NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Fellow U.N. Members,

First let me begin by saying that whether you are 'Pro-Choice' or 'Pro-Life', I'm sure we will all agree on why the resolution "Abortion Rights" - resolution #61 - must be repealed.

This resolution was poorly constructed, and gave women the right to an abortion without any necessary restrictions.

Here is the entire resolution:

"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."

Yes, an entire resolution in that one sentence.

Now, what is wrong with a resolution like that?

It legalizes abortion at any time during pregnancy, this includes 'partial birth abortion'.

For those of you who may not know, 'partial birth abortion' is the name of the abortion procedure done during the 7th, 8th, or 9th month of pregnancy - or the 'third trimester'.

Now, without going into much detail - let's just say that the procedure is barbaic. Feel free to Google it yourself, at your own risk. It is - disturbing.

What is even more disturbing? That the procedure is never needed medically, thus never needed at all.

I'm sure that those of you who believe in a woman's right to choose, will see that this steps over a line - that this resolution does not set necessary restrictions.

I have talked to many people who are Pro-Choice, and even they are against the 'partial birth abortion' procedure.

So, I am asking that all U.N. delegates support my repeal for resolution #61. Remember, you can be for abortion - and against this resolution.

Also, as The Lagonia States pointed out in their request to repeal abortion rights (feel free to support that repeal as well), "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."

Please, I urge you all to support my repeal of 'Abortion Rights'. It sets no limits, and it is poorly constructed.

Thank you all,
The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The people of Demographika would like to support this idea. The resolution was not well thought out, and our Legislative Assembly had to pass additional laws to guarantee the cordoning of the effects of this resolution.

+support.

I appreciate the support, thank you to the people of Demographika.

Partial birht abortion is absolutely barbaric, I agree. To those ignorant and blindly-supportive pro-choice fans:

A baby is reversed in the womb so that it is delivered feet first, and before its head fully emerges from the cervix (crowning can be considered official birth, when the baby's head emerges), the doctor stabs it with medical scissors, inserts a suction, sucks the brains out, collapsing the infant's skull and kill it (obviously). I don't see how this is any different from murder, as the baby is exactly the same then, as it would be 5 minutes later, whe killing it would result in prosecution and a couple of conseucutive life sentences.

Taking it a bit further...

If killing an infant is just as punishable as killing an adult, why is killing a 'fetus' not just as punishable as killing an infant? (I would like to add how funnny it is that people always refer to the 'baby' in the womb ('oh my baby is kicking', or 'i can feel the baby coming') but when it comes to abortion, it is a fetus...no longer alive...a paperweight for their cause.) That group of cells (not 'just' a group of cells) has so much potential, that it practically is a child right there. Everything it will ever be is encoded in that DNA...the only difference is it is not developed.

Dresophila Prime:

I applaud your enthusiasm! I also agree with much, or rather everything, that you have said.

I think we could have done without the description of partial birth abortion, but perhaps it will illustrate just how wrong and evil the practice is - and show just exactly why the 'Abortion Rights' resolution must be repealed.

Please, urge others to vote for my repeal - now in the United Nations under 'List Proposals' at the bottom. Page 8 I believe.

Thank you, Dresophila Prime, on behalf of The Armed Republic of Aliste. :)

EDIT: Oh and also please support the other proposal to repeal "Abortion Rights" by The Lagonia States. It's in the United Nations right now, under 'List Proposals' - page 2 I believe.

While I will admit there is some posibility that the resolution could have been more prescice, I wasn't in the UN when it was drafted and proposed, so I am willing to trust those who framed it in their decision.

And if it was possible to amend a resolution, I would (maybe) accept that this resolution should be amended.

However to protect the rights that this resolution grants to UN member nations I am not willing to trust to luck that another resolution will replace this one if this one is repealed.

So sadly I can't support your repeal.

TilEnca,

The resolution passed by a razor sharp few 1,000 votes.

Most resolutions pass by a lot more.

I assume those few who voted for it that put it over and had it passed failed to realize that it created no restrictions.

Please, reconsider?

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

All this hoopla about "partial birth" (what an insidously misleading name) abortions is nothing but right wing fear propaganda.

I have myself assisted at several abortions and they are not as they are portrayed to be, and "partial birth" or not, is not enough to curtail abortion rights.

Fass will always support the woman's right to choose and put the already living before the unborn.

Fass:

You have greatly, greatly - misunderstood. Rather embarassing, really.

We understand that there are many types of abortions, D&C being the most common.

To be honest, you failing to go into much detail about the abortions you "assisted in" make me wonder - I bet I could describe the most common procedure D&C better than you. Heh.

What I am saying is that, for everyone who has read Fass' post - do not be so quick to believe it.

And getting back to you misunderstanding, the point of repealing this resolution is that it made no restrictions. Partial birth abortion is legal under this resolution, and because of that it must be repealed.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

TilEnca,

The resolution passed by a razor sharp few 1,000 votes.

Most resolutions pass by a lot more.

I assume those few who voted for it that put it over and had it passed failed to realize that it created no restrictions.

Please, reconsider?

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The arguement that the few who voted for it failed to work out what it would mean is somewhat fallacious. Because the amount who voted against it either did a very bad job of getting the point across that it contained no restrictions, or didn't realise it themselves.

And regardless of how small the margin was, that is not a suitable reason to repeal it (at least in my view).

Can you promise me, right now, that a replacement resolution would pass making sure every woman can have an abortion, if this is repealed?

Because if you can't then there is no way I am going to support this being repealed.

The resolution passed by a razor sharp few 1,000 votes.

And all of the repeals have failed to get over 100 endorsements, including ones that make the arguement you are. Your arguement is not new and has been shot down over a hundred times already.

Can you promise me, right now, that a replacement resolution would pass making sure every woman can have an abortion, if this is repealed?

Unfortunately, TilEnca - I cannot promise you that.

But I will say this, that it is very likely another resolution would replace it with more restrictions.

There are a lot of people who are for abortion, another resolution will get passed I'm sure.

But I cannot make that promise, sorry.

Unfortunately, TilEnca - I cannot promise you that.

But I will say this, that it is very likely another resolution would replace it with more restrictions.

There are a lot of people who are for abortion, another resolution will get passed I'm sure.

But I cannot make that promise, sorry.

Then this resolution stays as the lesser of two evils, because without it there is no protection anywhere.

Then this resolution stays as the lesser of two evils, because without it there is no protection anywhere.

TilEnca, I'm not going to try and convince you that another resolution will be put in it's place.

But if you feel that this resolution is the lesser of two evils - you have a strange and skewed portrait of this issue.

Do you know how partial birth abortions are performed? We are talking about a resolution that fails to protect preborn childen in the 7th, 8th, and 9th month of development.

That means a woman could be pushing out a baby and right then and there ask for it to be aborted. Because it isn't outside of the womb yet.

I don't think that would be likely, but the point is it could happen. And that's - distrubing, is it not?

And granted, it probably won't be an everyday occurance or an 'all-the-time' kind of thing - but hell - one 9th month preborn child being murdered via abortion (protected under this resolution) is one too many.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

TilEnca, I'm not going to try and convince you that another resolution will be put in it's place.

But if you feel that this resolution is the lesser of two evils - you have a strange and skewed portrait of this issue.

Do you know how partial birth abortions are performed? We are talking about a resolution that fails to protect preborn childen in the 7th, 8th, and 9th month of development.

That means a woman could be pushing out a baby and right then and there ask for it to be aborted. Because it isn't outside of the womb yet.

I don't think that would be likely, but the point is it could happen. And that's - distrubing, is it not?

And granted, it probably won't be an everyday occurance or an 'all-the-time' kind of thing - but hell - one 9th month preborn child being murdered via abortion (protected under this resolution) is one too many.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Do you know how general abortions were performed before there were clinics and proper procedures? Women stuck coat hangers in to their wombs in an attempt to dislogde the fetus and produce a miscarriage. This lead to the women sometimes being permenantly maimed, or them bleeding to death in their own front room.

And one women dying because this is repealed is one too many.

It might not be the lesser of two evils by much, but it is.

Do you know how general abortions were performed before there were clinics and proper procedures? Women stuck coat hangers in to their wombs in an attempt to dislogde the fetus and produce a miscarriage.

Trying to pull on some heart strings? Good idea, but I'm not stupid - too bad, eh?

There have been very few (if any?) credible stories of women performing abortions on themselves with coat hangers.

Before abortion was made legal, the VAST majority of illegal abortions were done in a physician's office or the woman would purposely take drugs known to cause miscarriages such as drugs to treat ulcers.

This lead to the women sometimes being permenantly maimed, or them bleeding to death in their own front room.

Abortion is legal, and still women are being maimed and bleeding to death. I have read stories of women having their bowels pulled through their vaginas. How do you like that? Hm?

Trying to pull on some heart strings? Good idea, but I'm not stupid - too bad, eh?


And the description of a partial birth abortion was in no way an attempt at an emotive attack?

The truth is you really are not going to change my mind on this basis. Nor on the basis that it should be national sovereignty, because I don't believe that either.

The only way I will move on this position is if amendments are permitted to resolutions.

You say that there might be a resolution to regrant women the rights of abortion if we repel the resolution but you still want us to tell UN Delegates to tell them to support this proposal? This is insane.

You say that there might be a resolution to regrant women the rights of abortion if we repel the resolution but you still want us to tell UN Delegates to tell them to support this proposal? This is insane.

Countries can choose individually whether or not they would like abortion to be legal, when it comes up as an issue.

So I guess if you're Pro-Choice, then you'll repeal this resolution. Heh.

EDIT: Actually, I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.

It's not even necessary, countries can choose individually whether or not they'd like abortion to be legal in their countries. It comes up as an issue every so often.

And if you really are PRO-CHOICE then you'll repeal this U.N. amendment and make your own choice rather than having the U.N. tell you what to do - even if you agree with it.

Countries can choose individually whether or not they would like abortion to be legal, when it comes up as an issue.

So I guess if you're Pro-Choice, then you'll repeal this resolution. Heh.

EDIT: Actually, I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier.

It's not even necessary, countries can choose individually whether or not they'd like abortion to be legal in their countries. It comes up as an issue every so often.

And if you really are PRO-CHOICE then you'll repeal this U.N. amendment and make your own choice rather than having the U.N. tell you what to do - even if you agree with it.

I have explained this previously, when someone else was attempting to repeal the Abortion Rights proposal. (OOC - I am trying to get in to habit of not using numbers, but names, for resolutions. This makes it easier to work out which ones are being referred to!).

Even though I am pro-choice, I do not accept that this should be repealed. Firstly because - as I have stated - in the days before abortions were legal, things were not good for women, a state I don't wish to see the world return to. Secondly - it would be pointless anyway, because anyone in GeminiLand who can't get an abortion any more, because it is run by old men (who don't think women should have rights, let alone control of their own bodies) can just nip across the border to TilEnca and do it anyway. Third it will set the women's rights movement back about two thousand years.

Until it can be amended under UN legislation then it stays. Because it leaves it up to the woman, which is where it should be.

TilEnca, there are so many things wrong with what you have said I do not know where to begin!

Even though I am pro-choice, I do not accept that this should be repealed.

So you're Pro-Choice, but you want the U.N. to impose a resolution on every country legalizing abortion? Doesn't that kind of sound like the opposite of choice? Heh.

I believe every country should decide individually. I guess that makes me more Pro-Choice than you. :)

In fact, I guess you aren't Pro-Choice at all.

Firstly because - as I have stated - in the days before abortions were legal, things were not good for women, a state I don't wish to see the world return to.

Uh huh, go on? And now that abortion is legal - women are still being hurt. Have you ever read any of these post-abortion stories? Pretty disturbing.

I've seen countless pictures of women being taken by ambulance to hospitals after their botched abortions.

How many pictures have you seen of women with coathangers in their vagina?

Secondly - it would be pointless anyway, because anyone in GeminiLand who can't get an abortion any more, because it is run by old men (who don't think women should have rights, let alone control of their own bodies) can just nip across the border to TilEnca and do it anyway.

Old men? Are you implying all who are against abortion are - 'old men' ? Please, tell me another. I meet by far more Pro-Life women then I do men.

And just because they can 'do it anyways' does not mean it should be legal. People can drink and drive anyways, but it's illegal - right? Exactly.

Third it will set the women's rights movement back about two thousand years.

Funny you mentioned that, one of the founders of the women's rights movement - Susan B. Anthony - called abortion 'child murder'. Heh.

Real feminists are against abortion - like Susan B. Anthony.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

The aim of this resolution is to make clear the position of the UN regarding abortion. The majority of members in this body obviously wish to see abortion both legal and provide woman with the ability to make a choice for themselves. The simple fact remain that without this legislation abortion will be made illegal in many member states and that is not a position I would wish on any woman. By that argument this becomes a very international issue in my opinion and arguments regarding leaving it up to member states becomes completely superfluous.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Real feminists are against abortion - like Susan B. Anthony.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Real feminists are for equality. Abortion has nothing to do with it.

So you're Pro-Choice, but you want the U.N. to impose a resolution on every country legalizing abortion? Doesn't that kind of sound like the opposite of choice? Heh.

I believe every country should decide individually. I guess that makes me more Pro-Choice than you. :)

In fact, I guessing you aren't Pro-Choice at all.


I want to leave it in the hands of THE WOMEN not THE STATE. That is what I mean by pro-choice.

Take the state out of it, by giving the state no chance to prevent it. Then it comes down to the choice of a single woman - do I want an abortion, or don't I? Because the resolution as it stands does not force pregnant women to get abortions - it lets them decide.
By making it the choice of the state you take the choice out of the hands of the person it should be in.

That's pretty much my last word on the matter, because I have already had this arguement several dozen times before and you know what - not a single person, whether they use "logic" or "emotive attacks" or "random religious" arguements, has ever changed my position that it should be in the hands of the women, not the hands of the government.

Real feminists are for equality. Abortion has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, you're right. Abortion is a completely different issue.

The aim of this resolution is to make clear the position of the UN regarding abortion.

Yes. Though it does rather more than that.

The majority of members in this body obviously wish to see abortion both legal and provide woman with the ability to make a choice for themselves.

And...

The simple fact remain that without this legislation abortion will be made illegal in many member states and that is not a position I would wish on any woman.

True.

By that argument this becomes a very international issue in my opinion and arguments regarding leaving it up to member states becomes completely superfluous.

Incorrect. The only conclusion we can draw from your argument as it stands is that you are for resolution #61.

Perhaps you would like to expand your argument so that the relationship between the illegalization of abortion in many member states and "international issue" is clear. I would not think the fact that streaking is illegal in many member states makes it an international issue either.

To be honest, you failing to go into much detail about the abortions you "assisted in" make me wonder - I bet I could describe the most common procedure D&C better than you. Heh.

What I am saying is that, for everyone who has read Fass' post - do not be so quick to believe it.

OOC: I am a med. student and have finished a rotation at a maternity clinic. I have seen all kinds of abortions, and granted the "partial birth" ones were very rare, but they were in no way as gruesome or cruel as fear propaganda makes them out to be.

And getting back to you misunderstanding, the point of repealing this resolution is that it made no restrictions. Partial birth abortion is legal under this resolution, and because of that it must be repealed.

How can I misunderstand when you here right acknowledge that "partial birth" abortions are your main reasons for abolishing this resolution?

And I will reiterate:

They are not cause enough to recall such an important resolution. They are also exceedingly rare. Your fear propaganda does not faze the government of Fass.

Fass,

Partial birth abortions are very rare - I know that.

But the problem I have with the resolution is:

1.) The countries should decide for themselves. That's real CHOICE.
2.) Although rare, a resolution should not legalize the practice of partial birth abortion.

1.) The countries should decide for themselves. That's real CHOICE.

The whole point of the UN is that countries come in line via resolutions. If a country wants to "decide for [itself]", it has no business being in the UN.

2.) Although rare, a resolution should not legalize the practice of partial birth abortion.

Why not?

Perhaps you would like to expand your argument so that the relationship between the illegalization of abortion in many member states and "international issue" is clear. I would not think the fact that streaking is illegal in many member states makes it an international issue either.

Ok - this is rather a long winded explanation, so you have to stay with me :}

The members of the UN have demonstrated over and over again that they want the UN to concern itself with human rights, or at least various rights of the individual to be as free from harm as possible, and to be in charge of their own lives. This can be shown in the resolutions that outlaw slavery, outlaw pedophillia and so forth (actually - those are the only two I can remember).

In both cases these can be seen as national issues - the right of a person to keep slaves without taking them from other countries and the right of people to educate their own children about sex (or not in either case) .

(I am not advocating them in either case, before you get curious).

The right of a woman not to be forced to have a child against her will is equivalent to the right of a child not to be molseted, or a person not to be owned. Or at least I would argue that. And if you repeal the Abortion Rights resolution then a nation can take it upon themselves to do just that.

So if the UN can protect the rights of children to remain unmolseted, and people can not be owned in their own country, then why can't women be protected from forced pregnancy by the same UN?

That's my arguement for it being an international issue, rather than just national.

Perhaps you would like to expand your argument so that the relationship between the illegalization of abortion in many member states and "international issue" is clear. I would not think the fact that streaking is illegal in many member states makes it an international issue either.

Indeed and thank you, though if I am not mistaken it has already been covered. If the legal status of abortion is left to members it will inevitably lead to women going to member states where they can have abortion, if it is illegal in their own nation. This migration of women across international borders I feel makes this an international issue.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Indeed and thank you, though if I am not mistaken it has already been covered. If the legal status of abortion is left to members it will inevitably lead to women going to member states where they can have abortion, if it is illegal in their own nation. This migration of women across international borders I feel makes this an international issue.

Actually, that just makes the migration of women across international borders for the purposes of having an abortion an international issue.

What if my country has a policy of not giving government-issued driving tests to our citizens, and those citizens migrate across international borders in order to take a driving test? Would driving tests now be an international issue? What about ice cream? If there is no ice cream in my nation and that causes people to cross international borders to buy ice cream, then ice cream is now an international issue? ROFLMAO!

Haha. Nice, Texan. :D

Well, I think that a lot of people disagree with me - but oh well.

I say leave it up to the individual countries.

If you truly are Pro-Choice, then repeal this resolution and let it be left up to your own country. That's called choice, that's real choice.

Ok - this is rather a long winded explanation, so you have to stay with me :}

The members of the UN have demonstrated over and over again that they want the UN to concern itself with human rights, or at least various rights of the individual to be as free from harm as possible, and to be in charge of their own lives. This can be shown in the resolutions that outlaw slavery, outlaw pedophillia and so forth (actually - those are the only two I can remember).

So? The UN members could decide that they want to concern themselves with my eating habits, or tarantulas, but that doesn't make it the UN's right to write resolutions dealing with that.

In both cases these can be seen as national issues - the right of a person to keep slaves without taking them from other countries and the right of people to educate their own children about sex (or not in either case).

Correct.

The right of a woman not to be forced to have a child against her will is equivalent to the right of a child not to be molseted, or a person not to be owned. Or at least I would argue that. And if you repeal the Abortion Rights resolution then a nation can take it upon themselves to do just that.

Correct.

So if the UN can protect the rights of children to remain unmolseted, and people can not be owned in their own country, then why can't women be protected from forced pregnancy by the same UN?

It has little to do with what the UN "can" do. It is a question of whether that action is appropriate and/or legally justifiable. For example, I can run my brother over with a car, but that does not make it appropriate or legally justifiable.

What if my country has a policy of not giving government-issued driving tests to our citizens, and those citizens migrate across international borders in order to take a driving test? Would driving tests now be an international issue? What about ice cream? If there is no ice cream in my nation and that causes people to cross international borders to buy ice cream, then ice cream is now an international issue? ROFLMAO!

**Smiles**

Though I see your point I don’t agree, as you would probably expect. There is also the matter that the UN is seeking to better the lives of citizens in member states and forcing a pregnant woman to travel perhaps hundreds of miles simply to get an abortion is surely not right.

With regard to driving tests, we will be more than pleased to accept drivers for Texan Hotrodders if they adhere to Telidian road traffic regulations and safety standards particularly if the wish to boost our ice cream industry and spend their hard earned money boosting our economy. :D

Well excuse me Telidia, but who the hell are you to tell me what to do with my country?

Keep your U.N. resolutions off of my country! Heh. :p

**Smiles**

Though I see your point I don’t agree, as you would probably expect. There is also the matter that the UN is seeking to better the lives of citizens in member states and forcing a pregnant woman to travel perhaps hundreds of miles simply to get an abortion is surely not right.

With regard to driving tests, we will be more than pleased to accept drivers for Texan Hotrodders if they adhere to Telidian road traffic regulations and safety standards particularly if the wish to boost our ice cream industry and spend their hard earned money boosting our economy. :D

But is it not a travesty that a nation could make a pregnant woman travel perhaps hundreds of miles to get ice cream? :D

Telida, perhaps. The thing to consider is the question of if they will have to. A thriving black market, well-funded by crime syndicates, could spring up to make things interesting.

I know it has been discussed before, but in this case I feel it is a valid response to the idea of them having to drive hundreds of miles.

And drug lords are shipping in cocaine and marijuana from Mexico.

And? That doesn't mean we should accept it and legalize marijuana and cocaine.

Well excuse me Telidia, but who the hell are you to tell me what to do with my country?

Keep your U.N. resolutions off of my country! Heh.
With complete respect, who are you to force me to fund abortions for your citizens should you choose to make it illegal? Please try and refrain from creating policy that places an undue burden on my treasury. :)

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

With complete respect, who are you to force me to fund abortions for your citizens should you choose to make it illegal? Please try and refrain from creating policy that places an undue burden on my treasury.

Telidia, I do not understand. I'm not going to legalize abortion in my country just so that they do not hop over to yours. Heh.

If I don't want abortion legal in my country than I should be able to make it illegal.

Let the countries decide for themselves.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

And drug lords are shipping in cocaine and marijuana from Mexico.

And? That doesn't mean we should accept it and legalize marijuana and cocaine.

Actually I don’t completely agree with that argument, but that is for another debate another time. Besides where's Mexico? :D

With complete respect, who are you to force me to fund abortions for your citizens should you choose to make it illegal? Please try and refrain from creating policy that places an undue burden on my treasury. :)

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

While I understand your point, and don't approve of the way Aliste expressed her(?) point, I would like to note that it was the choice of *your* nation to fund abortions with money from your treasury.

The one thing you have to understand, Texan, is that people are not repsonsible for what they do...it's obviously oppression and the influence of the evil white devil...if people go to her country to get a legal abortion and she has to pay for it, it is not her fault for validating it...it's your fault for no validating it...

Wait...i got lost among the BS in that completely sarcastic statement...liberals shall always be a mystery... :confused:

Rofl! >_<

Dresophila Prime, that was good. lol. :D

While I understand your point, and don't approve of the way Aliste expressed her(?) point, I would like to note that it was the choice of *your* nation to fund abortions with money from your treasury.

Indeed I agree, but we could hardly turn down women seeking help, we are after all a nation that takes its humanitarian obligations seriously. On your earlier point regarding ice cream and traveling, the individual concerned made a free choice not one forced on them by legislation. Just a thought… :D

Seriously though...people have a freedom of choice...to do what they want. Don't get me wrong...this does not give them the freedom to kill innocent beings...

If people want to get an abortion in say, Sweden because they cannot in America, it's their choice to go to Sweden...but then Sweden cannot blame America for not validating abortion when they get a flood of immigrants (may I remind you they are only temporary)

In short, it's not the government's fault that people emigrate in situations like those.

but we could hardly turn down women seeking help

I wouldn't consider an abortion - "women seeking help". lol.

More like - "women seeking an undeserved luxury." :P

And drug lords are shipping in cocaine and marijuana from Mexico.

And? That doesn't mean we should accept it and legalize marijuana and cocaine.

Wasn't saying that. Was responding to the following:

There is also the matter that the UN is seeking to better the lives of citizens in member states and forcing a pregnant woman to travel perhaps hundreds of miles simply to get an abortion is surely not right.

Just pointing out citizens may not need to go to other countries. I was not arguing to legalize abortions.

Indeed I agree, but we could hardly turn down women seeking help, we are after all a nation that takes its humanitarian obligations seriously. On your earlier point regarding ice cream and traveling, the individual concerned made a free choice not one forced on them by legislation. Just a thought… :D

That's not the point. Look:

"Nation A" outlaws ice cream, so pregnant women travel perhaps hundreds of miles to get the ice cream in other nations.

we could hardly turn down women seeking help

Women getting help:

Parents: Don't have sex when you are a teen because we will throw you out if you have a child
Teachers: Don't have sex because you will drop out of school most likely to support this child
Health teacher: Don't have sex becaus eyou will get pregnant...and DIE...seriously don't do it (nah just joking)
NATURE: IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU GET PREGNANT!
Health teacher: use a rubber
Conscience: I might get pregnant if I have sex and I might need an abortion because I don't want a child...maybe I shouldn't have sex...
Friends: Have sex! (the stupidity of the friends implies that this is a dumb idea)

The point of that overexaggerated bit was to illustrate the fact that most women do in fact have tons of help prior to having sex and needing an abortion, and abortion is not a 'help' issue but merely a convenience in most cases.

In short, it's not the government's fault that people emigrate in situations like those.

In my humble opinion it is, because their decision is based directly on legislation passed by the government in question.

I wouldn't consider an abortion - "women seeking help". lol.

More like - "women seeking an undeserved luxury." :P

Forgive me, but I fail to see what you mean here. Probably just me, its getting quite late. :)

Dresophila Prime the example you just gave? I loved it. Heh. Exactly.

Telidia, well the point I was making was that the vast majority of these abortion cases - somewhere along the 95% figure - are that of 'birth control'.

Merely women getting abortions because she and her partner were irresponsible.

I say she and her partner because it takes two to tango.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Dresophila Prime the example you just gave? I loved it. Heh. Exactly.

Telidia, well the point I was making was that the vast majority of these abortion cases - somewhere along the 95% figure - are that of 'birth control'.

Merely women getting abortions because she and her partner were irresponsible.

I say she and her partner because it takes two to tango.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I find that I frequently o not get my point across clearly and you have summed up all I said, Aliste. Thank you for that.

It has little to do with what the UN "can" do. It is a question of whether that action is appropriate and/or legally justifiable. For example, I can run my brother over with a car, but that does not make it appropriate or legally justifiable.

It is a matter of perspective I admit :}

he point of that overexaggerated bit was to illustrate the fact that most women do in fact have tons of help prior to having sex and needing an abortion, and abortion is not a 'help' issue but merely a convenience in most cases.

And in other cases it is most certainly not for example in the case of rape. Simply outlawing it because it may be a case of convenience to some is not reason enough in my humble opinion. Women are either given a choice or not, there is no middle ground regardless of the reasons.

Merely women getting abortions because she and her partner were irresponsible.

I say she and her partner because it takes two to tango.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

That is exactly why I'm not arguing on either side. The exceptions to that are artificial insemination (no tangoing, just pregnancy), rape, and the condom bursting (that happens more often than anyone likes). But most of the time, it's pretty much what Aliste said.

Now, cases where the baby is threatening the mother's health are a subject I refuse to touch.

And in other cases it is most certainly not for example in the case of rape. Simply outlawing it because it may be a case of convenience to some is not reason enough in my humble opinion.

At this point I reach a sort of middle ground...but answer me this:

Is allowing thousands of infant deaths per week just because of the case of rape reason enough?

Haha. Nice, Texan. :D

Well, I think that a lot of people disagree with me - but oh well.

I say leave it up to the individual countries.

If you truly are Pro-Choice, then repeal this resolution and let it be left up to your own country. That's called choice, that's real choice.

And putting it in the hands of the people, not the state, is real choice. If you chose to have an abortion, you have one and the state doesn't stop you cause the state made it a crime. And if you don't chose to have an abortion you don't.

At this point I reach a sort of middle ground...but answer me this:

Is allowing thousands of infant deaths per week just because of the case of rape reason enough?

If you mean thousands of abortions per week - yes.

And putting it in the hands of the people, not the state, is real choice. If you chose to have an abortion, you have one and the state doesn't stop you cause the state made it a crime. And if you don't chose to have an abortion you don't.

Indeed, thank you.

If you chose to have an abortion, you have one and the state doesn't stop you cause the state made it a crime. And if you don't chose to have an abortion you don't.

If I wish to kill someone, the state won't stop me just because the state made it a crime.

If I wish to kill someone, the state won't stop me just because the state made it a crime.

Let's hope the state in which you do that does not have capital punishment.

If I wish to kill someone, the state won't stop me just because the state made it a crime.

No - but the state will punish you. Which might put you off doing it.

My point is that abortion is murder...my point is that you can't think that you can have an abortion, and that the state cannot inhibit you because they made a 'stupid' decision, because punishing murder can also be considered a 'stupid' decision, yet is accepted by the sane members of our society.

Now, cases where the baby is threatening the mother's health are a subject I refuse to touch.

It's not a case that I'd refuse to touch.

It's funny how many people fall for this - cases of a tubual pregnancy, a cancerous uterus, etc.

Do you really think a woman with a serious life-threatening pregnancy is going to march down to her nearest Planned Parenthood and get an abortion?

That's silly. You know? Heh. Abortions were never meant to save the lives of women, they're kind of - dare I say - sloppy?

Women will be put into surgery if something is wrong with their pregnancy - and the problem will try to be corrected.

Many times the woman will be saved, and the child will not. But that is not an abortion - that is a child dying indirectly as a result of an operation.

I saw a petition somewhere, or rather just a list - of physicians who were against abortion. And it explained how a woman never needs an abortion because of medical complications.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

It's not a case that I'd refuse to touch.

It's funny how many people fall for this - cases of a tubual pregnancy, a cancerous uterus, etc.

Do you really think a woman with a serious life-threatening pregnancy is going to march down to her nearest Planned Parenthood and get an abortion?

That's silly. You know? Heh. Abortions were never meant to save the lives of women, they're kind of - dare I say - sloppy?

Women will be put into surgery if something is wrong with their pregnancy - and the problem will try to be corrected.

Many times the woman will be saved, and the child will not. But that is not an abortion - that is a child dying indirectly as a result of an operation.

I saw a petition somewhere, or rather just a list - of physicians who were against abortion. And it explained how a woman never needs an abortion because of medical complications.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

And might I add that we live in the 21 century, with medical technology much more substantial than it was 100 years ago when many women actually did die of birth complications...

And might I add that we live in the 21 century, with medical technology much more substantial than it was 100 years ago when many women actually did die of birth complications...

Exactly. Good point.

That's not the point. Look:

"Nation A" outlaws ice cream, so pregnant women travel perhaps hundreds of miles to get the ice cream in other nations.

Is the above an international issue? Please answer, Telidia.

Is the above an international issue? Please answer, Telidia.

Does this ice cream have extra additives that give it a zing and a list of side effects like stuffy nose, congestion, headache, itchy eyes and in some cases a loss of unborn child?

lol

My point is that abortion is murder...my point is that you can't think that you can have an abortion, and that the state cannot inhibit you because they made a 'stupid' decision, because punishing murder can also be considered a 'stupid' decision, yet is accepted by the sane members of our society.

Ok, despite what appears to be a call to let murderers go free, I am not going to fall for the bait.

If you outlaw something, you take the choice away from the person and put it in the hands of the state.

If you make something legal, you take the choice away from the state and put it in the hands of the person.

Of the two conditions, I would say the second is far more of a "pro-choice" position than the first.

I saw a petition somewhere, or rather just a list - of physicians who were against abortion. And it explained how a woman never needs an abortion because of medical complications.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

A petition of people who were against abortion that explained abortion was not necessary for medical complications? You do surprise me.

these arguements never go anywhere

Person A: random fact for abortion
Person B: disputes random fact, with other random fact
Person B: follows up with new random fact
Person A: disputes the random fact, now gives dumbed down example, it continues down the road, back and forth
Person C: (that's me!) comes up, explains this, get's ignored and is the only one to realize that no one EVER changes their opinion until it effects them directly

Ok, despite what appears to be a call to let murderers go free, I am not going to fall for the bait.

If you outlaw something, you take the choice away from the person and put it in the hands of the state.

If you make something legal, you take the choice away from the state and put it in the hands of the person.

Of the two conditions, I would say the second is far more of a "pro-choice" position than the first.

Absolutely, TilEnca.

But this resolution needs to be repealed because it's taking the choice away from the U.N. nations.

Let us decide whether or not we want abortion to be legal in our own countries.

Besides, the resolution set no necessary restrictions.

Under the resolution, partial birth abortion is legal.

A petition of people who were against abortion that explained abortion was not necessary for medical complications? You do surprise me.

Those 'people' were physicians.

Is the above an international issue? Please answer, Telidia.

Apologies, I was getting round to it. :)

No I don’t feel it is because, firstly the chances of outlawing ice cream is minimal and as such any ‘migration’ you suggest would be very limited if not, extremely localised. The issue with abortion is not the same since there are a great number of member states that would make it illegal all across the NS world thus impacting a large number of member states.

Ok, despite what appears to be a call to let murderers go free, I am not going to fall for the bait.

If you outlaw something, you take the choice away from the person and put it in the hands of the state.

If you make something legal, you take the choice away from the state and put it in the hands of the person.

Of the two conditions, I would say the second is far more of a "pro-choice" position than the first.

Who says you have a choice in whether the baby dies or not? You had the choice ( a majority of the time) to create the baby, and now you have no more choice because he has reached the land of existence and is entitled to rights just like you and me. These include LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...not abortion in other countries.

And might I add that we live in the 21 century, with medical technology much more substantial than it was 100 years ago when many women actually did die of birth complications...

I don't suppose you want me to point out about the varying level of technology amongst nations? That - for example - my nation still has horse drawn carts in a lot of areas because cars are "new fangled devices"?

You do remember this resolution applies to a virtual world?

(I am not being patronising, I am just commenting)

Apologies, I was getting round to it. :)

No I don’t feel it is because, firstly the chances of outlawing ice cream is minimal and as such any ‘migration’ you suggest would be very limited if not, extremely localised. The issue with abortion is not the same since there are a great number of member states that would make it illegal all across the NS world thus impacting a large number of member states.

If ice cream were to be banned in the same number of nations that abortions are banned in, would ice cream then be an international issue?

Absolutely, TilEnca.

But this resolution needs to be repealed because it's taking the choice away from the U.N. nations.

Let us decide whether or not we want abortion to be legal in our own countries.

Besides, the resolution set no necessary restrictions.

Under the resolution, partial birth abortion is legal.

How can you say you agree with me, then go off at a tangent that totally disagrees with me?

While this resolution exists, the choice is in the hands of the women. Not the governments (who will ban it) but the women. Who can decide whether or not they want an abortion.

The moment this resolution is appealed, there will be nations where it will become illegal, thus taking the choice away from the women and putting it in the hands of the state.

How can you not see that there is a difference? That letting the state decide takes choice AWAY from the people, not giving it TO the people?

If ice cream were to be banned in the same number of nations that abortions are banned in, would ice cream then be an international issue?

(grin) And the fact that not getting ice-cream is not entirely comparable with forcing a woman to have a child against her will? (Just asking!)

Well, by that logic I should allow my people to make decisions about whether or not they'd like to steal, speed, kill people, do drugs, etc.

My country is a Republic, the government IS the people.

If my government bans abortion, it is the people banning abortion. Because it is a republic.

And for the record, I agreed with what you said about:


Ok, despite what appears to be a call to let murderers go free, I am not going to fall for the bait.

If you outlaw something, you take the choice away from the person and put it in the hands of the state.

If you make something legal, you take the choice away from the state and put it in the hands of the person.

Of the two conditions, I would say the second is far more of a "pro-choice" position than the first.

these arguements never go anywhere

Person A: random fact for abortion
Person B: disputes random fact, with other random fact
Person B: follows up with new random fact
Person A: disputes the random fact, now gives dumbed down example, it continues down the road, back and forth
Person C: (that's me!) comes up, explains this, get's ignored and is the only one to realize that no one EVER changes their opinion until it effects them directly

I agree that people do not change their minds unless they are affected, OR if they are struck by a sudden thought or onslaught of logic that does affect them in their daily lives in a dimension they never envisioned before.

To me, this is not only recreation, but also a fight for what I believe, and if you don't like this thread, then go ahead and leave because people have made up their minds to post in this forum, and you cannot change that with your random bitching.(which, may I remind you, was not meant to make a difference and will not)

Who says you have a choice in whether the baby dies or not? You had the choice ( a majority of the time) to create the baby, and now you have no more choice because he has reached the land of existence and is entitled to rights just like you and me. These include LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...not abortion in other countries.

First - it's not a baby.

Second - the current resolution DOES NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE ABORTIONS for the love of The Powers. The people get to chose for themselves.

This time I really mean it. I am done with this arguement. I have had it countless other times, and not once has it changed my mind, because of the reasons I have stated countless times.

And might I add that we live in the 21 century, with medical technology much more substantial than it was 100 years ago when many women actually did die of birth complications...

That's where it gets sticky. To be honest, all of the birth complication-related deaths I have heard of for today are usually deaths of the babies or, in extremely rare cases, deaths of the mother due to something unrelated that the birthing process aggravated to being lethal. In all cases I know of, the mothers chose to sacrifice themselves for the children when they had a choice.

There are a few cases where abortion is used long before birth, but those are, iirc, cases where the doctors discover the mother has something that the birthing process will aggravate to being lethal and the child is too young to be removed via C section and kept alive outside of the body. And, from what I've read, it's about split on the mothers who choose to live and the mothers who choose to sacrifice themselves.

Now, in NS, you get nations that are not in the 21st Century. My own is much farther ahead in several areas and, I would say, is soon about to eliminate several problems that cause death in birth with the invention of nanotechnology. That should also allow us to correct problems that the birth process aggravates long before birth even happens. There is also a possibility of eliminating several problems in the womb long before they affect the child. Population growth will stay about the same, but at least there will be an increased chance of survival for children.

Why did I mention the above paragraph? It is an idea for us to try in real life when we gain the technological level.

However, some NS nations have birthing problems as a very real and very deadly danger. Ignoring the nonhuman nations, I have seen nations still in the 1800s and even met one that uses bows and spears and considers guns to be a form of magic (though, that also exists in NS...). While it may not be a danger for the majority, if they are all as advanced as the US is in all areas, it still is a danger in NS.

First - it's not a baby.

But - it's a human life. :)

Second - the current resolution DOES NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE ABORTIONS for the love of The Powers. The people get to chose for themselves.

Regardless - it does give people the right to take a human life. :)

Some choices - are wrong.

First - it's not a baby.

You are absolutley right. It is not a baby if it is the mother's womb...but it's a mystery why women don't say

"OGM MY FETUS IS KICKING!"
or
"I feel the fetus coming"
or
"I assure you that we will do all we can to help your fetus succeed in life, get a proper education and become a responsible adult"

Well, by that logic I should allow my people to make decisions about whether or not they'd like to steal, speed, kill people, do drugs, etc.

My country is a Republic, the government IS the people.

If my government bans abortion, it is the people banning abortion. Because it is a republic.

And for the record, I agreed with what you said about:

(ooc - this is my last post in this thread, and I just wanted to make a single observation.

In the recent US election, 48% (I think) voted against the current administration. To me that does not indicate that the government is the people.
I am not saying that is the case in your nation Aliste, just commenting in general.

And with that I bid you a fond farewell, because I really have had it with debates on abortion. Not because you are right and I am wrong, or because I am right and you are wrong. We both believe in what we say, and are unlikely to change each other's view points. So I will simply say I will oppose any repeal of the resolution, because it's what I believe)

TrilEnca,

I had wanted to stop debating a long time ago but was afraid people would say that I gave up because I have no arguments.

Heh. I think we can agree on what you had just said.

I'm done with debating about abortion as well, at least for the time being.

And thank you, TrilEnca - for staying civilized and articulate through the debate.

I'm going to go take a shower. Oops, that was OOC.

Actually, this whole post was OOC. Heh.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

In the recent US election, 48% (I think) voted against the current administration. To me that does not indicate that the government is the people.

Sure it is...assuming that the 48% will move to Canada where they belong...

It may strike you as odd, but that is how Democracy works. There is no way to appease every damn person in the nation, unless you have the whole nation thinking alike.

So we enact what the MAJORITY want. Wierd, eh? Oh an I am pretty sure that 52% of the nation count as people.

TrilEnca,

I had wanted to stop debating a long time ago but was afraid people would say that I gave up because I have no arguments.

Heh. I think we can agree on what you had just said.

I'm done with debating about abortion as well, at least for the time being.

And thank you, TrilEnca - for staying civilized and articulate through the debate.

I'm going to go take a shower. Oops, that was OOC.

Actually, this whole post was OOC. Heh.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Go Aliste, I'll cover your back lol. :mp5:

If I am the last poster, does that mean I win? haha

(grin) And the fact that not getting ice-cream is not entirely comparable with forcing a woman to have a child against her will? (Just asking!)

You seem to be suggesting that not allowing a woman to have an abortion is a greater violation of her freedoms than not allowing her to have ice cream. I would like to know why. What precisely is the critical difference between ice cream and abortions that makes one an international issue and the other not an international issue? They can have very similar results when outlawed. If ice cream is outlawed in many nations, then you will see black market ice cream shops cropping up and immigration to other nations to get ice cream. If abortions are outlawed in many nations, you will see black market abortion clinics cropping up and immigration to other nations to get abortions. But I doubt that even if ice cream were outlawed in many nations, you would consider it an international issue. So what is the critical difference?

If ice cream were to be banned in the same number of nations that abortions are banned in, would ice cream then be an international issue?

Though unlikely that may be, you may argue that economically it would be yes, since the economies of some member states may rely on the continued production of ice cream in others. In nations where the main industry is ice cream there will be less customers thus the legislation is directly impacting the ability of a nation to adequately support itself or keep its commitments to its citizens. There is also the issue that manufactures in the nations where ice cream has now become illegal may be faced with legal challenges if contracts in other states was meant to be on going or had specific supply agreements that was meant to delivery a certain quota and thus will be looking for compensation. Nations may be tempted to change agreements in other areas to pay for this compensation thus indirectly affecting the industries in other nations, which those governments may not want.

We also need to consider what such a shortage or surplus, depending on which it happens, will do the international ice cream market. If nations are unduly affected by this mass decision I am convinced that legislation to legalise ice cream across all member states will very quickly begin to fill the proposal queue.

Go Aliste, I'll cover your back lol.

If I am the last poster, does that mean I win? haha

Yes, Dresophila Prime. lol.

Actually, thank you for supporting me in the debate.

I probably would have given up a long time ago had you not been on my side. Heh. :)

Teamwork! Hurrah! :fluffle: lol.

Bye everyone.

Though unlikely that may be, you may argue that economically it would be yes, since the economies of some member states may rely on the continued production of ice cream in others. In nations where the main industry is ice cream there will be less customers thus the legislation is directly impacting the ability of a nation to adequately support itself or keep its commitments to its citizens. There is also the issue that manufactures in the nations where ice cream has now become illegal may be faced with legal challenges if contracts in other states was meant to be on going or had specific supply agreements that was meant to delivery a certain quota and thus will be looking for compensation. Nations may be tempted to change agreements in other areas to pay for this compensation thus indirectly affecting the industries in other nations, which those governments may not want.

We also need to consider what such a shortage or surplus, depending on which it happens, will do the international ice cream market. If nations are unduly affected by this mass decision I am convinced that legislation to legalise ice cream across all member states will very quickly begin to fill the proposal queue.

Fair enough. You would just see it as an economic issue, not a human rights issue. Understood.

Fair enough. You would just see it as an economic issue, not a human rights issue. Understood.

Unless there is a revolt in one of the nations that banned it, which happened to be my neighbour and now I am facing an influx of refugees. :D

Unless there is a revolt in one of the nations that banned it, which happened to be my neighbour and now I am facing an influx of refugees. :D

Yeah, that would be bad. Some of the more nationalistic Telidians would probably be saying something like this:

"Them damn furriners is stealin' arr ice cream and its got to stop now!" Ice cream might even become a deeply controversial issue in Telidia. ;)

Yeah, that would be bad. Some of the more nationalistic Telidians would probably be saying something like this:

"Them damn furriners is stealin' arr ice cream and its got to stop now!" Ice cream might even become a deeply controversial issue in Telidia. ;)

Heavens forbid we ever have a shortage of ice cream then. First thing tomorrow morning I am going to have a meeting with our Economic Advisor to ensure it never, ever happens.

Good night and thanks for the debate. :)

Heavens forbid we ever have a shortage of ice cream then. First thing tomorrow morning I am going to have a meeting with our Economic Advisor to ensure it never, ever happens.

Good night and thanks for the debate. :)

You are quite welcome. Enjoy your evening! :) I have enjoyed mine so far.

Good night eh? So be it...as for me, it is 4:51, yet dark out...I think I will carry out the rest of my day and close this thread up so that I can be self-important...

Good night to whom it may concern.

"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."

This resolution shuold be repealed. It is a human-rights resolution that has its impact listed as "significant". The resolution in question has significantly degraded the status of human rights in the UN's member states.

The fact of the matter is, this resolution legalizes late-term abortions, and it allows for abortion on demand. There comes a time in pregnancy, towards the end months, where the babies inside are perfectly viable were they to be born that day. They have developed nervous, circulatory, and digestive systems. The fact of the matter is, if a baby is born one month prematurely, it is still a live human being and to kill it would be murder. The only difference between a premature baby and a one that was in the womb for the full period of time is the location, and what killing it would be called. One one hand, its infanticide, on the other, its a choice. It is a gross human rights violation that this resolution legalizes.

The inevitable "coat hanger" myth has come up earlier. It is said that if a woman is just going to get a more dangerous coat hanger abortion anyway, why shouldn't late term abortions be legalized? The fact of the matter is, this argument is a non-starter. It is identical to saying that cocaine should be legalized because, if it is not, people will get dangerous mix-ins when they buy it off the street.

The UN should first focus on amending the resolution to rid its member states of late-term infanticide, and then continue to work to end the culture of death that currently domiantes its states. Using cases such as rape or incest to justify abortion up to and until birth is comparable to countries using the punishment of a serial killer to justify the death penalty for the theft of a pack of gum. It is one extreme trying to justify everything across the board.

Kwangistar,

I'm glad to have you on board!

You are a U.N. delegate, correct?

If so, login to NationStates.net > On the left side click "United Nations" > At the bottom click, "List Proposals" > On page 2 I believe there is a request to repeal the "Abortion Rights" resolution > Then on page 8 I believe there is my request to repeal the "Abortion Rights" resolution.

Please approve both of those requests to repeal the "Abortion Rights" resolution.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Kwangistar,

I'm glad to have you on board!

You are a U.N. delegate, correct?

If so, login to NationStates.net > On the left side click "United Nations" > At the bottom click, "List Proposals" > On page 2 I believe there is a request to repeal the "Abortion Rights" resolution > Then on page 8 I believe there is my request to repeal the "Abortion Rights" resolution.

Please approve both of those requests to repeal the "Abortion Rights" resolution.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Kwangistar is not a regional UN Delegate.

"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."

This resolution shuold be repealed. It is a human-rights resolution that has its impact listed as "significant". The resolution in question has significantly degraded the status of human rights in the UN's member states.

The fact of the matter is, this resolution legalizes late-term abortions, and it allows for abortion on demand. There comes a time in pregnancy, towards the end months, where the babies inside are perfectly viable were they to be born that day. They have developed nervous, circulatory, and digestive systems. The fact of the matter is, if a baby is born one month prematurely, it is still a live human being and to kill it would be murder. The only difference between a premature baby and a one that was in the womb for the full period of time is the location, and what killing it would be called. One one hand, its infanticide, on the other, its a choice. It is a gross human rights violation that this resolution legalizes.

The inevitable "coat hanger" myth has come up earlier. It is said that if a woman is just going to get a more dangerous coat hanger abortion anyway, why shouldn't late term abortions be legalized? The fact of the matter is, this argument is a non-starter. It is identical to saying that cocaine should be legalized because, if it is not, people will get dangerous mix-ins when they buy it off the street.

The UN should first focus on amending the resolution to rid its member states of late-term infanticide, and then continue to work to end the culture of death that currently domiantes its states. Using cases such as rape or incest to justify abortion up to and until birth is comparable to countries using the punishment of a serial killer to justify the death penalty for the theft of a pack of gum. It is one extreme trying to justify everything across the board.

LOGIC OVERWHELMING!!! *panic*

You sexist bigots take away a woman's right to choose :(

"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."

This resolution shuold be repealed. It is a human-rights resolution that has its impact listed as "significant". The resolution in question has significantly degraded the status of human rights in the UN's member states.

The fact of the matter is, this resolution legalizes late-term abortions, and it allows for abortion on demand. There comes a time in pregnancy, towards the end months, where the babies inside are perfectly viable were they to be born that day. They have developed nervous, circulatory, and digestive systems. The fact of the matter is, if a baby is born one month prematurely, it is still a live human being and to kill it would be murder. The only difference between a premature baby and a one that was in the womb for the full period of time is the location, and what killing it would be called. One one hand, its infanticide, on the other, its a choice. It is a gross human rights violation that this resolution legalizes.

The inevitable "coat hanger" myth has come up earlier. It is said that if a woman is just going to get a more dangerous coat hanger abortion anyway, why shouldn't late term abortions be legalized? The fact of the matter is, this argument is a non-starter. It is identical to saying that cocaine should be legalized because, if it is not, people will get dangerous mix-ins when they buy it off the street.

The UN should first focus on amending the resolution to rid its member states of late-term infanticide, and then continue to work to end the culture of death that currently domiantes its states. Using cases such as rape or incest to justify abortion up to and until birth is comparable to countries using the punishment of a serial killer to justify the death penalty for the theft of a pack of gum. It is one extreme trying to justify everything across the board.

You should come here more often. I would have to use another nation to post these sorts of things because IC I'm an anarchist.

Omg! You mean this whole time I've been fighting against a woman's right to choose?

(Huff) ! I'm disgusted, oh wait a minute - THIS IS ONE CHOICE A WOMAN COULD DO WITHOUT!

Heh. :p

The Queendom of Slender Goddess does not believe that the Abortion Resolution should be repealed.

A child born to a willing and loving mom is very special. A child born not wanted and not loved is a tragedy.

It is proper that the women's life is more important.

I support the Resolution as it stands.

Slender Goddess

Slender Goddess,

I have heard this "every child a wanted child" argument over and over again, please - spare me.

Every child is a wanted child, maybe not by that mother - granted - but by someone.

And for a woman to 'make a mistake' (shudders), as about 95% of these cases are, and then aborting it rather than taking some responsibility and putting the child up for adoption where it will be loved.

That's wrong.

And besides, Slender Goddess: The resolution makes no restrictions.

I don't care how Pro-Choice you are, we can agree that partial birth abortion is wrong can't we?

Partial birth abortions are abortions done in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month of pregnancy.

This resolution made no restrictions.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

why must you people ignore Person C? just give up

just give up

Are you talking about us or yourself?

Like I said...you don't like this, go away, there is not place for you Mr. C

I noticed that there are 4 posts on your record...2 are bitching about this thread...I wonder about the otehr 2...

why must you people ignore Person C? just give up

Yeah, I don't know Lutianu - I'm just so fixed on this issue.

I can't stand it when people disagree with me about this issue - I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

I guess you're right though. Actually, I know you're right - but it's so hard to just 'give up'.

Analysis: Person C, who is to remain anonymous, is a self-appointed, self-important, overwhelmingly wise moderator who decides which issues to discuss and which ones to avoid...

I've noticed people are ignoring my previous post.

In any case, this resolution does not ban partial birth abortions. But it doesn't say you can't ban them either. Something to think about.

(ooc: I'm actually on my school's Law & Debate teams, so I can't give up either)

I know how you feel, that's why I ignored getting involved, I think everyone here has a factual opinion, that's what I respect about this topic. It may be a verbal struggle, but it get's the mind going. I suppose that's the real reason this is here, because your becoming involved in politics and reason. I could be against or for abortion, but in some way, I suppose it's better that we argue, if we don't, then we have no say in anything.

(btw, i was talking about myself, but OMG, I only had 4 posts, my thoughts shouldn't be heard! wow, really nice observation. I think complaining is what get's this and ever issue started, hell complaining is the source of a all good arguements)

I've noticed people are ignoring my previous post.

In any case, this resolution does not ban partial birth abortions. But it doesn't say you can't ban them either. Something to think about.

Interesting DemonLordEnigma.

I hadn't even thought of that.

But I've never seen that specific issue come up. I have however seen an issue come up where abortion in general could be made legal or illegal.

I think the resolution needs to be repealed.

Ok so everybody that posts a proposal will make it vague and ambiguous so that way people can (but don't necessarily have to) make just ammendments to it. Eventually, you end up with 5 times the needed amount of proposals because every single one is designed to ammend another, then they get in each others' ways...etc..etc...need I go on? It should be repealed and replaced, because it by itself validates heinous acts of infanticide.

I second everything that Dresophila has just said.

...especially the part about "heinous acts of infanticide". Heh. That was like - poetry. Good stuff. lol.

I second everything that Dresophila has just said.

...especially the part about "heinous acts of infanticide". Heh. That was like - poetry. Good stuff. lol.

I would like to add that I am a neutral party and I have no bias towards any one side...like the media

*cough*

If you repeal resolutions just because of vagueness, we'll lose at least 40 of them. Good luck with that.

If repealed, there are no guarantees a resolution granting the same rights without problems will ever be come up with. Plus, many people would, as stated previously, lose rights as a result. So, the danger may be what we call a "necessary evil for the greater good."

If repealed, there are no guarantees a resolution granting the same rights without problems will ever be come up with. Plus, many people would, as stated previously, lose rights as a result. So, the danger may be what we call a "necessary evil for the greater good."

Each country could individually legalize abortion. Every now and again it comes up as an issue.

So that takes care of that.

If you repeal resolutions just because of vagueness, we'll lose at least 40 of them. Good luck with that.

If repealed, there are no guarantees a resolution granting the same rights without problems will ever be come up with. Plus, many people would, as stated previously, lose rights as a result. So, the danger may be what we call a "necessary evil for the greater good."

Please note: I said replace, not delete. By this I mean ammend the current resolution so that it covers all bases (and yes, it would have to be long, as real laws are) then replace the current resolution with you ammendment. Easy as that.

Why bother amending it? Just do away with the resolution - and let the individual countries decide whether or not they want abortion to be legal.

You should give up because you won't recieve enough support for this repel.You should first make a proposal to fix the problems with the resolution that you want to repel, that's the only way you'll get me to even think about telling anybody about this. That way we know that you aren't some right wing nut who wants to end a womens right to choose. Then think about a repel of the resolution.

If it were to remain a resolution, I say it should be ammended. I do agree that this is an issue for individual countries...then again, everything should be. These resolutions are all for show anyhow. Imagine the EU trying to dictate what everybody in Europe were to do...and by doing that tearing apart entire governments and laws...

You should give up because you won't recieve enough support for this repel.You should first make a proposal to fix the problems with the resolution that you want to repel, that's the only way you'll get me to even think about telling anybody about this. That way we know that you aren't some right wing nut who wants to end a womens right to choose. Then think about a repel of the resolution.

Person C returns in liberal attire

Whether I am a 'right wing nut job' or not is not any of your concern.

The fact of the matter is that the resolution is AWFULLY vague, is POORLY contructed, and offers NO necessary restrictions.

Therefor it must be repealed.

And no, I will never give up, sorry! :)

And no, I will never give up, sorry! :)

That's exactly what we need. Great spirit! (no sarcasm)

Whether I am a 'right wing nut job' or not is not any of your concern.

The fact of the matter is that the resolution is AWFULLY vague, is POORLY contructed, and offers NO necessary restrictions.

Therefor it must be repealed.

And no, I will never give up, sorry! :)

Your alternative is, as yet... nonexistant. As such, no support.

Show a proposal, or forget it.

Vastiva believes there are no "necessary restrictions", only foolishness by the vacant and uneducated. We do not believe in "emotional logic" and never shall.

Finally, we believe wholeheartedly it is better to perish then suffer if the lack is desired. We support euthanasia and the death penalty for just such reasons. Stating all the jibberish about partial birth abortions will not aid your cause save with those who are influenced by emotional arguements.

In short - logical, or no and never. We have heard no good arguements as of yet. Illuminate us with your logic.

Person C returns in liberal attire

I'm telling you, you will not get any support in this repel if you insult people and you tell us out right that we might have another resolution giving women abortion rights. You need another proposal, if anybody is to take you seriously.

Whether I am a 'right wing nut job' or not is not any of your concern.
Just trying to say that it would not be very helpful to your cause if people thought that you are closed minded.

Just trying to say that it would not be very helpful to your cause if people thought that you are closed minded.

I see, well I can assure you I am not closed minded - although I'm just as sure that is how I'm coming off to you all.

But that is because I have researched this issue for years. And it is an issue I have taken a firm position on already, two years ago I would have still been wishy washy.

In short - logical, or no and never. We have heard no good arguements as of yet. Illuminate us with your logic.

Did you read through every single page in this thread thus far? Can you really cast aside every single argument made against abortion (for everyone) based simply on your own bias?

I'm telling you, you will not get any support in this repel if you insult people and you tell us out right that we might have another resolution giving women abortion rights. You need another proposal, if anybody is to take you seriously.


Just trying to say that it would not be very helpful to your cause if people thought that you are closed minded.

First off, you are making a base and baseless assumption that all conservatives are closed-minded, which is in itself very hypocritical and closed-minded. I would personally like to have my opinions and ideas respected and recognized...but then again I am not a minority so I have little chance.

The call for repealing the proposal was the first step, and I am sure that another proposal is being brought up soon.

And for the record, I was not insulting you.

The call for repealing the proposal was the first step, and I am sure that another proposal is being brought up soon.

I will continue calling for a repeal of the resolution until it passes or I simply do not care anymore - and I don't think we can count on either one. :P

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I see, well I can assure you I am not closed minded - although I'm just as sure that is how I'm coming off to you all.

All you have to do is create a proposal that says that abortion is legal from the 1st month of pregnancy to the 6th month and that resolution such and such should be repeled. It isn't very hard, and to me that should be abortion, because by then you know you are going to have the baby and you should be taking the classes for child birth.

First off, you are making a base and baseless assumption that all conservatives are closed-minded, which is in itself very hypocritical and closed-minded. I would personally like to have my opinions and ideas respected and recognized...but then again I am not a minority so I have little chance.

In my time I have found that most people, are closed minded so I apologize for calling who ever closed-minded. I don't like the minority snip but, I'll let it slip and hope that you mean everybody else that isn't conservative.

The call for repealing the proposal was the first step, and I am sure that another proposal is being brought up soon.

It is hard for a new resolution to be passed, so no one really wants this repel to pass if we lose something that we already find "satisfactory."

I have a better idea.

I am going to submit a proposal making all other resolution legalizing or illegalizing abortion invalid.

The proposed resolution will state that each country individualy will be able to determine their own abortion laws.

It will be just like this new gun control resolution.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

As annoyingly childish as my nation apparently is, the need is felt to have comment made yet again, in spite of all the illustrious arguments lodged already. ::head is dipped in bow to Aliste et al::

Just for fun, this will all be presented in the glorious and all-encompassing Passive Voice.

In any case, this resolution does not ban partial birth abortions. But it doesn't say you can't ban them either. Something to think about.

It is stated in the resolution that a woman's right for abortion cannot be interfered with by the government, so is interpreted by my resolution interpreters. It is believed that includes partial-birth, among other things; and, as is undoubtably known by you, this resolution is not complied with in my nation.

Concerning the point about illegal, dangerous coathanger abortions... not in my nation. Our Auditory Police Force is well-funded and our citizens remarkably educated on the issue; crime is barely in existence. Before long, it will be a mere memory.

Concerning the point about vast migrations... there is already in existence vast migrations from and TO Passivocalia, considering the fact that we are an issue state based more on beliefs than ethnicity, etc. Those who are placed in exile are placed there themselves, and the process is aided by a well-funded Department of Equilibrium to have former citizens transported to their nation of choice--including ours.

Concerning the issue of a "woman's right to choose"...
-With banning slavery, a citizen is prevented from having slaves owned, by the government.
-With banning pedofilia, a citizen is prevented from having intercourse undergone with a child, by the government.
-With banning the illegalisation of abortion, a citizen is welcome to have his/her pregnancy terminated, and the government is banned from having it prevented.

So please do not have the three topics compared again.

Passivocalia, does that mean I have your support? :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I have a better idea.

I am going to submit a proposal making all other resolution legalizing or illegalizing abortion invalid.

The proposed resolution will state that each country individualy will be able to determine their own abortion laws.

It will be just like this new gun control resolution.

Aliste, you are implored to please not have this done. As staunchly opposed to fetal executions as my nation is, it is also opposed to having the UN made unworkable (as is apparent from my "Resolution for Resolution", which shall likely not be approved). Regardless, something so blatant will likely be seen by UN moderators and shot down instantly.

The resolution must be repealed to have it destroyed.

Passivocalia, I suppose you are right.

As soon as the resolution is repealed, nations can decide for themselves whether they want abortion legal or illegal.

But it doesn't seem likely the resolution will be repealed. We might have a better chance with a new resolution making the "Abortion Rights" resolution invalid.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Aliste: what you are proposing to do is incorrect. Resolutions never become invalid, even when they are blatantly contradictory with each other. The only way to remove a resolution's power is to repeal it.

From The Kingdom of Clamparapa: As Christians you have our full support in the issue of the repeal of abortion rights. That is murder and the UN shouldn't have even let it be voted on.

From The Kingdom of Clamparapa: As Christians you have our full support in the issue of the repeal of abortion rights. That is murder and the UN shouldn't have even let it be voted on.

*cough* over 50% of the UN is not Christian. Just FYI. And you would be floored with some of the things that have been proposed.

Passivocalia, I suppose you are right.

As soon as the resolution is repealed, nations can decide for themselves whether they want abortion legal or illegal.

But it doesn't seem likely the resolution will be repealed. We might have a better chance with a new resolution making the "Abortion Rights" resolution invalid.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

You do know that would be making an illegal proposal, and as such, may cause you problems?

Slender Goddess,

I have heard this "every child a wanted child" argument over and over again, please - spare me.

Every child is a wanted child, maybe not by that mother - granted - but by someone.

So have a program of adoption in your nation. Nothing prevents you from such.



And for a woman to 'make a mistake' (shudders), as about 95% of these cases are, and then aborting it rather than taking some responsibility and putting the child up for adoption where it will be loved.

That's wrong.

That's choice. "Look to the plank in your own eye before..." comes to mind.



And besides, Slender Goddess: The resolution makes no restrictions.

I don't care how Pro-Choice you are, we can agree that partial birth abortion is wrong can't we?

No, we can't. Emotional arguements are bad arguements.



Partial birth abortions are abortions done in the 7th, 8th, or 9th month of pregnancy.

This resolution made no restrictions.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

So? There are no restrictions. We're all for giving choice to the individual. It is the basis of our legal system.

All you have to do is create a proposal that says that abortion is legal from the 1st month of pregnancy to the 6th month and that resolution such and such should be repeled. It isn't very hard, and to me that should be abortion, because by then you know you are going to have the baby and you should be taking the classes for child birth.


This proposal would be illegal.

You cannot repeal legislation and propose new legislation in one proposal.

I have a better idea.

I am going to submit a proposal making all other resolution legalizing or illegalizing abortion invalid.

The proposed resolution will state that each country individualy will be able to determine their own abortion laws.

It will be just like this new gun control resolution.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

That too would be an illegal proposition.

As annoyingly childish as my nation apparently is, the need is felt to have comment made yet again, in spite of all the illustrious arguments lodged already. ::head is dipped in bow to Aliste et al::

Just for fun, this will all be presented in the glorious and all-encompassing Passive Voice.

It is stated in the resolution that a woman's right for abortion cannot be interfered with by the government, so is interpreted by my resolution interpreters. It is believed that includes partial-birth, among other things; and, as is undoubtably known by you, this resolution is not complied with in my nation.


Read my lips: YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. YOUR NATION IS AUTOMATICALLY MADE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL UN RESOLUTIONS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.



Concerning the point about illegal, dangerous coathanger abortions... not in my nation. Our Auditory Police Force is well-funded and our citizens remarkably educated on the issue; crime is barely in existence. Before long, it will be a mere memory.

Concerning the point about vast migrations... there is already in existence vast migrations from and TO Passivocalia, considering the fact that we are an issue state based more on beliefs than ethnicity, etc. Those who are placed in exile are placed there themselves, and the process is aided by a well-funded Department of Equilibrium to have former citizens transported to their nation of choice--including ours.

Concerning the issue of a "woman's right to choose"...
-With banning slavery, a citizen is prevented from having slaves owned, by the government.
-With banning pedofilia, a citizen is prevented from having intercourse undergone with a child, by the government.
-With banning the illegalisation of abortion, a citizen is welcome to have his/her pregnancy terminated, and the government is banned from having it prevented.

So please do not have the three topics compared again.

Your own words create your fate - your government is banned from having it prevented. Therefore, you have no choice, and must be in compliance.

Thank you.

Ah shut up! It's immoral whether it's legal or not!

Ah shut up! It's immoral whether it's legal or not!

Tsk tsk tsk - such language is akin to flaming.

And it is not immoral in our country, or by our religions. It may be immoral to you, but that is your choice. We do not believe there is one "ultimate standard", only choice and the ramifications thereon.

You know what you go ahead with that resolution but don't come crying to me when you don't have anymore people. You know why? They'll all be dead from abortion.

You know what you go ahead with that resolution but don't come crying to me when you don't have anymore people. You know why? They'll all be dead from abortion.

:confused:

You know what you go ahead with that resolution but don't come crying to me when you don't have anymore people. You know why? They'll all be dead from abortion.

Like every person alive will have an abortion :rolleyes:

Abortion will kill babies so that they won't grow up and become citizens of your country.

Abortion will kill babies so that they won't grow up and become citizens of your country.

I have about a thousand abortions a year in my nation.

I lose 3000 to Ion Storms, 2000 to disease, and 500,000 to violence. Abortions are not a problem.

Maybe not to you but to all the other small and tiny nations out there.

Maybe not to you but to all the other small and tiny nations out there.

No matter how you slice it, 1000 deaths isn't even a dent. The smallest nation can take 1000 times that and lose only 1/5 of their population. And my nation is a small one, though my empire is much larger.

Good job using your math skills. Are you a math wiz?

Good job using your math skills. Are you a math wiz?

Basic high-school math education. Flunked it in college.

How old are you?

In my 30s. I do this to get away from work and the girlfriend.

Good I thought you were a pimp. :cool:

No, those words change the more posts you make.

My Fellow Delegates,

Assuradly, abortion is an emotionally charged subject, with strong opinions all around. But the issue is not whether one is in favor of such things. The issue should be: do we want government making this sort of decision.

Access to decent and safe health care should be a fundamental right all every person. If we start dictating that a certain, low occurance, relatively safe procedure be outlawed, how long will it be before we begin mandating other procedures as well?

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a difficult one, as well as an intensely personal one. Histoically, abortion was a non-issue, until certain fundamentalist lobbyists brought it to the spotlight as a touchstone topic. Even the Catholic church, until the 1950's, regarded the ending of a pregnancy as a routine proceedure, papal doctrine indicating the soul entered the body at the "quickening". The change to claiming the soul enters at conception, is a very recent switch.

We have no more business mandating the availability of abortions to the various memberstates, than we have mandating the availability of tonsilectomies or other medical procedures that are performed in a safe manner, consistent with sound medical practice.

Respectfully
Victor Sheridan
UN Ambassador
House of Tremayne.

My Fellow Delegates,

Assuradly, abortion is an emotionally charged subject, with strong opinions all around. But the issue is not whether one is in favor of such things. The issue should be: do we want government making this sort of decision.

Access to decent and safe health care should be a fundamental right all every person. If we start dictating that a certain, low occurance, relatively safe procedure be outlawed, how long will it be before we begin mandating other procedures as well?

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a difficult one, as well as an intensely personal one. Histoically, abortion was a non-issue, until certain fundamentalist lobbyists brought it to the spotlight as a touchstone topic. Even the Catholic church, until the 1950's, regarded the ending of a pregnancy as a routine proceedure, papal doctrine indicating the soul entered the body at the "quickening". The change to claiming the soul enters at conception, is a very recent switch.

We have no more business mandating the availability of abortions to the various memberstates, than we have mandating the availability of tonsilectomies or other medical procedures that are performed in a safe manner, consistent with sound medical practice.

Respectfully
Victor Sheridan
UN Ambassador
House of Tremayne.

*begins laughing*

See the Resolutions "Required Basic Healthcare", "'RBH' Replacement", "The Child Protection Act" (Article 3 section 3), and "Abortion Rights".

Then reread the UN FAQ.

:p

*begins laughing*

See the Resolutions "Required Basic Healthcare", "'RBH' Replacement", "The Child Protection Act" (Article 3 section 3), and "Abortion Rights".

Then reread the UN FAQ.
Not to mention it uses an unfounded slippery slope fallacy. It's as bad as saying that because we legalized abortion, we'll (further) legalize infanticide and the killing of retarded people, etc.

I come to you on Importance of the regions. I would like to ask you to join the Pojo Region and help support us to become a important part of this "Government" if you will. If you decide to join us then you will take part in helping this region become the quickest growing one on this site.

hopefully I will see you at the region.

Nirvana_1undefined

Nirvana, your supposed to telegram for interests, not post it in the public forum, you should delete your post and take it to another forum titled 'Gameplay'

Read my lips: YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE IN THE MATTER. YOUR NATION IS AUTOMATICALLY MADE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL UN RESOLUTIONS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

The representative from Vastiva is directed to my post in the other Abortion Repeal thread. The "Abortion Rights" resolution could just as easily been written as "blah blah bleh" and the same effect would be had on my nation.

Even the Catholic church, until the 1950's, regarded the ending of a pregnancy as a routine proceedure, papal doctrine indicating the soul entered the body at the "quickening". The change to claiming the soul enters at conception, is a very recent switch.

Not so. The document you are referring to is known by our nation, and it is in detail of infant baptism, not abortion. If you wish to have the argument pushed, then the proper document can be found and presented to you.

I agree that this resolution should be repealed. I m pro-choice, but I draw the line at partial birth abortion. That I consider is pure murder. I am for the repeal to detail the resolution and make it more agreeable.


The Emperor of Calvania and Hobbania

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.

Ok, I've read this whole thread and all you anti-choice people haven't come with a single argument that wasn't either emotional or religious.

Shame.

Fass,

You'd like to know why "Abortion Rights" should be repealed? Without all of the 'emotional' arguments?

Well I don't know how I could describe for you 'partial birth abortion' without it becoming emotional as it is a brutal, terrible practice.

It's as if you're saying, "I have yet to see a non-emotional argument against rape."

If you think about it, every argument against rape or murder are going to be emotional ones.

This is true for 'partial birth abortion', which under the "Abortion Rights" resolution - is legal.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Ok, I've read this whole thread and all you anti-choice people haven't come with a single argument that wasn't either emotional or religious.

Shame.

I have yet to see Person C come in, offer up a useful, unbiased, un-condescending comment that does not annoy everyone on the board.

You want to argue, go ahead...you are free to do so, but if you are going to bitch, then get out.

Fass,

You'd like to know why "Abortion Rights" should be repealed? Without all of the 'emotional' arguments?

Well I don't know how I could describe for you 'partial birth abortion' without it becoming emotional as it is a brutal, terrible practice.

It's as if you're saying, "I have yet to see a non-emotional argument against rape."

If you think about it, every argument against rape or murder are going to be emotional ones.

This is true for 'partial birth abortion', which under the "Abortion Rights" resolution - is legal.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Well, no.

"Rape is an action which removes the right to choose from a being recognized as an 'independant person' and thus human in Vastiva. As such, it is against the law".

"Murder is an action which..." etc.

Abortion is not, as we do not recognize fetuses as people until birth and the meeting of our three way test.

The representative from Vastiva is directed to my post in the other Abortion Repeal thread. The "Abortion Rights" resolution could just as easily been written as "blah blah bleh" and the same effect would be had on my nation.

*puts yet another entry into the book of "PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ THE UN FAQ BEFORE JOINING"*

"Rape is an action which removes the right to choose from a being recognized as an 'independant person' and thus human in Vastiva. As such, it is against the law".

Aww! So you're removing the right to choose? Sounds like an emotional argument to me. Heh.

You see, anything can be twisted to look like an 'emotional argument'. Nice try though. :p

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.


Yes, good idea. Everyone who wants a repeal should all move to one region.

:D

*adds another name to the list of PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ THE FAQ BEFORE JOINING*

"Rape is an action which removes the right to choose from a being recognized as an 'independant person' and thus human in Vastiva. As such, it is against the law".

Aww! So you're removing the right to choose? Sounds like an emotional argument to me. Heh.

You see, anything can be twisted to look like an 'emotional argument'. Nice try though. :p

It is with regret we point out to the representative from Aliste, our system of law allows you freedom of choice in all things - up to the point your choice impinges on the person or property of another.

We shall give you this reference (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm#controversial) for you to perouse at your leisure.

We would also instruct the representative from Aliste to check her mail, as Vastiva shall be mailing her - at no charge - several books on debating and the difference between logic and emotion.

We would also instruct the representative from Aliste to check her mail, as Vastiva shall be mailing her - at no charge - several books on debating and the difference between logic and emotion.

Ok and how is this for logic...

Partial birth abortion is never medically necessary, a mother should be able to make up her own mind as to whether or not she would like to keep the baby in six months - it's more than enough time, the only reason why the procedure is not considered murder is because the head is kept inside the womb - yes - it's a technicallity, and finally it is much more difficult to perform an abortion in the later months of pregnancy than in the early months - so there is greater risk to the mother when performing the 'partial birth abortion' procedure.

I'll be sending you - at no charge - several books on anortion. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Abortion is not, as we do not recognize fetuses as people until birth and the meeting of our three way test.
If you rig the rules, you can never win the game.

Yes, if you assume that a fetus is not a person until birth, abortion, no matter how late, is ok.

However, most people would agree that the difference between the baby the day it is born and the same baby one day before is neglible. Someone could say "I haven't seen a single-pro choicer use logic... my nation sees life start at conception". Well, good for them, but it makes as little sense as you saying the same thing about pro-life people.

Kwangistar,

The Armed Republic of Aliste - and those against this resolution - feel that the nations are the ones who should decide if abortion is going to be legal or illegal.

This isn't about who is Pro-Choice and who is Pro-Life, who thinks the fetus is a person and who doesn't.

Forget that nonsense - the point is THE NATIONS SHOULD DECIDE.

This is a very - very - tough issue. It has no place in the U.N. Let the nations decide.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Ok and how is this for logic...

Partial birth abortion is never medically necessary, a mother should be able to make up her own mind as to whether or not she would like to keep the baby in six months - it's more than enough time, the only reason why the procedure is not considered murder is because the head is kept inside the womb - yes - it's a technicallity, and finally it is much more difficult to perform an abortion in the later months of pregnancy than in the early months - so there is greater risk to the mother when performing the 'partial birth abortion' procedure.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

No, that's your opinion. And your paragraph does not take into account our laws, as we have stated repeatedly. It is not "murder" to kill something which is not human.

Do stop assuming everyone here is in the USA. We are not.

No, that's your opinion. And your paragraph does not take into account our laws, as we have stated repeatedly. It is not "murder" to kill something which is not human.

Do stop assuming everyone here is in the USA. We are not.

I've already said this - several - times. But I guess for a simpleton such as yourself - I'll have to once again point this out - and dumb it down a bit for you.

A nation is like a BIG FAMILY! Ok? I bet you have one, congrats! Here's a cookie (cookie along with a gentle pat on the head so as not to disturb anything that might be moving up there.)

Now, my nation doesn't want abortion to be legal. Am I going too fast for you?

And the resolution, "Abortion Rights", makes abortion legal in every nation.

So the solution? Repealing it - and the nations will be able to decide for themselves.

Now, go sit in the corner and let that tiny little brain of yours absorb all of the 'big words'. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Hey! Look! I guess I can be rude and snotty too. :p

I've already said this - several - times. But I guess for a simpleton such as yourself - I'll have to once again point this out - and dumb it down a bit for you.

A nation is like a BIG FAMILY! Ok? I bet you have one, congrats! Here's a cookie (cookie along with a gentle pat on the head so as not to disturb anything that might be moving up there.)

Now, my nation doesn't want abortion to be legal. Am I going too fast for you?

And the resolution, "Abortion Rights", makes abortion legal in every nation.

So the solution? Repealing it - and the nations will be able to decide for themselves.

Now, go sit in the corner and let that tiny little brain of yours absorb all of the 'big words'. :)

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

You did read the FAQ, right?

I don't care if I get banned - you've been snotty the entire time to me, and rude.

So, heh - whatever.

This is a forum full of accepting, kind, compassionate liberals who will consider all ideas and will not discriminate others based on their own personal bias. Everybody is welcome here, remember that ;)

Dresophila Prime,

This entire time she has not been kind to me at all - she gave no constructive criticism but rather obnoxiously insolent interjections and sarcastic little comments.

If I get banned for putting her in her place, then whatever. She apparently doesn't like to be spoken to in the same manner that she speaks to others. Aw, she doesn't like it. Boo hoo.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I'm gonna leave it at this ones pretty one sided as who the mean obnoxious one is.

Dresophila Prime,

This entire time she has not been kind to me at all - she gave no constructive criticism but rather obnoxiously insolent interjections and sarcastic little comments.

If I get banned for putting her in her place, then whatever. She apparently doesn't like to be spoken to in the same manner that she speaks to others. Aw, she doesn't like it. Boo hoo.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I have ranted against stuff like this in forums before, and trust me, it is not worth it. First off, I had tons of stuff to say, which came out in a rather lengthy post which I doubt anybody read, it went against everybody in the forum, including the moderators, so those that did read it (including moderators) were not happy and not willing to side with my opinions.

In the end I was banned...what a stupid outcome.

People are rude and hypocritical...so what can you do? I say let them wallow in their own filth.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but our UN makes it so that all rapists within the UN are given the death penalty. Well, if said woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape shouldn't she automatically have the legal right to an abortion regardless of what UN country she lives in... It may be a loose arguement, but just a thought. Not to forget, but the more nations that make abortion illegal is just one more step (albeit a small one) to a world-wide Theocracy

By the way... Keep legal abortion manditory...

*puts yet another entry into the book of "PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ THE UN FAQ BEFORE JOINING"*

Vastiva. Dear, dear Vastiva. How should this be put?

One of two things is happening. Either,
1) Some sort of vital information (OOC: concerning game mechanics) is being withheld by you and other lurkers, in efforts to have me set up for an ambush, looking like an idiot. Or,

2) You are wrong.

So either have me presented with the hidden information (concerning game mechanics), or else have the following observations noted.

1) The UN FAQ was read by me BEFORE PASSIVOCALIA WAS ENTERED AS A NATIONSTATE, much less before it was entered as a UN member. When sighs and eye rollings are brought from your direction, they are generally under the impression that no one other than yourself has had the FAQ read. Well, have a gander taken:

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.)

Two statements concerning your argument have been made by this FAQ:
1) My nation will be affected by any resolutions that pass. This is already known by my people, thank you, and our Human Rights have been increased significantly since having abortion outlawed.
2) I can't just obey the resolutions I like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.

So I read, Vastiva, so I read. But I do not believe. What I see are generic increases, in this case, dealing with the area of 'Human Rights' (whatever that means) that take place in my nation regardless of what I do. A proposal can say whatever it wants, WHATEVER IT WANTS, but all that seems to matter is that little description that adjusts the game modifiers.

Also from what I see, UN membership is open to everyone and voluntary. They will not kick me out, as I "have no power to defy them". I can either resign, or not resign.

Also from what I see, passed UN resolutions do not keep me from deciding issues. The abortion issue came up, as did the euthanasia one, as did stem cell research, as undoubtably do others that are addressed in the UN Resolutions.

So, Aliste, not only have I READ the UN FAQs, I have also COMPARED THEM TO WHAT I SEE. And the conclusion reached is that I can, oh I CAN openly defy the UN (if not like in the real world, then in the nationstates way). And, only on this specific issue, I AM defying the UN. Because all I see is that I CHOSE to ban abortions when the issue came up, my decision was NOT reversed, and the UN Resolution did NOTHING except increase the Human Rights in my nation.

So you can either:
1) Present the information that you've held back until now,
2) Admit that I am correct, technically,
3) Dismiss me as someone who has not read the FAQ, or
4) Not respond to this message at all. Which may be the best idea, unless you're more inclined to lean toward option #1.

Now look. You've gone and made me have the active voice used. ::huffs:: :D

Correct me if I'm wrong, but our UN makes it so that all rapists within the UN are given the death penalty. Well, if said woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape shouldn't she automatically have the legal right to an abortion regardless of what UN country she lives in... It may be a loose arguement, but just a thought.

I'd have it called a non sequitur. Unless you are having it said that the rapist and the unborn child (or fetus, if preferred) are the same entity.

Not to forget, but the more nations that make abortion illegal is just one more step (albeit a small one) to a world-wide Theocracy

Any government with laws is imposing its own belief system. Any belief firmly held is a religion. Believing in a woman's right to choose is just as Theocratic as believing in a child's right to live.

By the way... Keep legal abortion manditory...

Manditory. Right. Wouldn't want to have morals imposed, now. ;)

(long post)

Ergo, if two lesbians come to your country - regardless of how you have answered the issues which come up, they get to get married in your country.

Explaining what "role playing" is would take far too long. So would "imagination" or "gaming", so I'm not going to make the attempt.

If you don't understand this is a game, there are rules, there are big gaping holes which will probably be nailed shut later, and a bunch of people are having fun - well, I'm not the one to try and explain it to you.

*click*

Ergo, if two lesbians come to your country - regardless of how you have answered the issues which come up, they get to get married in your country.

Oh, and no marriages are recognised by my secular government. But they can be "married" if they fancy, find the church of their choice, whatever, they can have done with themselves whatever they please.

Explaining what "role playing" is would take far too long. So would "imagination" or "gaming", so I'm not going to make the attempt.

[OOC: Well, since you are stubborn and I am petty, I'll answer this one more time. Then you can have the final word, and I promise not to comment again.

Role playing, imagination, and gaming. I am ROLE PLAYING as a nation that is defying the UN in this regard. Regardless of what the UN SAID I could do, I used my IMAGINATION to expand the GAMING environment beyond it, as no doubt others have done.]

If you don't understand this is a game, there are rules, there are big gaping holes which will probably be nailed shut later, and a bunch of people are having fun - well, I'm not the one to try and explain it to you.

[I understand the game has rules which I physically cannot defy. I also understand that there are rules that the UN, which exists within the roleplaying realm, you understand, has imposed, some of which I CAN defy, such as my previous example which you have not refuted. And, when these holes are nailed shut, then there won't be much I can do about it, will there?

But don't be mislead. I am most certainly having fun. :D ]

Ill support the womens right to choose to the very end. Even if I am the last supporter.

Ill support the womens right to choose to the very end. Even if I am the last supporter.

You won't be.

See, the basis of the world is "All is Chosen". We are all here to learn to choose - not to force others to our choices, but to learn to choose for ourselves.

The sooner this is realized, the happier everyone will be - and no, I don't expect anyone to believe that.

After all, isn't "Judge not lest ye be Judged" and "Do onto others as you would have done onto you" pretty direct statements of "Leave others alone, do your own thing, be nice"?

Is to me. What others think is their business.