a cohesive alliance. UN members war with each other all the time, so if you want a military advantage you need to make your own alliances, as the UN actually provides none. And, as I have demonstrated, you do not need to be a UN member to debate here.

I have a very religious nation, and we are not about to let someone else tell us what to do with moral issues. I'll let things like gay marrage go, since they're really not effecting the majority of the population, but things like this I simply won't stand for.

If you're not going to let people tell you what to do, you're in the wrong group.

But to resign from the UN is to lose a forum for world debate and lose all ability to defend against militeristic nations. This is a no-win situation. All I can do is refuse to enforce your regulations, and wait for someone to complain.

I have a very religious nation, and we are not about to let someone else tell us what to do with moral issues. I'll let things like gay marrage go, since they're really not effecting the majority of the population, but things like this I simply won't stand for.

Ah, but that is the thing, this operates as a Confederation; They are not regulations; they are laws, and they are enforced.

My nation does not rely on the NSUN for defense; We do not need to... We have our own alliances for defense (And there are plenty of them out there).
Much like any other Confederation, Confederate Defense is voluntarily contributable.

If you leave, yes, you lose say all say and positives of this large governmental body.... The price you pay, is a loss of most of your sovereignty... So if your "soveriegnty" is so important, you would leave, it obviously isn't since you are still here.... Unlike the UN "aliance" of the real world; this one is a Confederation; you cannot pick and choose through resolutions; all of them are enforced as long as you are a member.

But to resign from the UN is to lose a forum for world debate and lose all ability to defend against militeristic nations. This is a no-win situation. All I can do is refuse to enforce your regulations, and wait for someone to complain.

I have a very religious nation, and we are not about to let someone else tell us what to do with moral issues. I'll let things like gay marrage go, since they're really not effecting the majority of the population, but things like this I simply won't stand for.

This is one forum out of four. That's only a quarter of the forum (I am one for repeating myself sometimes!). If you leave the UN, you can still come and roll play, and you can still come to this forum and debate. So you can support any future repeals, even if you are not in the UN.

And the only instance I know of someone refusing to enforce the rules ended with The Dodgeball War - but there are others who can explain that better than I can :} And even then the game didn't take any notice of the fact they were not enforcing the rules - it was more of an RP thing than a game thing.

But to resign from the UN is to lose a forum for world debate and lose all ability to defend against militeristic nations. This is a no-win situation. All I can do is refuse to enforce your regulations, and wait for someone to complain.

You do know the UN doesn’t give you any military advantage . It's not like we will all jump up and save you without question or that you can say I'm in the UN and not be attacked.

It's either complete control or UN membership. They aren’t exactly compatible. You have to decide which one is more important.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

He means
UN Resolution #62: 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.

Votes For: 9,368
Votes Against: 6,549

Implemented: Sat Jun 5 2004

No, it's quite definatly #61.

Anyway, a country outside of the UN holds very little sway, so if you want to get serious about this game, you have to be in the UN.

Also, so long as this bill is pending, and hasn't been struck down, I can enforce my laws either way.

Lagonia is correct. The Abortion Resolution was #61.

No, it's quite definatly #61.

Anyway, a country outside of the UN holds very little sway, so if you want to get serious about this game, you have to be in the UN.

Also, so long as this bill is pending, and hasn't been struck down, I can enforce my laws either way.

Erm - that's not entirely how it works.

Resolution #61 - Abortion Rights - was passed and implemented in to law a long way back. So you have to enforce it in your nation.

If someone (such as yourself) submits a repeal, then the resolution is STILL implemented in your nation and has to be enforced.

Even if the repeal is approved, and makes it to the floor, then the resolution is still active and has to be enforced in your nation.

The only time you get to chose whether abortions are legal or not is AFTER (and only after) Resolution #61 (Abortion Rights) is repealed.

Until then you can't enforce your laws either way :}

No, actually. Leagally so long as a bill is pending and not decided on one way or the other, I can rule on it myself. If the deadline passes without the rule going to the floor, then I must enforce the resolution. If it is turned down by a vote, I must enforce it. Until it is decided, my pre-UN laws are still on the books.

Basicly, if this doesn't pass, I'm leaving the UN and I'm going to form an international body free of such restrictions. So either way, I'm fine.

No, actually. Leagally so long as a bill is pending and not decided on one way or the other, I can rule on it myself. If the deadline passes without the rule going to the floor, then I must enforce the resolution. If it is turned down by a vote, I must enforce it. Until it is decided, my pre-UN laws are still on the books.

Basicly, if this doesn't pass, I'm leaving the UN and I'm going to form an international body free of such restrictions. So either way, I'm fine.

Actually, TilEnca is correct.

No, actually. Leagally so long as a bill is pending and not decided on one way or the other, I can rule on it myself.
You must be talking about something other than Resolution 61 then. There is nothing pending about it. It's the law for all UN members.

The Repeal is not law. It's just in proposal stages and hasn't even made it to the floor. Until it's voted in, it holds no force on anyone.

If you're talking about the current resolution under the vote, then you should specify that. That is the only pending legislation in the UN.

Here's the deal...

I have a law on my books. I join the UN, which has a law that overrules mine, and immediatly take action to overturn that rule. Any motion imposing sanctions against me would be met with a pending decission claim on my behalf.

The pending decission claim will grant me a temporary immunity, pending the bill. Should the bill be eliminated, the immunity is waived, but until that time, my soverignty must be respected.

Here's the deal...

Nope. Here's how you wish it would work.

I have a law on my books. I join the UN, which has a law that overrules mine, and immediatly take action to overturn that rule. Any motion imposing sanctions against me would be met with a pending decission claim on my behalf.

This is not the real UN. That is how it works in the real UN, if even there. It does not work that way here. Here, it automatically overrides your laws and you have no say or ability to appeal against it.

The pending decission claim will grant me a temporary immunity, pending the bill. Should the bill be eliminated, the immunity is waived, but until that time, my soverignty must be respected.

Nope. You gave up your sovereignity the very moment you clicked that link in the acceptance email. You get no temporary immunity, no chance of appeal, and no say in the matter unless you get a successful repeal or leave.

Actually, in the real UN, I wouldn't have to obey any of your laws. They're more... guidlines, than actual rules.

Actually, in the real UN, I wouldn't have to obey any of your laws. They're more... guidlines, than actual rules.

I was talking about the appeal process. In any case, it doesn't work that way here. That's part of why you must be careful before joining.

Ok, then. The 61st regulation is the Abortion law. I'm not saying we should make it illegal, I'm saying we should allow the individual governments to decide for themselves.
i agree! EACH GOVERNMENT SHOULD DECIDE! FOR EVERYTHING

You decided to join the UN.

In deciding such, you accepted all the responsibilities that came with that decision.

Any questions? :D

Right, here is the " deal ".

This a game. Not the real world. This means you are part of the N.S.U.N not the Real Life U.N. because Real Life U.N. officials are usually a lot more exact about who they let in the building.

Moving on, because this is N.S.U.N and hence part of the game, there are some very specific rules that apply to all members.

The case in point is the Abortion Rights Law which is on the N.S.U.N records as a resolution in effect. What does this mean for members ?

It means that as long as you are in the U.N. then this law " Abortion Rights " is in effect in your country. And nothing you say or do means squat as far as it not being so. All U.N. members automatically abide by all law passed by the N.S.U.N and those that claim not to are quite frankly ignored by most other players as they are considered to not be " playing fair by the rules ".

And that is a fact. Now, you want to stop it from being law in your country ? Then here is what you can do ...

1) Leave the N.S.U.N by resigning your membership using the button on the N.S.U.N. page. That simple.

2) Compose and get passed a repeal for the resolution in question.

But even so, until that repeal has formally revoked the resolution in question, by the majority vote of the N.S.U.N. that resolution is stil in effect in yours and every other country no matter what you say.

This is because the game rules read that International Law ( Made by the N.S.U.N ) naturally over-rides the law of individual member nations.

I hope that helps clear up some of the confusion ... :rolleyes:

You guys really know how to suck the fun out of this game

You guys really know how to suck the fun out of this game

You mean because we know the rules of how things are done and abide by them?

You guys really know how to suck the fun out of this game

Yes. We have special funpires that go around, hunting for people who enjoy the game, and bite people on the neck, sucking the fun right out.

Yes. We have special funpires that go around, hunting for people who enjoy the game, and bite people on the neck, sucking the fun right out.

I was going to ask you what funpies were, but then I re-read it :}

Well, what your telling me is that in order to keep my nation safe, I have to throw away everything I believe in. This game isn't fun anymore.

Well, what your telling me is that in order to keep my nation safe, I have to throw away everything I believe in. This game isn't fun anymore.

The UN provides more danger than safety. It has plenty of enemies and provides no military protection for members.

If I'm not understanding this correctly, then I'm going to look like a jackass. But, who cares, right? Anyway...

Lagonia States, do not fret; the United Nations does not have NEARLY the power it claims to. All "Abortion Rights" does is force you to increase your Human Rights significantly... or strongly... I forget which it is.

Here in Passivocalia, we have recently ordered a full ban on abortions and other Human Rights violations. The UN inspectors come, make certain that we have increased Human Rights, and then be on their merry way. If you don't want to conscribe to such passive resistance, the lettering within "Abortion Rights" allows you to not interfere with private groups closing abortion clinics (Passivocalia's earlier stance).

Specifically, regardless of Passivocalia's UN membership, and regardless of the UN Resolution "Abortion Rights", our nation has still received the issue (as in daily issues; the meat of nationstates) on WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE ABORTIONS. Passivocalia, of course, chose no, on any grounds (though we unofficially do allow them for instances of the mother's life in danger).

The point is that the UN, in fact, has no real power. It only has VAGUE power; the ability to cause generic increases or decreases (except for Gambling or Drug Use, I believe, which it can specifically legalise or outlaw). So feel free to protect the Human Rights in your nation if it means defying the UN.

Now, a few things:

Personally I am against abortion on the whole but I believe that there are certain situations where it should be allowed. For instance if the pregnancy is the result of a rape or having the child threatens the life of the mother as with such cases where the baby develops back in the tube.

If that is the case, you should be in favour of this repeal. As of right now ANY abortion is to be embraced, not just in "certain situations".

I realise that repealing the resolution will not force me to ban abortion in my country, but it will let others do it - most notably you. Because if you didn't want to ban abortions you would not be trying to repeal the resolution.

How selfish of you to make us kill our children just because your personal faith flies in the face of what it means to be alive and human.

And I honestly think that by repealing this, the world will become a less good place. Not just in my nation - I am not going to ban abortions even if someone puts a sword to my throat - but in all nations. So I am going to fight for it to be kept, and for the world to stay as safe as it is.

Do you realise that under the current law a mother could kill her baby in the ninth month of pregnancy? Or, as the child is pushing to come out of her womb, she could smash it right then and there. Or, as the child comes out but before the umbilical cord is cut, she could smash its little head on the ground.

Are these exaggerations? No. Look at the resolution; ALL forms of abortion are legal. Since abortion is not defined, in fact, it could be argued that a mother can "abort" the life of her son or daughter in his/her mid-thirties. This is all plausible within the grounds of the resolution. Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception or whether it comes much later; IT DOES NOT MATTER in this resolution's eyes.

The mother maintains this lethal power indefinately. And, if you don't "buy" that, it is still indisputable that she maintains the power to the very moment that person makes contact with the outside air. This resolution is abominable.

If I'm not understanding this correctly, then I'm going to look like a jackass. But, who cares, right? Anyway...


HEE HAW!




Lagonia States, do not fret; the United Nations does not have NEARLY the power it claims to. All "Abortion Rights" does is force you to increase your Human Rights significantly... or strongly... I forget which it is.

Wrong.



Here in Passivocalia, we have recently ordered a full ban on abortions and other Human Rights violations. The UN inspectors come, make certain that we have increased Human Rights, and then be on their merry way.

Wrong. The UN Gnomes come in, shake their heads, rewrite all your laws to be in accordance with UN Resolutions, and grin. All your people automatically respond to the new laws. You have no say in the matter whatsoever.



If you don't want to conscribe to such passive resistance, the lettering within "Abortion Rights" allows you to not interfere with private groups closing abortion clinics (Passivocalia's earlier stance).

True, though this is usually covered under law as in "Destruction of Public Property" or other statutes, which you then need to enforce the same way you enforce any other law. No discrimination.



Specifically, regardless of Passivocalia's UN membership, and regardless of the UN Resolution "Abortion Rights", our nation has still received the issue (as in daily issues; the meat of nationstates) on WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE ABORTIONS. Passivocalia, of course, chose no, on any grounds (though we unofficially do allow them for instances of the mother's life in danger).

And the UN Gnomes reappear and rewrite your laws anyway.



The point is that the UN, in fact, has no real power. It only has VAGUE power; the ability to cause generic increases or decreases (except for Gambling or Drug Use, I believe, which it can specifically legalise or outlaw). So feel free to protect the Human Rights in your nation if it means defying the UN.

Wrong again. You cannot defy the UN. Period.



Now, a few things:

If that is the case, you should be in favour of this repeal. As of right now ANY abortion is to be embraced, not just in "certain situations".


True.



How selfish of you to make us kill our children just because your personal faith flies in the face of what it means to be alive and human.


You did read the FAQ before hitting "Join UN", right?



Do you realise that under the current law a mother could kill her baby in the ninth month of pregnancy? Or, as the child is pushing to come out of her womb, she could smash it right then and there. Or, as the child comes out but before the umbilical cord is cut, she could smash its little head on the ground.

My, a sense of drama.



Are these exaggerations? No. Look at the resolution; ALL forms of abortion are legal. Since abortion is not defined, in fact, it could be argued that a mother can "abort" the life of her son or daughter in his/her mid-thirties. This is all plausible within the grounds of the resolution. Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception or whether it comes much later; IT DOES NOT MATTER in this resolution's eyes.

The mother maintains this lethal power indefinately. And, if you don't "buy" that, it is still indisputable that she maintains the power to the very moment that person makes contact with the outside air. This resolution is abominable.

Neat. So petition to have it repealed. That is, AFTER you read the FAQs.

Good luck with that, by the way. This rant has shown how little you know about the UN - and how little you respect it - to all the UN DELEGATES who read this forum. You know what a Delegate is, right? They're the ones who vote on whether a proposal gets to become a resolution, and get voted on?

You do realize who you've offended now, right?

Tah-tah.

I refuse to comply while my petition is pending. I order a temporary suspention of UN regulations for the duration. Kick me out if you want.

And the UN Gnomes reappear and rewrite your laws anyway.

Okay, okay, then educate me. When I answered the abortion issue, my nation's profile responded in the sense that I had banned abortions. That profile description never changed; it only disappeared after other issues covered it up, just like anything else.

My nation's profile never said abortions were allowed in my country. So how, precisely, does the UN rewrite my laws in the sense of game mechanics?

And I mean no offense to anyone. I see folk defy the UN in roleplaying all the time; this seems to be the same case.

My, a sense of drama.

So you say, but with no denial.

Neat. So petition to have it repealed. That is, AFTER you read the FAQs.

It is already up for repeal, friend, and I had nothing to do with it.

The Lagonia States,

I too have requested to repeal the 'Abortion Rights' resolution.

The Armed Republic of Aliste applauds your efforts, whether it is your requested repeal or mine - something needs to be done about that poorly constructed resolution.

I will urge others to support your requested repeal of this resolution.

Thank you,
The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Thank you. This seems to be the most heavily requested repeal.

I too am trying repeal it

I refuse to comply while my petition is pending. I order a temporary suspention of UN regulations for the duration. Kick me out if you want.

Don't have to - you comply anyway. *poof*

Okay, okay, then educate me. When I answered the abortion issue, my nation's profile responded in the sense that I had banned abortions. That profile description never changed; it only disappeared after other issues covered it up, just like anything else.

My nation's profile never said abortions were allowed in my country. So how, precisely, does the UN rewrite my laws in the sense of game mechanics?


OOC:Game mechanics? you get bumps or drops in your Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms. As far as RP goes, thou shalt obey the UN Resolutions in all things.



And I mean no offense to anyone. I see folk defy the UN in roleplaying all the time; this seems to be the same case.


Can't help the dishonorable or the stupid, no need to try. However, they could always be called on it, and there are some forum moderators who seem happy to jump in now and again and RP the gnomes. I've noted Hack do it once here.



It is already up for repeal, friend, and I had nothing to do with it.

Ah, democracy.

And we're not friends.

How selfish of you to make us kill our children just because your personal faith flies in the face of what it means to be alive and human.

No one's making you kill foetuses. We're only making you allow it to take place. That means pregnant women must be allowed to get an abortion and not be charged with a crime for doing it. It does not mean you send out police to grab pregnant women off the streets and kill their babies.

OOC:Game mechanics? you get bumps or drops in your Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms. As far as RP goes, thou shalt obey the UN Resolutions in all things.

What Vastiva is saying is that as long as you are a member of the UN, you *must* obey all of its resolutions, regardless of how you feel about them. This is entirely correct.
However, fortunately for nations who may feel strongly opposed to these resolutions, they are hardly what one would consider the most water-tight legal documents. (And I believe this is what Passivocalia was driving at.) Let's examine the resolution in question, shall we?

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.

Votes For: 9,368
Votes Against: 6,549
Implemented: Sat Jun 5 2004

So, in your nation
a) all women must be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion
and
b) no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion

This means it's almost painfully easy for a member nation to fly in the face of the spirit of the resolution, while obeying the letter of it. For 'A', giving someone a 'choice' in and of itself means nothing. Technically speaking, anyone can 'choose' to do pretty much anything. What you don't have to do is provide facilities, doctors, equipment, funding, etc *for* the abortion in question. 'B' works along very similar lines: I could give everyone in my country the 'right' to have a pair of rabbit-fur slippers, but then ban rabbit-hunting on national soil and make the import of any pelts taken from animals under three feet highly illegal. Now anyone in my nation can 'choose' to have rabbit-fur slippers, in fact they have a mandated 'right' to buy slippers, but I don't have to *provide* those slippers and I can make it *very* difficult for anyone to get them.
This is very similar to a lot of the legal wrangling governments do in real life every day, and tends to be the reason a request to have the soda machine in the lobby fixed requires eight carts of paperwork that all have to be filled out in triplicate. In fact, dealing with issues like these and preventing this sort of flagrent 'passive agression' is what takes up most of any governing bodies time - and for very good reason!

What you don't have to do is provide facilities, doctors, equipment, funding, etc *for* the abortion in question.


Actually - it's possible that not providing facitities et al for a woman to have an abortion is SERIOUSLY interfering in her right to have one. Which would be somewhat contradictory to the resolution at hand.


'B' works along very similar lines: I could give everyone in my country the 'right' to have a pair of rabbit-fur slippers, but then ban rabbit-hunting on national soil and make the import of any pelts taken from animals under three feet highly illegal.


Again - making the procedure illegal is interfering in a big way. As is stopping people from carrying it out.


Now anyone in my nation can 'choose' to have rabbit-fur slippers, in fact they have a mandated 'right' to buy slippers, but I don't have to *provide* those slippers and I can make it *very* difficult for anyone to get them.


And (again!) making it very difficult for someone to have an abortion is interfering and against the rules.

OOC:Game mechanics? you get bumps or drops in your Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms. As far as RP goes, thou shalt obey the UN Resolutions in all things.

Whoa-ho-ho. So let this be gotten straight by me. All this scoffing, this disdain, this accusation of me not having read the FAQs, all this projection that the UN must be abided by and physically cannot be ignored, all this weeping and gnashing of teeth, and I was RIGHT?!

(OOC: Because I already knew about the bumps or drops; giving my fetal citizens the right to live increases my Human Rights, as would a vast number of things. As far as "thou shalt obey the UN Resolutions in all things" is considered....)

NO! Fetal executions shall NOT be allowed in Passivocalia. The law is not even being followed to the LETTER, much less the spirit. Furthermore, the UN shall not be resigned from by my nation. This blot on Human Rights is unacceptible, and my representation shall ever be present to have it fought.

(OOC: I'm really busy with classes right now, but if this is an issue of armed UN enforcer nations and such, I'll be able to make myself open for RP invasion during the winter break, I believe.)

Fellow U.N. members,

The Armed Republic of Aliste, as the founder and new U.N. delegate of the Conservative Bloc - will be voting in favor of all requested repeals of resolution #61, "Abortion Rights".

We feel that each country individually should be able to choose whether or not they would like abortion to be legal or illegal in their country - and yes, that is 'Pro-Choice' (snickers).

I am personally, viemently opposed to abortion and I have recieved several telegrams from sympathizing nations. After seeing what support we have I feel there very well may be a good chance of getting this wreckless piece of legislation repealed, if not now than in the future.

We will not allow abortion to stay legal in our countries if we are so opposed, and we are. Our cause is just and some choices - are wrong, the right to an abortion being one of these in our own opinions.

I urge all sympathizing nations to move to my region please, 'Conservative Bloc' and support me as a the U.N. delegate.

If you wish to remain in your own region and support us - urge your U.N. delegates to support the repeals on "Abortion Rights".

Ethics enforced, prosperity protected,

The Armed Republic of Aliste.
From the Conservative Bloc,
Founder and U.N. delegate.

Actually - it's possible that not providing facitities et al for a woman to have an abortion is SERIOUSLY interfering in her right to have one. Which would be somewhat contradictory to the resolution at hand.
Really? I'd like to ask you a question - does your government currently provided state-funded facilities for the creation and distribution of ice cream cones? And if it does not, are you seriously saying that this would represent interference in your right to have ice cream?


Again - making the procedure illegal is interfering in a big way. As is stopping people from carrying it out.

That's perfectly right - making the procedure illegal would be interfering. Which is why you'll notice in my example I didn't make the purchase of rabbit-fur slippers illegal in any way. I simply made it impossible to get them through the implementation of secondary laws that, while not directly related to the issue at hand, had effects such that obtaining those slippers became nigh-unto impossible. Does this accomplish the same thing? Yes. Does it technically violate the legal requirements? No.

And (again!) making it very difficult for someone to have an abortion is interfering and against the rules.
Now, this is where you'd get into very, very muddy waters. Just what constitutes 'interference'? Without a clear definition provided, there's very little to fall back on, and as long as nothing the government does has a direct impact I believe you'd have a very hard time backing up any allegations. If you don't believe this sort of thing actually happens, look at some of the controversy surrounding the import of Canadian wheat to the United States, specifically with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, Free Trade, and exactly what constitutes a 'subsidy'.

I was actually about to open my own region with the same purpose. Perhaps our two regions can open relations.

The Lagonia States,

It'd be a pleasure. I'll add you to my dossier, if you need anything please feel free to telegram me.

I'll be happy to support your repeals or proposals.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Really? I'd like to ask you a question - does your government currently provided state-funded facilities for the creation and distribution of ice cream cones? And if it does not, are you seriously saying that this would represent interference in your right to have ice cream?


Give me a proposal or a repeal that indicates everyone should get ice-cream under UN law and I will answer your question. Right now it's bollocks, and is attempting to trivialise quite a serious topic.


That's perfectly right - making the procedure illegal would be interfering. Which is why you'll notice in my example I didn't make the purchase of rabbit-fur slippers illegal in any way. I simply made it impossible to get them through the implementation of secondary laws that, while not directly related to the issue at hand, had effects such that obtaining those slippers became nigh-unto impossible. Does this accomplish the same thing? Yes. Does it technically violate the legal requirements? No.


Of course it does. If you make it so that a woman can not get an abortion in your country, by any means, then you are interfering in violation of The Abortion Rights resolution.

Of course it does. If you make it so that a woman can not get an abortion in your country, by any means, then you are interfering in violation of The Abortion Rights resolution.

For the last time - repealing "Abortion Rights" does not make abortion illegal.

Repealing "Abortion Rights" makes it so that each country has to decide individually whether or not they want abortion to be legal in their country.

You know...the way it SHOULD be.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

For the last time - repealing "Abortion Rights" does not make abortion illegal.

Repealing "Abortion Rights" makes it so that each country has to decide individually whether or not they want abortion to be legal in their country.

You know...the way it SHOULD be.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

We do not support, and believe everyone who believes such a proposal should pass should move to your region, en masse.

We do not support, and believe everyone who believes such a proposal should pass should move to your region, en masse.

So you do not support nations making up their own mind? Instead you support all nations having an agenda - a very unpopular one (keep in mind a lot of nations were against it) - pushed upon them?

You sir/maddam, are not Pro-Choice.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

So you do not support nations making up their own mind? Instead you support all nations having an agenda - a very unpopular one (keep in mind a lot of nations were against it) - pushed upon them?

You sir/maddam, are not Pro-Choice.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

We are sorry the representative from Aliste is unable to read and comprehend that which is written as stated.

We again add our opinion to be - everyone who supports the legislation you endorse, should indeed move to your region.

We would also point out - you and others chose to join the UN. When you made this choice, you accepted the consequences of that choice. To assume otherwise would be foolish.

But then again, we would not prevent a fool from choosing to be foolish either as it is indeed their right to choose. That many will likely choose to laugh at them or ignore them due to their choice is part of the results of having made that choice. Indeed, the entire industry of comedy does require some sort of wit, and the occasional fool. So who is to say any choice is truly "bad"?

We are sorry the representative from Aliste is unable to read and comprehend that which is written as stated.

Oh right because, "We do not support, and believe everyone who believes such a proposal should pass should move to your region, en masse." isn't written awkwardly at all - hm, sarcasm.


We would also point out - you and others chose to join the UN. When you made this choice, you accepted the consequences of that choice. To assume otherwise would be foolish.

Sort of like taking responsibility for your actions? Like, hmmm let me try to think of an analogy.

Oh I got one! Like choosing to have unprotected sex and getting pregnant? :)

But then again, we would not prevent a fool from choosing to be foolish either as it is indeed their right to choose.

As if you knew I would make that pregnant analogy. Heh.

Anyways, yeah I'm just going to drop out of the U.N. and stop trying to make changed - you'd like that wouldn't you? If I gave up?

Yeah sorry - take another lap. Heh. We're not giving up.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

That's perfectly right - making the procedure illegal would be interfering. Which is why you'll notice in my example I didn't make the purchase of rabbit-fur slippers illegal in any way. I simply made it impossible to get them through the implementation of secondary laws that, while not directly related to the issue at hand, had effects such that obtaining those slippers became nigh-unto impossible. Does this accomplish the same thing? Yes. Does it technically violate the legal requirements? No.


Of course it does. If you make it so that a woman can not get an abortion in your country, by any means, then you are interfering in violation of The Abortion Rights resolution.


For the last time - repealing "Abortion Rights" does not make abortion illegal.

Repealing "Abortion Rights" makes it so that each country has to decide individually whether or not they want abortion to be legal in their country.

You know...the way it SHOULD be.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

They're not talking about appeal, they're talking about the government passing laws which by their nature interfere with a woman's right to get an abortion (such as passing a law which makes abortions cost several million dollars each). Which would be illegal. But of course, there are constantly those who just don't read the UN FAQ and are doomed thereby to looking ignorant and silly.

I've read the FAQ several times for you information. And I was well aware what they were talking about.

But thank you for clearing all of that up, which was nothing. :)

Anyways, yeah I'm just going to drop out of the U.N. and stop trying to make changed - you'd like that wouldn't you? If I gave up?

Yeah sorry - take another lap. Heh. We're not giving up.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

We do not care if you remain or not. We do wish you would learn to read what is written, but perhaps education is not a priority in your country.

As such, Vastiva will be sending you two freighterloads of McGuffey readers, at no charge, in the hopes your population will learn literacy and reading comprehension.

And I'd like to pass a law that would protect the baby's right to live. It's all in who's rights you decide are more important.

Why has Vastiva never been warned for being so snotty and rude?

Her criticism is not constructive - it's just rude. And she spams.

And I'd like to pass a law that would protect the baby's right to live. It's all in who's rights you decide are more important.

You chose to be in the UN. By that choice, you chose to accept the consequence of having the UN change your laws.

Therefore, you decided what was important - membership in the UN was higher priority then national soverignty.

Who would join an Anti-UN orginization if I created it? It would be a league where regions sent reps to a new orginization instead of the UN. We wouldn't pass opressive laws or rules that are terribly offensive.

Well I certainly do not appreciate the U.N. dictating law onto my country.

The U.N. is supposed to be for nations supporting each other.

Well I certainly do not appreciate the U.N. dictating law onto my country.

The U.N. is supposed to be for nations supporting each other.

From the UN FAQ:


The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

and


Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.

Who would join an Anti-UN orginization if I created it? It would be a league where regions sent reps to a new orginization instead of the UN. We wouldn't pass opressive laws or rules that are terribly offensive.

You would be the twelfth "anti-UN organization" to show up since I joined. None seem terribly effective. Perhaps you have read the official "I hate the UN" thread?

Give me a proposal or a repeal that indicates everyone should get ice-cream under UN law and I will answer your question. Right now it's bollocks, and is attempting to trivialise quite a serious topic.
But, do you see how that is worded slightly differently? And in things like this, nitpicks about semantics are actually quite huge. Consider the alteration in meaning between a proposal that "'indicates everyone should get X" and one that "gives everyone the right to have X". Does it seem trivial? Perhaps, but in reality, it's not. For instance, I may have the 'right' to a homosexual relationship. This neither means I must have one, nor (and more importantly) does it indicate one must be provided for me. That's the chief point I was driving at - all this resolution does is give women the 'right' to an abortion and the ability to 'choose' to have one. In no way does it call upon anyone to provide it for her, and I was merely trying to show how 'obeying' the resolution according to the rules doesn't always truly mean 'following' it.
As for trivializing a serious topic, that wasn't my intention at all. I was simply using very simplistic and exagerrated examples to demonstrate my point and to avoid creating any further conflict that might arise from the introduction of other, more volitile issues as examples.


Of course it does. If you make it so that a woman can not get an abortion in your country, by any means, then you are interfering in violation of The Abortion Rights resolution.
Again, only if you do it directly so. What about a country with no health care, or even a health system? The way this resolution is structured it does not require them to create one in order to provide a woman with an abortion - they simply cannot interfere with her 'right' to have one. Consider that American example of the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. The Government is not obligated to give you life, and in fact, it's almost certain that at some point that life will leave you. All this means is that the Government can not *directly* take these things away from you. But it can take actions that affect them. For instance, legalizing the smoking of tobacoo has a serious impact on a persons 'life'. But by allowing people to smoke, the government is not 'taking away their life' - the connection is too tenous.

Well, maybe the other anti-UN orginizations weren't run correctly. I'm willing to try it.

I seem to have alot of support actually, which isn't hard since this United Nations is turning out as impotent and corrupt as the real one.

My orginization would be simple, it would be a forum for international politics between member nations, nothing more. We would be happy to support resolutions to invade others and to defend a nation in trouble. There would be only one prerequiset, you cannot be a UN member.

This would not be a single region, on the contrary, it would be a band of regions joined together.

Well, maybe the other anti-UN orginizations weren't run correctly. I'm willing to try it.

I seem to have alot of support actually, which isn't hard since this United Nations is turning out as impotent and corrupt as the real one.

My orginization would be simple, it would be a forum for international politics between member nations, nothing more. We would be happy to support resolutions to invade others and to defend a nation in trouble. There would be only one prerequiset, you cannot be a UN member.

This would not be a single region, on the contrary, it would be a band of regions joined together.

I repeat - go for it.

Of course, once someone who IS a UN Member enters your region, that whole issue about region-crashing comes up...

But, do you see how that is worded slightly differently? And in things like this, nitpicks about semantics are actually quite huge. Consider the alteration in meaning between a proposal that "'indicates everyone should get X" and one that "gives everyone the right to have X". Does it seem trivial? Perhaps, but in reality, it's not. For instance, I may have the 'right' to a homosexual relationship. This neither means I must have one, nor (and more importantly) does it indicate one must be provided for me. That's the chief point I was driving at - all this resolution does is give women the 'right' to an abortion and the ability to 'choose' to have one. In no way does it call upon anyone to provide it for her, and I was merely trying to show how 'obeying' the resolution according to the rules doesn't always truly mean 'following' it.
As for trivializing a serious topic, that wasn't my intention at all. I was simply using very simplistic and exagerrated examples to demonstrate my point and to avoid creating any further conflict that might arise from the introduction of other, more volitile issues as examples.

Again, only if you do it directly so. What about a country with no health care, or even a health system? The way this resolution is structured it does not require them to create one in order to provide a woman with an abortion - they simply cannot interfere with her 'right' to have one. Consider that American example of the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. The Government is not obligated to give you life, and in fact, it's almost certain that at some point that life will leave you. All this means is that the Government can not *directly* take these things away from you. But it can take actions that affect them. For instance, legalizing the smoking of tobacoo has a serious impact on a persons 'life'. But by allowing people to smoke, the government is not 'taking away their life' - the connection is too tenous.

You are correct - just because you have the right to a marriage does not mean the other person must be given to you, that the church you want will be open that day, that dresses will be within your expenses - only that you have the right to a marriage. The remainder is up to you.

However, you cannot - by government action - directly or indirectly prevent a UN Resolution from functioning. So you can't make abortions cost billions if no other healthcare issue does, you can't make doctors who practice abortions criminals, you cannot pass a law saying abortions are not covered by health insurance, you cannot make having and/or performing an abortion a punishable offense, you cannot impede in that manner.

Now, if you have no health care at all, then of course there's no abortion.

And the American example is not law. Just thought I'd point that out.

Here is an idea. Is there anyone out there who is for early-term abortion but not for late-term? With whom it is not acknowledged that life begins at conception but is conceded that life is begun at least by the third tri-mester?

Would one of these limited-abortion people please have a proposal written to PROTECT abortion rights before the third trimester (or whatever the appropriate time is... I forget). It would seem redundant for now, but it would also open a door for the repeal of the current "Abortion Rights", which is poorly written and many agree has been extended too far, with something already in existence behind it to have mothers protected in the early stages, when life is (apparently) still debatable.

I would have it written myself, but I would have something foolish done, like having it labeled as something that "strongly increases moral decency at the expense of human rights". :D

Just have it considered, Pro-Choice resolution-writers.

Five bucks against it's making quorum.

Five bucks against it's making quorum.
lol! True. Although it would be interesting to have both a proposal to protect, and a proposal to repeal Arbotion rights in the que at the same time.
... I wonder how many people would vote yes to both, just for kicks? Can't say I'm exactly great at resisting temptation ... ;)

Here is an idea. Is there anyone out there who is for early-term abortion but not for late-term? With whom it is not acknowledged that life begins at conception but is conceded that life is begun at least by the third tri-mester?

Would one of these limited-abortion people please have a proposal written to PROTECT abortion rights before the third trimester (or whatever the appropriate time is... I forget). It would seem redundant for now, but it would also open a door for the repeal of the current "Abortion Rights", which is poorly written and many agree has been extended too far, with something already in existence behind it to have mothers protected in the early stages, when life is (apparently) still debatable.

I would have it written myself, but I would have something foolish done, like having it labeled as something that "strongly increases moral decency at the expense of human rights". :D

Just have it considered, Pro-Choice resolution-writers.

The thing is you could not pass the one to allow early abortions but not late abortions until the current resolution is repealed.

And if the first one is repealed, it is quite possible that every nation who wants abortion banned completely would use the opportunity to vote down any new proposal to bring it back.

So - until amendments are encoded in to the game (which could be a very, very long while) I think staying with one we have is better than trying to do something that will be dodgy at best.

The thing is you could not pass the one to allow early abortions but not late abortions until the current resolution is repealed.

And if the first one is repealed, it is quite possible that every nation who wants abortion banned completely would use the opportunity to vote down any new proposal to bring it back.

So - until amendments are encoded in to the game (which could be a very, very long while) I think staying with one we have is better than trying to do something that will be dodgy at best.

No, that's not what was meant. It was explained poorly; have me allowed to try again.

This hypothetical proposal would protect the right for abortion up to the point when brainwaves are detectable (or whenever... I don't know what the consensus is). It would also make a point of saying it has NO COMMENT on other abortions.

So, if it were passed now, it would be a redundant resolution, already covered by the "Abortion Rights" one. However, "Abortion Rights" could then LATER be repealed without the fear of having nothing to take its place.

Passivocalia,

But you see, nothing needs to take the place of the resolution.

If you really feel that a woman has the right to an abortion - and you want it legal in your nation - then feel free to make it legal in your nation, no one is going to stop you.

But let other nations make the choice as to whether or not they would like abortion legal in their countries.

Repealing this resolution does not make abortion illegal - it simply makes it so that each nation must decide individually.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Repealing this resolution does not make abortion illegal - it simply makes it so that each nation must decide individually.


The point of the resolution is to guarentee that abortion is legal in UN nations. In my opinion, I wouldn't want nations to decide this issue individually because some would ban it. The state shouldn't interfere in this because abortion is an individual decision and the individual should make that decision. Not the state. And the right of the woman to decide should be protected.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don't get one. But there has to be the option for those who don't have a problem with it and for whatever reasons they might have, need to have one.

That viewpoint makes abortion justifiable under any circumstance. Which may or may not fall in line with the morals of the NS.

If pregnancy is an individual decision. Than child fostering should also be the responsibility of the individual, absent an agreement form the partner to provide emotional and fiduciary support.

If consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and only the woman can decide if pregnancy caries to term. Then choice and responsibility rests only with the woman.

So, men are merely sperm donors, and owe no responsibility to any woman with child, or any of their offspring.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don't get one.

Uh huh, and if you believe slavery is wrong - don't get a slave. Heh. :rolleyes:

Uh huh, and if you believe slavery is wrong - don't get a slave. Heh. :rolleyes:

Again with the emotional arguements?

Slavery is removing the choice of a person. Illegal.
Abortion is removing tissue at the choice of a person. Legal.

Straw man arguements are irrelevant. Didn't you say you were a decent debater? Don't you know about straw man, ad hominem, and other tactics which are classified as "poor debating skills"?

Logic. Not emotion, not irrelevancies.

[QUOTE=Vastiva]
Abortion is removing tissue at the choice of a person
QUOTE]

That's cold... That's really cold.

Whether or not you believe it's a child is irrelivent, because you would have to admit that it's the begining of a child. To say something like that is simply cold and rather evil, actually. Show some respect.

If you truely believe that it should be the woman's choice, ok, we can debate that, but if you keep making statements like that, I simply lose all respect for you and your position.

Abortion is removing tissue at the choice of a person


That's cold... That's really cold.

Whether or not you believe it's a child is irrelivent, because you would have to admit that it's the begining of a child. To say something like that is simply cold and rather evil, actually. Show some respect.

If you truely believe that it should be the woman's choice, ok, we can debate that, but if you keep making statements like that, I simply lose all respect for you and your position.

Sperm could be argued to be "the potential beginnings of a child". We do not seek charges of multiple murder for a wet dream.

Ova could be argued to be "the potential beginnings of a child", but we do not proscecute women for having periods.

And again, we repeat - until it passes Vastiva's three way test, that mass growing in a woman's uterus is classified as a "parasite", and as such does not have any protection under Vastivan law.

Sperm could be argued to be "the potential beginnings of a child". We do not seek charges of multiple murder for a wet dream.

Ova could be argued to be "the potential beginnings of a child", but we do not proscecute women for having periods.

And again, we repeat - until it passes Vastiva's three way test, that mass growing in a woman's uterus is classified as a "parasite", and as such does not have any protection under Vastivan law.

No, neither can be considered as such. A sperm is not a stage of growth and development to which the qualifilcations of life can be applied affirmatively, in a life cycle dictated by genetics, that will result in an independant being. However, a conceptus can be considered as such.

The question is what constitutes an affirmative act on the part of the parents that invokes a duty of care.

To be a parasite the entire life cycle of the organism occurs within a host being.

Will look at your three qualifications.

What is your three way test, can not locate it in the thread.

Many pro-choicers, myself included, see this as a matter of human rights, which has nothing to do with morality.

WHAT!!!?

Human rights is all about morality.

What is your three way test, can not locate it in the thread.

From here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7565596&postcount=188)

"Vastiva prefers a simple definition, which takes into account the religious beliefs of a portion of our population.

We believe a fetus is not an individual until it is (a) outside the body; (b) independant of the mothers body; and (c) has taken its first independant breath.

Fetuses not being people, have no rights. The rights of the "host" are considered superior in all cases."

Human rights is all about morality.

We disagree categorically.

To the two of you;

First of all, human rights IS morality. If you don't believe in one moral or another, then it's not about human rights. Your morality decides your position. This doesn't mean it's some divine religious principle, though religious does effect morality.

And as far as the fetus/child, What's the difference between that child from a moment before it's first breath and a moment after? You seem to be disreguarding this as; Well, you can't prove it's alive. Just because it can dream, feel pain and think independently, it still relies on someone else for life, so that person can just kill it whenever they want. I don't think I have to tell you what's wrong with this.

Fellow U.N. Members,
To deny a women's right to choose only restricts thier freedom. It should be left to the person who is affected to choose, rather than those of us, such as myself, who cannot give birth to begin with, let alone have an abortion. The United Socialist States of PIcaRDMPCia will not support this resolution in any way, and will vote in the negative should it actually come to be voted upon.
-The President of the United Socialist States of PIcaRDMPCia

From here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7565596&postcount=188)

"Vastiva prefers a simple definition, which takes into account the religious beliefs of a portion of our population.

We believe a fetus is not an individual until it is (a) outside the body; (b) independant of the mothers body; and (c) has taken its first independant breath.

Fetuses not being people, have no rights. The rights of the "host" are considered superior in all cases."

Yeah, that is pretty simple, but not entirely consistent.

An infant is not an individual as defined. It is still dependant on the mothers body for milk, which provides nutrients and immune system support.

Your second to last question raises a question as to what constitutes a person. Absent a duty of care, infants and children may or may not be considered persons/people, and thus may have no rights. So, anyone may be able to kill them and have committed no wrong in your country.

Yeah, that is pretty simple, but not entirely consistent.

An infant is not an individual as defined. It is still dependant on the mothers body for milk, which provides nutrients and immune system support.

Your second to last question raises a question as to what constitutes a person. Absent a duty of care, infants and children may or may not be considered persons/people, and thus may have no rights. So, anyone may be able to kill them and have committed no wrong in your country.

Apologies, this is a linguistic problem. By "independant" we mean "not connected by direct physical means, such as the umbilical cord". This is in the law itself, which, unfortunately, we are not able to clearly and entirely translate to English without taking up dozens of pages, and much of the delegates time.

Once so divided from, and taking breath, it is then a human "person" with rights, and as a child, does have protection under the CPS clauses in national law. There may be further protection under UN Resolutions, but it has not come up.

By "independant" we mean "not connected by direct physical means, such as the umbilical cord".

Does this imply if I have my arm around a woman she is now dependant? :p

To the two of you;

First of all, human rights IS morality. If you don't believe in one moral or another, then it's not about human rights. Your morality decides your position. This doesn't mean it's some divine religious principle, though religious does effect morality.

And as far as the fetus/child, What's the difference between that child from a moment before it's first breath and a moment after? You seem to be disreguarding this as; Well, you can't prove it's alive. Just because it can dream, feel pain and think independently, it still relies on someone else for life, so that person can just kill it whenever they want. I don't think I have to tell you what's wrong with this.

That is simple.

Before the first breath, it is not possible that the mass of cells be considered a "person with rights" under Vastivan law.
After the first breath, it is possible but not guaranteed the mass of cells can be considered a "person with rights" under Vastivan law.

Does this imply if I have my arm around a woman she is now dependant? :p

No. She remains an independant entity - there is no physical connection, only physical contact.

Gratis, this made some question as to what we would do with Siamese Twins, but the decision of their being a single entity was made, and as such, we are satisfied.


OOC: I'm throwing you a bone because your reply was sub-par and utterly silly.

That is simple.

Before the first breath, it is not possible that the mass of cells be considered a "person with rights" under Vastivan law.
After the first breath, it is possible but not guaranteed the mass of cells can be considered a "person with rights" under Vastivan law.

I believe someone mentioned that the 'first breath' was more symbolic than anything else.

Not under our law, it is not.

Apologies, this is a linguistic problem. By "independant" we mean "not connected by direct physical means, such as the umbilical cord". This is in the law itself, which, unfortunately, we are not able to clearly and entirely translate to English without taking up dozens of pages, and much of the delegates time.

Once so divided from, and taking breath, it is then a human "person" with rights, and as a child, does have protection under the CPS clauses in national law. There may be further protection under UN Resolutions, but it has not come up.

Ok, that clears things up.

Apologies, this is a linguistic problem. By "independant" we mean "not connected by direct physical means, such as the umbilical cord". This is in the law itself, which, unfortunately, we are not able to clearly and entirely translate to English without taking up dozens of pages, and much of the delegates time.

Hmm, that's actually pretty clever. I suppose you could extend this to include what we were talking about earlier on in this thread as well, and say that the wording of the resolutions in the UN is simply the translation of the overview into each Nations respective language. That would certainly prevent people from exploiting the linguistic loopholes of typical proposals (because lets face it, writing up an *actual* legal-esque proposal for everything that goes into the NSUN and hammering all the semantics and etc would be very boring and time consuming) since you could simply state that from a game mechanics point of view no loopholes actually exist, since you can't actually ever see the *real* wording to hunt around for them.

Hmm, that's actually pretty clever. I suppose you could extend this to include what we were talking about earlier on in this thread as well, and say that the wording of the resolutions in the UN is simply the translation of the overview into each Nations respective language. That would certainly prevent people from exploiting the linguistic loopholes of typical proposals (because lets face it, writing up an *actual* legal-esque proposal for everything that goes into the NSUN and hammering all the semantics and etc would be very boring and time consuming) since you could simply state that from a game mechanics point of view no loopholes actually exist, since you can't actually ever see the *real* wording to hunt around for them.

OOC: I dares ya to submit that proposal. ;)

Hmm, that's actually pretty clever. I suppose you could extend this to include what we were talking about earlier on in this thread as well, and say that the wording of the resolutions in the UN is simply the translation of the overview into each Nations respective language. That would certainly prevent people from exploiting the linguistic loopholes of typical proposals (because lets face it, writing up an *actual* legal-esque proposal for everything that goes into the NSUN and hammering all the semantics and etc would be very boring and time consuming) since you could simply state that from a game mechanics point of view no loopholes actually exist, since you can't actually ever see the *real* wording to hunt around for them.

People are starting to clarify proposals.
In either event, general overviews can still contain loopholes absent definitive clarification.

Hate to say this, AP, but it goes in cycles. There will be another huge batch of "I n00k j00!!!!1111!"-types coming soon enough.

Again with the emotional arguements?

Slavery is removing the choice of a person. Illegal.
Abortion is removing tissue at the choice of a person. Legal.

Straw man arguements are irrelevant. Didn't you say you were a decent debater? Don't you know about straw man, ad hominem, and other tactics which are classified as "poor debating skills"?

Logic. Not emotion, not irrelevancies.

All emotion.

"Slavery is removing the choice of a piece of property at the choice of a person. Under Vlemshlaka law no one is considered a person unless he/she makes an income."
"Slavery is removing the choice of a sub-human creature at the choice of a person. Under Hyakoln law no one is considered a person unless he/she is a citizen, and all of our slaves are captured foreigners."
"Slavery is removing the choice of a non-living creature at the choice of a person. Under Grangenz law no one is considered living, much less a person, unless he/she can procreate and keep the species alive. Anyone else can be enslaved."
"Aborting slaves is the removal of a tool at the choice of a person. If a tool isn't working properly, you get rid of it. No morals are involved."

Simply have it remembered that not all of us are from Vastiva and do not acknowledge the aforementioned definition of humanity.

Your second to last question raises a question as to what constitutes a person. Absent a duty of care, infants and children may or may not be considered persons/people, and thus may have no rights. So, anyone may be able to kill them and have committed no wrong in your country.

The Grand Duchy of Passivocalia would like to have this moment taken to have its official NATIONAL WORD proclaimed and celebrated: Penultimate! :D :D :D :D :D

It should be left to the person who is affected to choose,


I agree, let's let the baby choose.

It should be left to the person who is affected to choose,

I agree, let's let the baby choose.

I agree also, if science can figure a way to ask the preborn 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', 'baby', etc. whether or not it'd like to live. I'd be all for it. :p

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I think most people involved in this debate value both 'life' and 'the freedom to choose', and I would even go further and say that I think a majority would also agree that when someone's 'freedom' threatens another persons 'life', 'life' wins. The problem arises from a difficulty in definition, our lack of ability to state with certainty where 'life' begins. This is that 'fuzzy boundary' that was mentioned earlier on, we know that we have at some initial point nonliving matter which eventually becomes a living organism. We simply can't tell with complete certainty where this transformation takes place. As a result we have two definite endpoints: the constituent matter at the 'non-living' end (the sperm in the male and the egg in the female; which in their disunited state are generally considered by almost all to be absent of life. As a result, anything that happens to sperm or eggs does not fall under the category of actions taken agains a 'human'.), and a new human being at the other end. (Although many people draw the line of 'transformation' at various points during the transformation of a sperm and an egg into a child, by the time we have an independantly breathing baby who is unattached to the mother in any physical way, there is a general consensus that this is a human life.)
So now we have the problem of what happens to the baby/embryo/fetus in between those two endpoints. Is it alive or not? As I mentioned at the start, the argument is not really about 'life' vs 'choice', since both are typically valued equally by the opposing sides, the real question is whether or not life is present at any given point between those two stages. After all, if it could be proven to a Pro-Lifer that the fetus was not a human life, then they would no longer argue against abortion - because it would no longer be an action contrary to their value of the sanctity of human life. Likewise, if it could be proven to a Pro-Choice advocate that the fetus was a human life in every sense of the word, they would refuse to support abortion as it would no longer be an action pertaining only to their personal body.

But if you can't adequetly create that definition of what 'is' or 'is not' a life, how do you resolve the issue?

Personally, I think the topic should be approached with an 'err on the side of caution' mentallity. Think about what you are being asked to determine, and then think about the consequences if you were to make the incorrect determination. (Because in all things, we must remain open to the idea and possibility that we might be wrong. That is how we improve and advance as a person and as a society.) In this case, if I support the Pro-Life movement, but am incorrect in my belief, then I have denied thousands of women the right to make a choice regarding something that is, ultimetly, their own concern. On the other hand, if I support the Pro-Choice movement, but am incorrect in that belief, I have unwittingly been the accomplise to the murder of thousands of innocents. I believe strongly in individual freedom, but I believe far more strongly in the preservation of life. Liberty, without Life, is nothing at all. Thus, while I would sincerly regret having denied thousands the freedom of choice, I could still die happy in the knowledge that my intentions were pure. However, should I find that I had allowed the practice of mass murder, even through nothing more than the complicity of my silence, no rationalization of intent or aim could ever assauge my heart.

Hate to say this, AP, but it goes in cycles. There will be another huge batch of "I n00k j00!!!!1111!"-types coming soon enough.

Ahh. This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on an on my friends, some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because....

This is the song that never...

I agree also, if science can figure a way to ask the preborn 'zygote', 'embryo', 'fetus', 'baby', etc. whether or not it'd like to live. I'd be all for it. :p

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Reason #902 I don't take the arguement against seriously....

Count AP as the Number 1 Reason why you should.;)

Count AP as the Number 1 Reason why you should.;)

Alright, lets hear the arguement, Sparky.

Will TM you.

Just a short while ago I added my repeal to this current resolution. If you read it, I think that most if not all will agree with it.
Argument: This is not an attempt to ban abortion. Rather, it is an attempt to give jurisdiction over such matters to individual member nations. If a member nation desires to grant abortion rights to its citizens, then the citizens of my country should have no say in the matter. Likewise, if a member nation so desires to ban the act of abortion, then member nations, particularly those not in my region, should have no say in the matter. Resolution #61 ultimately is an infringement on the national rights of each individual sovriegn member nation.

Just a short while ago I added my repeal to this current resolution. If you read it, I think that most if not all will agree with it.

Have you started your own thread about this? It would probably help the most if you did. Just remember to use the thread title of "Repeal of Abortion Rights" rather than "Repeal of Proposal 1097" and repost your repeal proposal there.

I guess whoever drafted resolution #61 would lead to an entire movement.

It seems like this argument is gaining ground. I now have a region named 'Union of Soverign Nations.' You don't have to join my region, but I'll soon have a website for all nations in my anti-UN alliance.

I guess whoever drafted resolution #61 would lead to an entire movement.

It seems like this argument is gaining ground. I now have a region named 'Union of Soverign Nations.' You don't have to join my region, but I'll soon have a website for all nations in my anti-UN alliance.

Be sure to contact the region "Gatesville" they're anti-UN, too.

Here here on the long statement, New Tyrollia.

Reason #902 I don't take the arguement against seriously....

You know, we could also keep saying that we don't take your argument seriously as a cop-out for not having any valid response, if we so desired. But, considering the situation, Mr. There-is-no-way-that-is-a-human emotional appealer . . .

Be sure to contact the region "Gatesville" they're anti-UN, too.

Will do. There's a few anti-UN regions out there. If anyone knows more, let me know.

I don't want one big anti-UN region, I want a coalition of regions.

It is in my opinion that to be anti-U.N. it is an absolute necessity that you are apart of the U.N.

How are you to fight the U.N. and win when you are not apart of it?

So, The Lagonia States, do not waste your time with nations or regions that are not apart of the U.N. or are unwilling to join.

My region, Conservative Bloc, is 14-nations large and we'd be happy to support your resolutions or requested repeals.

I check the U.N. just about every other day to approve every request to appeal "Abortion Rights".

I suggest you launch a campaign, one that I'd be willing to aid in, that lobbys support from sympathetic delegates so that they are able to approve requested repeals.

Because I think part of the problem is that many of these delegates do not know of the requested repeals - they simply do not check the list of proposals.

Launching a campaign and encouraging them to do so may just drum up enough support.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

You may have a point. It's sad, but the only way to oppose the UN may be to join. However, I'm not willing to obey their laws, pure and simple. If we are able to grow large enough, we could storm the UN.

By the way, can you endorse me? I lost all of my endorsements when I moved.

If we are able to grow large enough, we could storm the UN.
Heh.

Hehehe.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA ... {remember to breathe} ... HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA!

... hehehehe ...

heh.

Guys.

The UN is the organisation of our nationstates. There is no United Nations building to have stormed; it is just a part of our lives. If the UN is against something believed in your nation, it is because the majority of voters (or delegates) are against you.

The only way to have the UN opposed is to... oh. Ahem. ((OOC: The only way to oppose the UN is to create your OWN website game with your own game mechanics for its own, non-encroaching version of the UN.))

So, you can either have that done. Or, you can have your nation resigned. Or, you can try your best to have YOUR ideals imposed on the world, instead of others'.

You may have a point. It's sad, but the only way to oppose the UN may be to join. However, I'm not willing to obey their laws, pure and simple. If we are able to grow large enough, we could storm the UN.

By the way, can you endorse me? I lost all of my endorsements when I moved.

Oh my goddess, I have the most wonderful image of a huge load of nations charging across the front lawn of the UN waving lightsabers shouting "FREEDOM!!!" at the tops of their voices!!

Oh my goddess, I have the most wonderful image of a huge load of nations charging across the front lawn of the UN waving lightsabers shouting "FREEDOM!!!" at the tops of their voices!!

ROFLMAO!!!!

*pulls out lightsaber* Who's with me? :D

ROFLMAO!!!!

*pulls out lightsaber* Who's with me? :D

Techincally I would be standing on the lawn, defending the UN. But I have my lightsaber ready and waiting for all those who would come!

Guys.

The UN is the organisation of our nationstates. There is no United Nations building to have stormed; it is just a part of our lives. If the UN is against something believed in your nation, it is because the majority of voters (or delegates) are against you. ...
... So, you can either have that done. Or, you can have your nation resigned. Or, you can try your best to have YOUR ideals imposed on the world, instead of others'.

In my understanding, the majority of the 'anti-UN' faction is not so much opposed to the idea of the UN as to how it is being used. The intent is not to 'destroy' the UN, but to turn it from 'the Global Government' whose will is imposed on all members, and into an 'Alliance of Nations' who agree to uphold certain values agreed upon by all.

I don't want one big anti-UN region, I want a coalition of regions.

Actually, one big region would be the most effective. I'll explain why.

First, remember how voting in the UN works.
1) Every member nation has one vote.
2a) Every region may elect one delegate nation
2b) The regional delegate has one vote, plus an additional vote for every nation in their region who endorses them.

So consider the first situation, where we have a coalition of regions working in concert. Assume, for simplicities sake, that there are ten regions in this coalition, each with ten nations. Each region would therefore contribute 19 votes. (Each nation's individual vote: 10, The 'additional' votes granted the regional delegate by the endorsment of the other nations: '9') Since there are ten regions, this coalition has a voting power of 190 votes. Not bad.

Now, consider what would occur if all of these regions were to merge into a single group. We'll use the same number of nations as above (100), and make the same assumption that everyone is endorsing the same delegate. Now the voting power has risen to 199 votes. (Each nation's individual vote: 100, The 'additional' votes granted the regional delegate by the endorsment of the other nations: '99') An increase of 9 votes is not a huge difference, granted, but it is a difference. The way it works out is that every region that insists upon remaining seperate is another vote lost to the coalition.

Consider this further: switching regions takes all of six seconds. Naturally, members of the coalition will not agree upon every issue that comes up in the UN, and would be hesitent to move to a large region where the delegate may not vote according to their beliefs. Since this group would not be interested in espousing any one particular viewpoint, but simply in ensuring that the UN does not overstep it's bounds, this is not necessary.
All that is required is one 'groundskeeper' who founds and maintains the region. All the members of the coalition remain in their respective regions, and vote on issues according to their respectie beliefs. However, when a proposal comes before the UN that is in step with (or proposed by) the coalition, every member recives the regional password and moves to the central region. They then form into their voting bloc, push through the resolution, then disband and return to their respective regions.

No, I was not watching 'Transformers' while I thought of this. :D

Actually, one big region would be the most effective. I'll explain why.

First, remember how voting in the UN works.
1) Every member nation has one vote.
2a) Every region may elect one delegate nation
2b) The regional delegate has one vote, plus an additional vote for every nation in their region who endorses them.

So consider the first situation, where we have a coalition of regions working in concert. Assume, for simplicities sake, that there are ten regions in this coalition, each with ten nations. Each region would therefore contribute 19 votes. (Each nation's individual vote: 10, The 'additional' votes granted the regional delegate by the endorsment of the other nations: '9') Since there are ten regions, this coalition has a voting power of 190 votes. Not bad.

Now, consider what would occur if all of these regions were to merge into a single group. We'll use the same number of nations as above (100), and make the same assumption that everyone is endorsing the same delegate. Now the voting power has risen to 199 votes. (Each nation's individual vote: 100, The 'additional' votes granted the regional delegate by the endorsment of the other nations: '99') An increase of 9 votes is not a huge difference, granted, but it is a difference. The way it works out is that every region that insists upon remaining seperate is another vote lost to the coalition.

Not quite correct. The best strategy would be to create lots of "mini nations" with 3 UN members in each, plus a placeholder non-UN puppet.

Lets use your 100 people.

That gives you 33 Delegate Endorsements for the initial passage - you're a quarter of the way there.

When it comes up to vote, you have (100 members) + (2 per region due to Delegate "bonus votes" x 33 regions) = 166 votes if you stay in the same regions

Here's the beauty.

Once it is being voted on (not "made quorum", as you will wipe out your own resolutions quorum), you all move to one region. Then, en masse, you all vote for the proposal.

This gives a whopping 199 votes for.

When the vote is over, move back to your original regions.

Mobile tactics.

Here's the problem, though. In order to do anything here, you need to be a member of the UN, and in order to be a UN member, you have to sacrifice all of your ideals.

The UN has become as corrupt as the real UN, and is passing laws it has no right to pass. I happen to be in the conservitive minority, and that means that I'll never get my resolutions passed, or even brought to vote. My voice isn't heard, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

This is why we need another UN, one for those of us who don't agree with the left-wing of this site.

I want to have fun here, I want to play this game, but you seem to be more interested in getting me and my views out of the game than letting me have fun, and it's pissing me off.

Here's the problem, though. In order to do anything here, you need to be a member of the UN, and in order to be a UN member, you have to sacrifice all of your ideals.

The UN has become as corrupt as the real UN, and is passing laws it has no right to pass. I happen to be in the conservitive minority, and that means that I'll never get my resolutions passed, or even brought to vote. My voice isn't heard, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

This is why we need another UN, one for those of us who don't agree with the left-wing of this site.

I want to have fun here, I want to play this game, but you seem to be more interested in getting me and my views out of the game than letting me have fun, and it's pissing me off.
I am in 100% agreement with you. The only problem would be that we would have to leave and make our own site since the rules clear all of the above mentioned up. You want to play and have any affect, join the UN. However joining the UN has numerous downfalls. Can't win them all.

I think it's been proven that I can't win any of 'em.

The easiest way to fight the UN is to destroy it's legitimacy. If no one was in it anymore, then it would go away. Let them rot away in the UN, I resign

apologize in advance for such a long post and for cross-posting in the other thread. I am against leaving abortion rights decisions to individual nations because I see it as a human rights issue, just like genital mutilation or any other "forcing" of persons to do something potentially painful or fatal with their bodies. Not that I think the current resolution is all that well written, but until NS allows addendums rather than repeals with no certainty of replacement with something better, I have to vote against any repeal of abortion rights. Consider the following:

The father of a child has never seen the child and does not know the child, nor does he want to; it was the result of a one-night stand that he has regretted ever since. He works at a very low paying physical job and knows that he could not be a good father to a child both emotionally and monetarily. At birth it is soon realized that the child has a horrible disease, and the only way to save the child is to find the father to immediately act as a donor (the mother and other family test negative as donors); otherwise the child will for certain die and there is no other way. The process of donating involves the child and father being hooked together via tubing 24 hours a day for 6 months, but because the child and pump are small, and the donation process keeps the child asleep, the father can basically carry the child on his back or front in a carrier for the duration. However, the father is worried that he will lose his job over this, a job which does not even pay enough to support himself let alone support both of them in their condition with medical bills, etc. To make matters worse, the mother has fled the country. Plus, the process of donation is very long and involved, and makes the father quite ill at times and he worries that it may affect his ability to do his job in addition to the physical reality of wear and tear on his body from the donation and carrying the child around all day. In addition, the donation method has been known to result in unforeseen serious complications or even death of both the donor and child in a small percentage of cases. Sometimes the doctors can spot such complications early enough to stop the donation process, but not always, resulting in death or disability of the father I addition to the child.

So, the questions are:
1) should the father feel morally obligated to do this for the child?
2) should there be a law forcing the father to do this?
3) should the UN leave it up to individual nations whether they can force the father to do this or is it a universal human rights issue?

Compare to:

The mother of a foetus has never seen the foetus and does not know the foetus, nor does she want to; it was the result of a one-night stand that she has regretted ever since. She works at a very low paying physical job and knows that she could not be a good mother to a child both emotionally and monetarily. The mother must either carry the foetus for a full term pregnancy or abort it. The foetus cannot survive outside the mother so there is no other way. Pregnancy is 24 hours a day for 9 months. The mother is worried that she will lose her job over this, a job which does not even pay enough to support herself let alone support a pregnancy with medical bills, etc. To make matters worse, the father has fled the country. Plus, the pregnancy makes the mother quite ill at times and she worries that it may affect her ability to do her job in addition to the physical reality of wear and tear on her body from the pregnancy and carrying the foetus around all day.. In addition, pregnancy has been known to result in unforeseen serious complications or even death of both the mother and foetus in a small percentage of cases. Sometimes the doctors can spot such complications early enough to abort the pregnancy, but not always, resulting in death or disability of the mother in addition to the foetus.

So, the questions are:
1) should the mother feel morally obligated to do this for the foetus?
2) should there be a law forcing the mother to do this?
3) should the UN leave it up to individual nations whether they can force the mother to do this or is it a universal human rights issue?

Okay, the first scenario may sound like science fiction, but it was the closest I could come to a pregnancy scenario for the father. Note that I have even used child and foetus interchangeably, since most pro-lifers consider them the same thing (I don’t, but I do not argue from that point, so it doesn’t matter).

Some people will no doubt say they must both be forced into it. Such an answer then brings up the question of whether a genetic parent can then be forced by law to donate a body part/fluids or undergo medical treatment for their children (even if they don’t have/want custody) and why people see pregnancy as something sacred and magical rather than a simpe case of womb-lending (and donation of body fluids).

My answer is that many people do and probably should feel morally obligated in both scenerios, but in neither case should be forced into it and no nation should be allowed to force either into it in either case.

]Once it is being voted on (not "made quorum", as you will wipe out your own resolutions quorum), you all move to one region. Then, en masse, you all vote for the proposal.

Yes, I was only refering to actually voting on the proposal when it was up for general voting, I neglected to consider what the strategy would be for passing quorum on a resolution. Your modified idea of having everyone as dispersed as possible for the initial stage, and as concentrated as possible for the final stage is perfect.

Here's the problem, though. In order to do anything here, you need to be a member of the UN, and in order to be a UN member, you have to sacrifice all of your ideals.

The UN has become as corrupt as the real UN, and is passing laws it has no right to pass. I happen to be in the conservitive minority, and that means that I'll never get my resolutions passed, or even brought to vote. My voice isn't heard, no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

This is why we need another UN, one for those of us who don't agree with the left-wing of this site.

I want to have fun here, I want to play this game, but you seem to be more interested in getting me and my views out of the game than letting me have fun, and it's pissing me off.

OOC: Awwww, daddy wuvs you anyway. Newsflash, Sparky - you can manage to get what you want passed, but you have to work the system the right way.

You don't have to "sacrifice" anything. You should learn to work within the system and with what the system creates. Instead, you're just "waah, I don't like this, I'm not having fun because things aren't going my way".

Any other UN is not going to affect your stats and will have no standing whatsoever - not even the "quick, throw bricks at it!" status this UN has.

No - the world isn't going to listen to you bellyache. It might listen if you figure out the game as it is, work within the rules, and cause it to dance your tune. Who knows, you might learn some diplomacy as well. Good skill in life.

Or you can bellyache.

The choice is yours.

Yes, I was only refering to actually voting on the proposal when it was up for general voting, I neglected to consider what the strategy would be for passing quorum on a resolution. Your modified idea of having everyone as dispersed as possible for the initial stage, and as concentrated as possible for the final stage is perfect.

Danke - I know how the system works, and can be exploited.

I think it's been proven that I can't win any of 'em.

The easiest way to fight the UN is to destroy it's legitimacy. If no one was in it anymore, then it would go away. Let them rot away in the UN, I resign

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Just because I resigned, doesn't mean I'm leaving the forum. I just refuse to uphold your resolutions

Just because I resigned, doesn't mean I'm leaving the forum. I just refuse to uphold your resolutions

...which means you have no vote. At all.

It works.

Lagonia States,

Just make a puppet nation, have IT apply to the UN instead, work to get your proposals passed, then, if successful, have it resigned and join the UN with your REAL nation.

Just because I resigned, doesn't mean I'm leaving the forum. I just refuse to uphold your resolutions

A little example of how I get around it:

The DLE Empire is made up of four nations. One of those nations is a UN member. The rest of the Empire is not. Thus, the UN member always complies, while the rest of the empire can choose not to.