NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm beginning the initial stages of campaign on this now, in hopes of Fris.'s repeal.

I never really liked alot of the vaguity, of the original ARR when it was up for vote: This document was actually in partial work then (when I was hoping to defeat it)... though at the time much bulkier (too bulky).

Since it passed, it kind of made it somewhat useless (especially since there was no repeal feature then).

But, I had worked on it alitle on my own since then. Mostly clipping and tucking parts here and there to bring it down to a decent and functional size. And while it is no means as an absolute solution to the issue on both sides: I think it is as close a document as can satisfy most people on the issue:


Abortion Rights and Regulations Act

Catagory: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed By:Tekania

A. Delineated Rights to women in relation to Abortion.
1. Abortion shall be legal in all United Nations member states.
2. No woman can be forced to undergo any abortion procedure, against her will, in any United Nations member state.

B. Rights reserved to the States.
1. The member states shall retain the right to regulate facilities providing abortion services within their territory, for the purpose of safety.
2. The member states shall retain the right to regulate abortion procedures for the purpose of procedural safty within their borders.
3. The member states shall retain the right to regulate upon personnel providing abortion services within their territory, for the purpose of safety
4. The member states shall retain the right to mandate counceling, prior to procedure, of women who wish to undergo an abortion procedure.

C. Delineated Rights of Private Facilties and Personnel.
1. No private facility (that is any facility not owned and operated by any state) may be forced to provide abortion services.
2. No personnel, whether in the employment of the state, or a private institution, may be forced, against their own will, by the state, or private institution, to participate in any procedure related to abortion.

It really depends on how you are wanting to define counceling.

Cause if it is a person telling a woman she should be putting it up for adoption, that abortion is wrong, that she will burn in hell, that she is a baby killer and will die a horrible death then call me old-fashioned, but really don't think that is acceptable.

It really depends on how you are wanting to define counceling.

Cause if it is a person telling a woman she should be putting it up for adoption, that abortion is wrong, that she will burn in hell, that she is a baby killer and will die a horrible death then call me old-fashioned, but really don't think that is acceptable.

Feel free to provide alternate wording....

Feel free to provide alternate wording....

Remove the "mandate" part. Suggest that it should be up to the woman who is having an abortion, rather than those who are providing it.

Remove the "mandate" part. Suggest that it should be up to the woman who is having an abortion, rather than those who are providing it.

Well I'd have to change section for one, and it would defeat the purpose of it....

Maybe if subsections are added to restrict the scope of the word.

such as:

a. These counciling sessesions cannot exceed a single 1 hour session.
b. The woman cannot be required to pay for the counciling session.
c. The counciling session may only be used to cover the details of the procedure to be involved; and the possible side-effects(such as PPD and it's symptoms).
d. This counciling session can never be used in an abusive or degrading manner towards the woman, including:
1) The use of violent imagry
2) The use of abusive and/or offensive language
3) Threating or insulting language.
4) Religious Counciling by the state (unless by request of the woman persuing abortion).

Any other ideas would be welcomed for implimentation in the [draft]

*begins hearing voices in back of head*

Your like two people pulling harder on a chinese finger trap, hoping to escape, trying for a compromise that benefits none. This proposal is ubiquitous at best. Your sophistry is that you do not listen to your heart Tekania...

*Pops an anti psychotic, and takes a deep breath*

I would not remove mandate and adopt that counseling be free as it is required, and restrict counseling to the reasons why the woman wants the abortion (which is typical of most non referred/required surgeries), and the side effects of the procedure.

Without counseling the woman can sue the doctor for uninformed consent to a requested surgery. Which although sounds awkward, has happened successfuly in Ca... uh AP.

*begins hearing voices in back of head*

Your like two people pulling harder on a chinese finger trap, hoping to escape, trying for a compromise that benefits none. This proposal is ubiquitous at best. Your sophistry is that you do not listen to your heart Tekania...

*Pops an anti psychotic, and takes a deep breath*

I would not remove mandate and adopt that counseling be free as it is required, and restrict counseling to the reasons why the woman wants the abortion (which is typical of most non referred/required surgeries), and the side effects of the procedure.

Not necessarily... there are valid reasons why some restriction would need to be applied, and I have as of yet not added any of this to the [draft]:

Examples being nations which might use their ability to require counciling for the women, make it multi-sessional 6 month courses, which take it past some limit they have imposed for safety reasons, and then billing her to debtors prison for the time she took up with the councilors for a procedure she couldn't get.

And the word "mandate" will not be changed (not by me).... this will be restrictions upon the counciling a nation has the right to mandate. Don't think I surrender all of my ground.

Your sophistry is that you do not listen to your heart Tekania...
Please, please don't use the words 'sophistry' or 'heart' in the same sentence. My ulcers are bad enough.

My statement was ambiguos, I meant that I would not remove mandate, and would adopt...

Timeline is a good addition also. Though if counseling does discover serious problems that having an abortion could ultimately worsen, that creates a predicament. But, I assume in such cases, the person would be deemed mentally unstable for surgery (That would be weighed against the problems associated with pregnancy). Which, I belie ve, is the point of counseling, apprise, recommend, treat, institutionalize (JK).

Please, please don't use the words 'sophistry' or 'heart' in the same sentence. My ulcers are bad enough.

That is stomach intelligence telling you....

Very much like Section C of the proposal.

Would like to see some kind of leeway for a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion, such as expanding the right of nations to regulate certain procedures (though I see the loophole opening). Only pro-abortion advocates will tell you that Partial-Birth is a necessary procedure.

Would also like to see a born-alive protection clause. It might surprise you to know that some abortion clinics in Illinois have been known to force early delivery and then simply allow the babies to expire. (sorry to use RL examples).

Very much like Section C of the proposal.

Would like to see some kind of leeway for a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion, such as expanding the right of nations to regulate certain procedures (though I see the loophole opening). Only pro-abortion advocates will tell you that Partial-Birth is a necessary procedure.

Would also like to see a born-alive protection clause. It might surprise you to know that some abortion clinics in Illinois have been known to force early delivery and then simply allow the babies to expire. (sorry to use RL examples).

In relation to your response, Section B-
"2. The member states shall retain the right to regulate abortion procedures for the purpose of procedural safty within their borders."

Partial birth is one of the most hazerdous of the procedures, limiting the usage of its procedure to extreme cases, would be within the scope of this resolution.

Whereas I might agree that partial-birth abortion is a hazardous procedure (especially to the baby!), I'd like to see that spelled out in the proposal.

Realizing, however that I can't always get what I want....

Well I'd have to change section for one, and it would defeat the purpose of it....

Maybe if subsections are added to restrict the scope of the word.

such as:

a. These counciling sessesions cannot exceed a single 1 hour session.
b. The woman cannot be required to pay for the counciling session.
c. The counciling session may only be used to cover the details of the procedure to be involved; and the possible side-effects(such as PPD and it's symptoms).
d. This counciling session can never be used in an abusive or degrading manner towards the woman, including:
1) The use of violent imagry
2) The use of abusive and/or offensive language
3) Threating or insulting language.
4) Religious Counciling by the state (unless by request of the woman persuing abortion).

Any other ideas would be welcomed for implimentation in the [draft]

Yeah. I am still scared by it, but I can see why it might not be able to be changed.

It's just that I honestly believe someone who has decided to go through with an abortion needs to be supported in that decision, and no one who is in the pay of the state, or who is a doctor, should have the right to use any form of co-ercion to try to get her to change her mind. And if you don't think that will happen in some of the more conservative nations that occupy this world, I would say you are wrong.

Also - what if someone thinks the side effects are being condemmed to hell for all eternity?

Whereas I might agree that partial-birth abortion is a hazardous procedure (especially to the baby!), I'd like to see that spelled out in the proposal.

Realizing, however that I can't always get what I want....

But, and I know that this is unlikely, what if some nations want to legalize partial birth abortions? If it is spelt out that it must be banned then it would become an issue with those nations and (honestly) an issue with me, since it is trying to be far too restrictive. If the arguement that the current resolution is far too lax, it would not do to go too far the other way and have the UN banning everything.

Well, yes, we certainly couldn't have the UN going about outlawing the murder of unborn children, could we? That would be way outside of UN jurisdiction.

(Allow me to apologize in advance for the over-abundant sarcasm).

Well, yes, we certainly couldn't have the UN going about outlawing the murder of unborn children, could we? That would be way outside of UN jurisdiction.

(Allow me to apologize in advance for the over-abundant sarcasm).

You may be saying that sarcastically, but I'm not. I don't think the UN should have stuck its Compliance Ministry anywhere near the abortion issue.

You may be saying that sarcastically, but I'm not. I don't think the UN should have stuck its Compliance Ministry anywhere near the abortion issue.

Too bad, it did, get over it.

Vastiva: Spreading wisdom with hand grenades.

Vastiva: Spreading wisdom with hand grenades.

Yes. And he should be careful whence he throws them.

Terribly sorry, but wishing "if only" doesn't do anything. Get back to reality, move on from the point you are on. To wonder "if only I didn't take the left turn at Goliad" is rather useless - you did. Move on.

Yes. And he should be careful whence he throws them.

It's a case of all of the arguements on here against it are not even valid when you bother to read the FAQ. In fact, I could post the one quote that invalidates most of them, which amount to national sovereignity arguements.

Terribly sorry, but wishing "if only" doesn't do anything. Get back to reality, move on from the point you are on. To wonder "if only I didn't take the left turn at Goliad" is rather useless - you did. Move on.

Look here, Vasty. I tolerate people being snarky with me under certain conditions. If you are a) being or attempting to be humorous b) pointing out a flaw in one of my arguments, that's cool. I actually appreciate it. If I was c) snarky with you first, then I don't blame you for returning the favor.

Unfortunately, your posts (at least in response to my posts) tend not to satisfy those conditions. Given that I was stating an opinion and not making an argument, given that you made no attempt to be humorous or light-hearted, and given that you were being rude and decidedly unhelpful while I was in no way doing the same to you prior to that time, you should not expect much tolerance from me.

You can discontinue your attitude with me, and we can be friendly, which is my preference, or you can simply stop interacting with me at all. It's up to you.

It's a case of all of the arguements on here against it are not even valid when you bother to read the FAQ. In fact, I could post the one quote that invalidates most of them, which amount to national sovereignity arguements.

I posted an opinion, not an argument. I stated that "I don't think such and such". If I had said, "Such and such should not be the case" then it would have been an argument.

I posted an opinion, not an argument. I stated that "I don't think such and such". If I had said, "Such and such should not be the case" then it would have been an argument.

I know. But it is being used as an arguement in certain repeals.

Look here, Vasty. I tolerate people being snarky with me under certain conditions. If you are a) being or attempting to be humorous b) pointing out a flaw in one of my arguments, that's cool. I actually appreciate it. If I was c) snarky with you first, then I don't blame you for returning the favor.

Unfortunately, your posts (at least in response to my posts) tend not to satisfy those conditions. Given that I was stating an opinion and not making an argument, given that you made no attempt to be humorous or light-hearted, and given that you were being rude and decidedly unhelpful while I was in no way doing the same to you prior to that time, you should not expect much tolerance from me.

You can discontinue your attitude with me, and we can be friendly, which is my preference, or you can simply stop interacting with me at all. It's up to you.

Believe it or not, it's not an attitude.

Here's the resolutions - once passed, the nations have to adapt. Either by repeal, or creative legislation, or whatever, but there is no choice.

Its made for some creative solutions (particularly "Law of the Sea"), but thats the rules.

Now, does Vastiva believe all nations should allow abortion - yes, because we believe in freedom of choice in all things, with which comes acceptance of responsibility.

However, we can't "just go back". We can only move forwards.

If my words are offensive, I apologize, and ask pardon as it has been a long day, and my tongue a bit sharper for it.

Vastiva, try having a go at the proposal in the other topic. It'll be fun.

Vastiva is right. We pretty much have only one direction we can go to increase survival and evolution chances. And it's not one people like.

However, we can't "just go back". We can only move forwards.

I'm well aware of that. It's why I've left and re-joined the UN several times. :(

However, that does not mean that I cannot express my opinion. Especially in relation to past events that disheartened me, I find it helpful to express my feelings in a thread where the topic is quite relevant to such past events. It allows me to get those feelings out so that they aren't bottled up inside making me crazy. The problem I have is when you (and several others before you) have objected to me expressing my opinion on the subject. I don't go around rebuking persons with your opinion on the subject for expressing that opinion, and would appreciate a similar respect.

If my words are offensive, I apologize, and ask pardon as it has been a long day, and my tongue a bit sharper for it.

Understood, and accepted. I think we may have cleared that up, fortunately.

Shake?

Now, does Vastiva believe all nations should allow abortion - yes,

Ok.

because we believe in freedom of choice in all things, with which comes acceptance of responsibility.

Ok, but arbitrary. What leads to pregnancy Vastiva? Abortion is not a choice that affects only one person in all cases. (Just pointing out, that in this instance, more explanation is necessary for what is typicly a stand alone statement)

However, we can't "just go back". We can only move forwards.

In this case, to repeal the old resolution is to remove it, back to square, well, zero. Going back to where we were before it was passed. Relatively speaking, this is moving back. Will grant, however, that it is so we may move forward, with this, or another resolution, if one presents itself.;)

it has been a long day, and my tongue a bit sharper for it.

Ahh... never mind then. I shall cease with the smart-a** analysis.

Texan Hotrodders - I believe we're on the same side here. I just might be a little more willing to deal with the devil. I don't think we'll get a complete abortion repeal or ban through the UN anytime soon. So I'm willing to work with incrementalism - get a partial birth abortion ban, perhaps some father's rights, and keep working piece-by-piece.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the reality of the situation, both in NS and in RL. Let's try to take back some humanity for the unborn, even if it has to be a little at a time....

Vastiva, try having a go at the proposal in the other topic. It'll be fun.

Vastiva is right. We pretty much have only one direction we can go to increase survival and evolution chances. And it's not one people like.

Which one?

because we believe in freedom of choice in all things, with which comes acceptance of responsibility.


Ok, but arbitrary. What leads to pregnancy Vastiva? Abortion is not a choice that affects only one person in all cases. (Just pointing out, that in this instance, more explanation is necessary for what is typicly a stand alone statement)

Sexual activity can lead to pregnancy, though it is not the only method and that result is not assured.

That act, therefore, has the possibility of the responsibility of deciding what to do about a pregnancy.

We do not see how you see this as arbitrary.



However, we can't "just go back". We can only move forwards.


In this case, to repeal the old resolution is to remove it, back to square, well, zero. Going back to where we were before it was passed. Relatively speaking, this is moving back. Will grant, however, that it is so we may move forward, with this, or another resolution, if one presents itself.


Ah, but adding a repeal is adding more legislation. More arguements are made, more is done, overall the UN evolves.



Texan Hotrodders - I believe we're on the same side here. I just might be a little more willing to deal with the devil. I don't think we'll get a complete abortion repeal or ban through the UN anytime soon. So I'm willing to work with incrementalism - get a partial birth abortion ban, perhaps some father's rights, and keep working piece-by-piece.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the reality of the situation, both in NS and in RL. Let's try to take back some humanity for the unborn, even if it has to be a little at a time....

Many apologies, but you have no conception of the reality of world medicine. Within two classes (not generation, graduating classes) all medical practitioners will know how to do this proceedure, and do it safely. This will remove the idea of abortion from the hands of legislaters and put it back in medicine, where it belongs.

And since you are taking the cause of "righteously defending the unborn", would you mind terribly explaining:

1) what it is you are "righteously defending";
2) why that thing you are "righteously defending" is somehow to be given greater rights then the woman in whose body it is growing;
3) As long as you have made the choices for the people involved, and made it so they must have this child (depriving them of choice), are you then going to fund the raising of said child, or are you just going to "dump and abandon", which appears to be the normal modus operandi of "antiabortionists".
4) If you are going to fund and supply emotional support, please give a realistic manner this can be done.

Which one?

At this point? All of them. I'm tempted to start a thread asking if the Abortion Horse is dead or if the heartbeat is just too faint to feel.

Yeah. I am still scared by it, but I can see why it might not be able to be changed.

It's just that I honestly believe someone who has decided to go through with an abortion needs to be supported in that decision, and no one who is in the pay of the state, or who is a doctor, should have the right to use any form of co-ercion to try to get her to change her mind. And if you don't think that will happen in some of the more conservative nations that occupy this world, I would say you are wrong.

Also - what if someone thinks the side effects are being condemmed to hell for all eternity?

Well, the limitations to the scope (and forbidance of religious counciling [since hell is directly in relation to religion]) would handle that.

I've put some thinking into it, and I might try to reword this into a regulatory act, if Fris.'s Repeal doesn't make it through, under Social Justice. If it can make it through, at least it can address mant of the vaguity situations in the term "interference" (which I have a problem with) in the scope of the ARR... Make this merely the "Abortion Regulatory Act". coined as a Social Justice res.

Sexual activity can lead to pregnancy, though it is not the only method and that result is not assured.

That act, therefore, has the possibility of the responsibility of deciding what to do about a pregnancy.

We do not see how you see this as arbitrary.



In cases where sexual activity between two persons is intended to, and does lead to pregnancy, that is the act which denotes responsibility for ones actions. However, to also accept that becoming pregnant sets up the opportunity for the woman to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term, and having her accept responsibility for that choice, does not follow from making people accept responsibility for their actions that lead to that pregnancy. So, the statements do not stand alone, and an arbitrary cut off has been created, which can lead to inconsistency.

In effect, the man's role in reproduction becomes illusory under such a scenario. There is one way I can accept this: suspend disbeleif that sex in no way leads to pregnancy, and absolve the man of any responsibility to any child. This way, a man has a choice to accept the responsibility of associating/disassociating with the mother and child during pregnancy. If pregnancy is to be the woman's sole choice, it is to be her sole responsibility, unless a father chooses to share that responsiblility. This allows for logical consistency, and equality of the sexes. Unfortunately, it has the potential of creating the worste living and growing environment for children, and equates surgical abortion to birth control.

Ah, but adding a repeal is adding more legislation. More arguements are made, more is done, overall the UN evolves.

Ideally and logically this would hold true. As repeals are recorded, the reasoning for the repeal would, we hope, be addressed, in a new resolution on the same topic. But, this is NS, and as Tekania has said, such cognitive abilities and reaoning are checked at the door.

Case: as a repeal can do nothing more than repeal another resolution, its language is nonbinding. Just the effect holds weight, that it repealed another resolution. If the reasoning were to be held equally as the effect, and adhered to, then it would be a wholly new resolution. That is not allowed by game rules.

As the language in the repeal is non binding, its reasoning can be addressed in a new resolution, or it may not. So, we are back to square zero.

At this point? All of them. I'm tempted to start a thread asking if the Abortion Horse is dead or if the heartbeat is just too faint to feel.

ROFL!

Sexual activity can lead to pregnancy, though it is not the only method and that result is not assured.

That act, therefore, has the possibility of the responsibility of deciding what to do about a pregnancy.

We do not see how you see this as arbitrary.

In cases where sexual activity between two persons is intended to, and does lead to pregnancy, that is the act which denotes responsibility for ones actions.

They wanted it, they got it, ok...



However, to also accept that becoming pregnant sets up the opportunity for the woman to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term, and having her accept responsibility for that choice, does not follow from making people accept responsibility for their actions that lead to that pregnancy. So, the statements do not stand alone, and an arbitrary cut off has been created, which can lead to inconsistency.

We don't see this.

Sex can lead to the condition of pregnancy, which leads to the condition of the woman choosing to continue or not. The male, by having sex, accepts the possibility of fatherhood or financial support, or occasionally "no effect", depending.

Where is the difficulty?



In effect, the man's role in reproduction becomes illusory under such a scenario. There is one way I can accept this: suspend disbeleif that sex in no way leads to pregnancy, and absolve the man of any responsibility to any child. This way, a man has a choice to accept the responsibility of associating/disassociating with the mother and child during pregnancy. If pregnancy is to be the woman's sole choice, it is to be her sole responsibility, unless a father chooses to share that responsiblility. This allows for logical consistency, and equality of the sexes. Unfortunately, it has the potential of creating the worste living and growing environment for children, and equates surgical abortion to birth control.

You are mixing the conditions of "responsibility for choice over your own body" and "responsibility should a child be produced". The first is entirely the realm of the mother - it's her body - the latter has... much to be decided in some cases.

Ideally and logically this would hold true. As repeals are recorded, the reasoning for the repeal would, we hope, be addressed, in a new resolution on the same topic. But, this is NS, and as Tekania has said, such cognitive abilities and reaoning are checked at the door.

Case: as a repeal can do nothing more than repeal another resolution, its language is nonbinding. Just the effect holds weight, that it repealed another resolution. If the reasoning were to be held equally as the effect, and adhered to, then it would be a wholly new resolution. That is not allowed by game rules.

As the language in the repeal is non binding, its reasoning can be addressed in a new resolution, or it may not. So, we are back to square zero.

Not quite. There's more gunk to read through.

We don't see this.

Sex can lead to the condition of pregnancy, which leads to the condition of the woman choosing to continue or not. The male, by having sex, accepts the possibility of fatherhood or financial support, or occasionally "no effect", depending.

Where is the difficulty?

Dichotomy. If sex does not mandate parenthood for one party it can not mandate parenthood for the other party. Now do you see the difficulty? To say otherwise violates the human rights resolution.

You are mixing the conditions of "responsibility for choice over your own body" and "responsibility should a child be produced". The first is entirely the realm of the mother - it's her body - the latter has... much to be decided in some cases.

No I am not, you are forgetting that you rest whether a child be produced soley with the mother. So, both, under the ideas presented by your views, fall under the realm of the mother. It follows from that, that if both rest with the mother, so to does responsibility, and the husband has no responsibility to mother or child, because he has no choice in whether a child is produced. His choice rests with whether or not he wants to assist the mother with her responsibilities.

Produced, following Vastivian rules, is the mother choosing to give birth to an entity that meets the three part test. Also, if speaking in term of life being produced at conception, choice to allow that conceptus to develop into a fetus and be birthed rests with the woman. So, if it is the woman's choice, it is her responsibility.

There is not much left to be decided. A man may consent to sex for reproduction, but revoke that offer to provide emotional and fiduciary support before a child is born, as a mother may revoke her consent to allowing the child to be born, and have an abortion. If the mother's choice is mutually exclusive from the father as it is her free will being sacrificed, than so to is the fathers choice to have his free will subjected to caring for a child.

Now, if a mother's choice is made on detrimantal reliance brought about by the father to aid, that is a different story. However, you did not choose that route. But even under that scenario, if such aid is revoked during the period in which she can have an abortion, he is not bound to provide any support.

We don't see this.

Sex can lead to the condition of pregnancy, which leads to the condition of the woman choosing to continue or not. The male, by having sex, accepts the possibility of fatherhood or financial support, or occasionally "no effect", depending.

Where is the difficulty?



Dichotomy. If sex does not mandate parenthood for one party it can not mandate parenthood for the other party. Now do you see the difficulty? To say otherwise violates the human rights resolution.

You are compounding two issues. One is "does the host want the parasite to grow to maturity or be removed?", the other is "Parental Rights and Child Rights of human being/person who has passed the three way test".

We see no problem.




You are mixing the conditions of "responsibility for choice over your own body" and "responsibility should a child be produced". The first is entirely the realm of the mother - it's her body - the latter has... much to be decided in some cases.


No I am not, you are forgetting that you rest whether a child be produced soley with the mother. So, both, under the ideas presented by your views, fall under the realm of the mother. It follows from that, that if both rest with the mother, so to does responsibility, and the husband has no responsibility to mother or child, because he has no choice in whether a child is produced. His choice rests with whether or not he wants to assist the mother with her responsibilities.

Incorrect. *If* a child (human being/person who passed the three way test and now has rights) is produced, a set of laws takes effect concerning duty of care, parental rights, etc.



Produced, following Vastivian rules, is the mother choosing to give birth to an entity that meets the three part test. Also, if speaking in term of life being produced at conception, choice to allow that conceptus to develop into a fetus and be birthed rests with the woman. So, if it is the woman's choice, it is her responsibility.

Life is not "produced".

Assuming both decided to commit an act where birth was a possible outcome, both accepted the responsibility.



There is not much left to be decided. A man may consent to sex for reproduction, but revoke that offer to provide emotional and fiduciary support before a child is born, as a mother may revoke her consent to allowing the child to be born, and have an abortion. If the mother's choice is mutually exclusive from the father as it is her free will being sacrificed, than so to is the fathers choice to have his free will subjected to caring for a child.

You are STILL confusing the situation. In one, we have "lump of cells", in the other, we have "child" (see above for long definition). These two situations are entirely different under the law.



Now, if a mother's choice is made on detrimantal reliance brought about by the father to aid, that is a different story. However, you did not choose that route. But even under that scenario, if such aid is revoked during the period in which she can have an abortion, he is not bound to provide any support.

Irrelevant.

Ahh, the John Kerry of NationStates;)

You are compounding two issues. One is "does the host want the parasite to grow to maturity or be removed?", the other is "Parental Rights and Child Rights of human being/person who has passed the three way test".

We see no problem.

If it is a parasite, then the male has no ties to it whatsoever, as it is a product of the mother who allows the parasite to mature. If she has a choice to allow a parasite to grow and usurp her free will, the father has the same choice as to whether he will allow the growth of a parasite to usurp his free will.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Incorrect. *If* a child (human being/person who passed the three way test and now has rights) is produced, a set of laws takes effect concerning duty of care, parental rights, etc.

You are violating the human rights of the father, by invoking a duty of care on a father that has not done an affirmative act to accept that accepts you invokes that duty, your government is usurping his free will.

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


As you said, if the woman has a choice to let a parasite mature and grow, she has responsibility for it, as she accepted the duty of parenthood and the associated rights. That responsibility can not lawfully be invoked on the father, unless he acts affirmatively to accept such a duty, assuming the rights of parenthood. Otherwise, human rights violation.

Life is not "produced".

That was an if statement, as such, it is for others as to how this applies to NS that consider conceptes as the begining of life.

And yes it is produced. You have offered no valid reasoning yet for this spiritual ensouling and continuos life that you adopted, which you may or may not still maintain as it contradicts your three way test.

Assuming both decided to commit an act where birth was a possible outcome, both accepted the responsibility.

Abortion Rights



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Votes For: 9368

Votes Against: 6549

Implemented: Sat Jun 5 2004

Really?

Again, if sex does not mandate a chain of events that reults in parenthood for one party it can not mandate a chain of events that results in parenthood for the other party. To say otherwise violates the human rights resolution.

You are STILL confusing the situation. In one, we have "lump of cells", in the other, we have "child" (see above for long definition). These two situations are entirely different under the law.

See your comments prior to this statement. There is something you are missing.

The father can terminate his relationship to both mother and parasite. As no child exists, he owes no duty to her, or later offspring. The UN equalizes the parties. As a parasite, it is owed nothing by either party to begin with. If it is born later, tuff luck. The father chose not to have any relationship to the parasite. To mandate a relationship to some later child he has not acted affirmatively or ommitively so as to invoke a duty, violates his Human Rights.

Irrelevant.

Entirely relevant if you are now pursuing a duty of care route.

AP -

Before it passes three way test, not a human and has no rights.

After it passes the three way test, is a human being with rights and "duty of care" owed by parents in methods determined between themselves, or failing that, by a court of law.

We still see no confusion here. Diagram it out - mayhaps you will see our point of reference better. If not, We shall endeavor to explain it again.

Have been, since you talked about ensouling, a never-ending life, so as determine how that all can consistently relate back to a three way test. To date, it does not. At best it is two opposing standpoints, existing so that one may be undertaken when the other leads to a corner.

A duty of care is automatically owed once an act or ommision to act invokes that duty. If it is not a human, and has no rights or duty of care, the father can not automatically become beholden to care for it once it is born. This is because the mother is given a choice as to whether she acts in a way that results in parenthood. So to then should the father. Since this choice exists after sex for the woman, so to does it for the man. To do so is an inequality of rights, discrimination, and a usurption of free will.

With respect to "Assuming both decided to commit an act where birth was a possible outcome, both accepted the responsibility."

Aside from being illegal under UN law. How does this compare to lump of cells, the three way test, and the Vastivian duty of care and parental rights.

Responsibility: The lump of cells is the result of an act where birth was possible, and indicates a high degree of certainty that birth will occur. To say that they are responsible for such an act means they owe a duty of care to ensure that birth results. It is their responsibility to do so.

3WT and DOC: As the responsibility exists, this three way test is void with respect to a government mandated duty of care. You have identified sex as the affirmative act inducing responsibility for the pregnancy by both parties. More progressive than myself. The three way test now serves to give it rights, and parental rights.

Parental Rights: If the Male has never undertaken any duty, he has no parental rights. He is not a parent. If you automatically make the sperm donor a parent, this creates other problems.

A court of law will be the only way to determine if the Male has undertaken such a duty if he states that he has not.

But sure, explain all your viewpoints on this issue, and how they are valid, sound, and consistent. From three way test, to accepting responsibility for ones actions, to how allowing one party such a choice can usurp the human rights of another in such a manner: as you at present do not allow the male a choice, to differentiating between how responsibility of sex is pregnancy and how that responsibility in turn differentiates from a duty of care: which is also responsibiity, to when and how a soul exists, to how how if a parasite is the method of continuing never-ending human life it does not have human rights.

Please, endeavor to explain it all. I assure you, others are also confused by your competing posts. And a diagram by the author would be a great aid.

Take care,

-AP

C. Delineated Rights of Private Facilties and Personnel.
1. No private facility (that is any facility not owned and operated by any state) may be forced to provide abortion services.
2. No personnel, whether in the employment of the state, or a private institution, may be forced, against their own will, by the state, or private institution, to participate in any procedure related to abortion.

As I have stated before, I have issues with this article. What is to stop a state from declaring that all its institutions are private and thus legislate that no private institution may provide abortion services? It's still too big of a loophole.

If abortion is legal, as per part one, then no doctor can be prohibited from conducting the act.

This is stronger than the current ARR, which states a women has a choice. The Government can say yes, make that choice. Then do it yourself, or at risk of your life in an unsafe procedure, as it does not require us to provide the service or allow abortion clinics.

If abortion is legal, as per part one, then no doctor can be prohibited from conducting the act.

Actually, all it says is that "abortion is legal". It does not state that the nation can refuse to allow doctors to provide the service. It's a matter of enforcement- abortion may be legal in name, but in practice it isn't. That is what I am trying to avoid.

Draft Update...


Abortion Rights and Regulations Act

Catagory: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed By:Tekania

A. Delineated Rights to women in relation to Abortion.
1. Abortion shall be legal in all United Nations member states.
2. No woman can be forced to undergo any abortion procedure, against her will, in any United Nations member state.

B. Rights reserved to the States.
1. The member states shall retain the right to regulate facilities providing abortion services within their territory, for the purpose of safety.
(a) Regulation or limitations of facilities cannot be based upon the status of the institution as public (that is government run) or private (including both incorporated institutions, and not-for-profit institutions).
2. The member states shall retain the right to regulate abortion procedures for the purpose of procedural safty within their borders.
(a) Such limitations, if based on time, cannot be set any earlier than 6 months from conception.
3. The member states shall retain the right to regulate upon personnel providing abortion services within their territory, for the purpose of safety
(a) Such limitations cannot be based upon institution of employment, public or private.
4. The member states shall retain the right to mandate counceling, prior to procedure, of women who wish to undergo an abortion procedure.
(a) The Counceling session can not exceed a total time, regardless the number of sessions, of 2 hours.
(b) The Session date must not exceed any time limits or deadlines for abortion procedures set by the state.
(c) The Session can only cover procedural details to be used, and possible side-effects (such as PPD). No religious counciling can be mandated. And all costs for the counciling will be incured upon the state.
(d) No use of violent or disturbing imagery or violent or offensive language will be allowed in the session.
(e) All counselors will be required to keep audio and/or audio-video records of the entire proceedings, for up to 10 years after the session.

C. Delineated Rights of Private Facilties and Personnel.
1. No private facility (that is any facility not owned and operated by any state) may be forced to provide abortion services.
2. No personnel, whether in the employment of the state, or a private institution, may be forced, against their own will, by the state, or private institution, to participate in any procedure related to abortion.

Thanks Tekania.

(a) Such limitations, if based on time, cannot be set any earlier than 6 months from conception.

What is the point of this? Or,
Why was it added? Can you direct me to the reasons, as I have missed them.

Will look back.

If the countries abortion laws allow for induced cycling and are based on a principle of care, this clause negates that viewpoint.

As I am one of those countries, I can no longer support this.

What is the point of this? Or,
Why was it added? Can you direct me to the reasons, as I have missed them.

Will look back.

If the countries abortion laws allow for induced cycling and are based on a principle of care, this clause negates that viewpoint.

As I am one of those countries, I can no longer support this.

I believe the idea is to prevent a country from drawing the abortion process out to the point where it isn't legal (i.e. six months), although that is a strange clause.

(long sarcastic post)

My, but you're a sarcastic one tonight, aren't you?

And you've made a right mess of several concepts, bungled them all together then called it soup!

Small wonder you're confused.

First, life is not a sudden existance - it is a constant. The terminology "life is created" is a fallacy - without a live sperm and a live egg, fertilization in humans does not happen. Therefore, those are living cells. At no time is something which is not alive involved.


You presuppose a duty of care to cells. This is fallacy as well - you do not owe your skin anything, you do not owe your hair anything. These are merely cells - living, yes, but not endowed with rights.


So we will go through the legal process. A man and a woman have sex, and by this act, she becomes pregnant. At this point, the mass of cells is treated no differently then any other mass of cells - it is within her body, and it is within her rights to do most anything she wishes of that particular mass. At this point, there are no responsibilities towards the male - his rights and responsibilties sit in legal limbo, as there is no "child" and his rights and responsibilities do not emerge until such time as there is one. Ergo, no say, no rights, no legal responsibilities in the matter (certain circumstances have allowed for alternative decisions, but we will remain in the realm of the normal for the moment).

There is no inequality, as they both still have full rights over their own body. Legally, and until birth, the insemination is considered a legal donation, and invokes no rights or responsibilities of any sort. Nor is there any responsibility of any sort to "insure birth occurs", as that would be an act requiring an overwrighting of the right to choose of the mother.

Nine months - give or take - later, there is a birth, and the mass of cells passes the three way test: it is external to the host, it is disconnected from the host, and it has taken a breath. Classified now as a "human being with rights, legally a child", this brings on a set of laws which gives the male both rights and responsibilties, and the female rights and responsibilties. At this point, we would allow for your "duty of care" to exist, as it would exist towards something classified legally as "a human being with rights" as opposed to "a mass of cells".

We find it is your assumption that the "mass of cells" has anything approaching rights, or is considered "human" by any means until such time as our three way test is passed.

Now do get over yourself, see our arguement as is, and take it from there. Condescending statements do not better your cause - you make too many assumptions.

Just remember that according to earlier passed UN resolutions, no person can be deprived of life or liberty without "due process of law". In order to make this resolution pass and not contadict existing resolutions, you have to somehow deal with the baby's right to live. Unless, of course, your resolution describes some legal process through which the baby's right to life can be revoked. This is important to add this or your resolution could later be repealed as being in violation of long-standing legislation.

As was discussed in other posts, it is dangerous to declare, at any stage of pregnancy, that an unborn is not a person. Reading through existing resolutions regarding health and medical care, the unborn would not qualify for medical care unless it was a person with full UN rights. Therefore, the abortion procedure would not be completely covered under government sponsored medical care, and assuredly under most private insurance agencies. Abortionists can charge massive fees to the patient with regards to the portion of the procedure done to the unborn's body, which exists outside UN medical law and must be covered by the mother. High enough fees here can effectively block all but the richest from affording an abortion. This may also carry over into various aspects of female reproductive health whether in the realm of abortion or otherwise. (for example, an unborn develops an infection, but is outside the realm of mandated health care, and a physician can legally deny treatment until the mother, who is entitled to health care, is affected)

Just remember that according to earlier passed UN resolutions, no person can be deprived of life or liberty without "due process of law". In order to make this resolution pass and not contadict existing resolutions, you have to somehow deal with the baby's right to live. Unless, of course, your resolution describes some legal process through which the baby's right to life can be revoked. This is important to add this or your resolution could later be repealed as being in violation of long-standing legislation.

As was discussed in other posts, it is dangerous to declare, at any stage of pregnancy, that an unborn is not a person. Reading through existing resolutions regarding health and medical care, the unborn would not qualify for medical care unless it was a person with full UN rights. Therefore, the abortion procedure would not be completely covered under government sponsored medical care, and assuredly under most private insurance agencies. Abortionists can charge massive fees to the patient with regards to the portion of the procedure done to the unborn's body, which exists outside UN medical law and must be covered by the mother. High enough fees here can effectively block all but the richest from affording an abortion. This may also carry over into various aspects of female reproductive health whether in the realm of abortion or otherwise.


The unborn is not a person - it does not exist as anything but a mass of cells with potential. It has no rights. We find no danger in this position, but will stand to be enlightened.

One does not cover the cancer with insurance - one covers the mother for all proceedures. Our government states abortion is a covered proceedure, and sets our countrys fee schedule for such.

All proceedures are performed upon the mother, or that which is within the mothers body and hence legally the mother herself.

And again - we state there is not and never was and never will be a "right to life". Being born gives you only one absolute right - the right to die. All other rights are conveyed by the state, culture, or some other form of society. To believe otherwise is to display ignorance.

What is the point of this? Or,
Why was it added? Can you direct me to the reasons, as I have missed them.


To prevent countries from using legal trickery, to break the intent of the law.


If the countries abortion laws allow for induced cycling and are based on a principle of care, this clause negates that viewpoint.


Complete bullshit statement; If you're not going to bring up a valid and functional objection, I can't help you. "Induced cycling" and "principle of care" don't convey any meaning in your statement.


As I am one of those countries, I can no longer support this.

Not really sure what "those" countries are... And if you continue operating in your present motif, I will begin recommending you drop the Anti- from your name.

Just remember that according to earlier passed UN resolutions, no person can be deprived of life or liberty without "due process of law". In order to make this resolution pass and not contadict existing resolutions, you have to somehow deal with the baby's right to live. Unless, of course, your resolution describes some legal process through which the baby's right to life can be revoked. This is important to add this or your resolution could later be repealed as being in violation of long-standing legislation.

As was discussed in other posts, it is dangerous to declare, at any stage of pregnancy, that an unborn is not a person. Reading through existing resolutions regarding health and medical care, the unborn would not qualify for medical care unless it was a person with full UN rights. Therefore, the abortion procedure would not be completely covered under government sponsored medical care, and assuredly under most private insurance agencies. Abortionists can charge massive fees to the patient with regards to the portion of the procedure done to the unborn's body, which exists outside UN medical law and must be covered by the mother. High enough fees here can effectively block all but the richest from affording an abortion. This may also carry over into various aspects of female reproductive health whether in the realm of abortion or otherwise. (for example, an unborn develops an infection, but is outside the realm of mandated health care, and a physician can legally deny treatment until the mother, who is entitled to health care, is affected)

What in the hell are you talking about? Or are you unaware of the Abortion Rights Resolution (#61) Which passed June 5th, 2004.... Of which (without Fris's current Proposal of repeal of #61) the only thing I would need to bring it into compliance is removal of part A.

My, but you're a sarcastic one tonight, aren't you?

Contracts test tonight. Starting to get antsy. Not really being sarcastic, but here, I will give it a go sparky ;)

And you've made a right mess of several concepts, bungled them all together then called it soup!

LOL, for the confused NS soul!

Small wonder you're confused.

Correct, as I don't like soup.

First, life is not a sudden existance - it is a constant. The terminology "life is created" is a fallacy - without a live sperm and a live egg, fertilization in humans does not happen. Therefore, those are living cells. At no time is something which is not alive involved.

How are they alive? Please explain. A conceptus just meets the criteria, and that is a stretch. Sperm and eggs do not replicate, and transcribe genetic code, nor do they have a complete code, they have no metobolism, they do not grow and develop.

Or, pray tell, are they ensouled, and their two souls become one?

Sheesh, if you are going to call something a fallacy, explain how you reason it as such-in other words, how is a sperm and egg alive. Honestly, so sperm are always existing in the testicles, or are they developed in them. Again, life is created. Not continuos.

You presuppose a duty of care to cells. This is fallacy as well - you do not owe your skin anything, you do not owe your hair anything. These are merely cells - living, yes, but not endowed with rights.

Skin cells do not grow and develop into an independant being that will be capable of self sustanence. Anyway, already explained this. By your attempt to illogicaly explain my logic, a piece of human feces would be deserving of a duty of care if given an affirmative act inducing detrimental reliance.

So we will go through the legal process. A man and a woman have sex, and by this act, she becomes pregnant. At this point, the mass of cells is treated no differently then any other mass of cells - it is within her body, and it is within her rights to do most anything she wishes of that particular mass. At this point, there are no responsibilities towards the male - his rights and responsibilties sit in legal limbo, as there is no "child" and his rights and responsibilities do not emerge until such time as there is one. Ergo, no say, no rights, no legal responsibilities in the matter (certain circumstances have allowed for alternative decisions, but we will remain in the realm of the normal for the moment).

There is no inequality, as they both still have full rights over their own body. Legally, and until birth, the insemination is considered a legal donation, and invokes no rights or responsibilities of any sort. Nor is there any responsibility of any sort to "insure birth occurs", as that would be an act requiring an overwrighting of the right to choose of the mother.

So, sex is an affirmative act on the part of a male as a sperm donor. Accepting that risk of pregnancy when engaging in intercourse. If you are looking at it from a donor standpoint. The mother is donating her body by consenting to sex, to pregnancy. Both accepting the risk of pregnancy by consenting to sex. As per UN Human rights resolution.

Can you try to be consistent, two paragraphs, both containing two competing ideologies. One inconsistently applied philosophy negates the other. Are you a priest?

Nine months - give or take - later, there is a birth, and the mass of cells passes the three way test: it is external to the host, it is disconnected from the host, and it has taken a breath. Classified now as a "human being with rights, legally a child", this brings on a set of laws which gives the male both rights and responsibilties, and the female rights and responsibilties. At this point, we would allow for your "duty of care" to exist, as it would exist towards something classified legally as "a human being with rights" as opposed to "a mass of cells".

You adopted duty of care in your earlier post. Even if I first mentioned it, you adopted it, so do not try to pass it off as soley mine now.

Anyway, if you are purporting to "allow" my phiolosophy, that a child exists is not evidence of an affirmative act by the male invoking a duty. If he said no, I do not consent to parenthood, and leaves without ever offering support, he has done no affirmative act under my ideology given present abortion law.

So long as sex acts as consent to pregnancy for both parties. That would allow rights and responsibilities to automatically pass to both parents. But again, consistency is lost on you, and one is considered a donor for reasons that are arbitrarily limited to the male.

We find it is your assumption that the "mass of cells" has anything approaching rights, or is considered "human" by any means until such time as our three way test is passed.

Not an assumption, but what follows from your three competing ideologies of never ending life, a soul, and a three way test. You have again, failed to explain them all, despite offering to do so, and being asked to do so.
If you can not follow your own trains of thought, and explain them all, in a consistent manner that explains gaps in judgment, why bother to share them? Also, where does this soul come into play again?

Now do get over yourself, see our arguement as is, and take it from there. Condescending statements do not better your cause - you make too many assumptions.

Hypocrite.

Now, do get over yourself, and take the time to reflect on your stance, and try to make it consistent, for the sake of not having to waffle between what works at the time:)

But, to be positive, you are consistently inconsistent on this issue :)

Abotion should be illegal and I will cast my vote for the outlawing of abortion in UN nations should I be passed the UN Delegate seat of the region of ChristianNations. May the Lord be praised.

TM recomendations on that, and a name change if you so desire.

Abotion should be illegal and I will cast my vote for the outlawing of abortion in UN nations should I be passed the UN Delegate seat of the region of ChristianNations. May the Lord be praised.

I would suggest jumping on Fris's repeal proposal then; Abortion is already legalized as per the Abortion Rights Resolution (#61) Implimented June 5th, 2004. Untill #61 is repealed, you will not see a "Make Abortion Illegal" type resolution reach the UN floor.

I do not believe in loopholes... As such, there will be none if I can help it.

Fertilization preventatives are not a factor of this, since this deals with abortion of an already fertilized zygot or greater.

For those who feel abortion is wrong; they are handled under A-2, C-1 and C-2.

B-2(a) Does not prevent your use of cyclic induction procedures, as described, as they are still within form; but does limit your ability to restrict abortion, if said restriction is based upon time frame, to no closer to conception than 6 months... If you want to limit procedures, that's up to you.

Sent a TM in Response.

Please remove the quote.

If non-surgical methods can be employed that impose no health or safety risks, and if only non-surgical methods are allowed and accepted procedure, and if those measures are only effective during the first three months, then is that application in violation of the resolution?

The NS oversee safety and procedure under the resolution, however, the UN also allows six months. Which imposition trumps the other? As the imposition exists as a matter of both safety and time.

If non-surgical methods can be employed that impose no health or safety risks, and if only non-surgical methods are allowed and accepted procedure, and if those measures are only effective during the first three months, then is that application in violation of the resolution?

The NS oversee safety and procedure under the resolution, however, the UN also allows six months. Which imposition trumps the other? As the imposition exists as a matter of both safety and time.

Imposition is stated purpose, when limit is imposed by time. (sic. if a nation wants to impose a statutory time limit on abortion, that time limit, in law, cannot be in earlier than the 6 month (beginning of third trimester) point). A by law time restriction cannot be made in the first or second trimester. This does not limit time frame restrictions to particular procedures.

Abotion should be illegal and I will cast my vote for the outlawing of abortion in UN nations should I be passed the UN Delegate seat of the region of ChristianNations. May the Lord be praised.

Abortion is already legal. You might want to check Fris's topic.

Also, why should it be illegal?

Abortion is already legal. You might want to check Fris's topic.

Also, why should it be illegal?

Actually, I can likely answer for him....

It would go something like this:

<?

$deity = ""; *Assign name of deity you worship here.
$religion = ""; *Assign name of religion you follow here.

print("We must unite under $deity because according to the holy tenets of our $religion faith, Abortion is an act of murder!");

?>

If he tries using Christianity, I'll pimp-slap him with the fact the Bible doesn't actually talk about abortion and then beat him with the fact the main duty of a Christian is to provide the option of salvation and not try to force it on other people.

That's how you Bible-thump somebody.

Okay, I have my loophole;), as the government acts in good faith.

My only other visible problem is that other nations are probably more inclined to set the cut off date at when brain development occurs, which is between, approximately, 4 (4.5)to 6 months (18 to 24 weeks).

So, if the time limit is set to prevent legal trickery, why not impose it at four months to prevent those, of the brain development mindset, from opposing the resolution on those grounds?

abortion is the murder of a living, unborn human being and should thusly be outlawed. any UN laws allowing it, except under circumstances where the mother's life is in jeopardy directly, should be repealed.
whether it is a christian or religious consideration is secondary, as murder is universally declared immoral and a violation of human's rights to live, even where church is separate from state.

Texan Hotrodders - I believe we're on the same side here. I just might be a little more willing to deal with the devil. I don't think we'll get a complete abortion repeal or ban through the UN anytime soon. So I'm willing to work with incrementalism - get a partial birth abortion ban, perhaps some father's rights, and keep working piece-by-piece.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the reality of the situation, both in NS and in RL. Let's try to take back some humanity for the unborn, even if it has to be a little at a time....

And this is the EXACT reason I don't want the current resolution repealing at all.

People tell me I am paranoid that repealing this will be a slippery slope to abortion being banned throughout the UN, but this post clearly indicates that is exactly what some people are planning.

abortion is the murder of a living, unborn human being and should thusly be outlawed. any UN laws allowing it, except under circumstances where the mother's life is in jeopardy directly, should be repealed.
whether it is a christian or religious consideration is secondary, as murder is universally declared immoral and a violation of human's rights to live, even where church is separate from state.

And yet the majority who voted on the resolution (61 - Abortion Rights) voted for it. So it's legal.

Go figure :}

And this is the EXACT reason I don't want the current resolution repealing at all.

People tell me I am paranoid that repealing this will be a slippery slope to abortion being banned throughout the UN, but this post clearly indicates that is exactly what some people are planning.

And yet the majority who voted on the resolution (61 - Abortion Rights) voted for it. So it's legal.

Go figure :}

If the majority are in support of abortion, then there is no reason to worry about the issue slippery sloping into no abortion.

I am against unjustified abortions. However, if a couple took measures to avoid becoming pregnant, before and after sex, or if an active female took such precautions (birth control and morning after), then those groups have not acted in a way that can be construed as accepting pregnancy, and abortion should be allowed.

The problem is that the current resolution allows for the choice at any time for any reason. That is not safe or consciounable. And this proposal is a much better alternative.

If the majority are in support of abortion, then there is no reason to worry about the issue slippery sloping into no abortion.

I am against unjustified abortions. However, if a couple took measures to avoid becoming pregnant, before and after sex, or if an active female took such precautions (birth control and morning after), then those groups have not acted in a way that can be construed as accepting pregnancy, and abortion should be allowed.

The problem is that the current resolution allows for the choice at any time for any reason. That is not safe or consciounable. And this proposal is a much better alternative.

I really don't have a problem with "unjustified" abortions either. I don't think it should be used a method of contraception, but if a woman wants to do that then I see no reason to stop her.

And I have to admit, I am going to vote against any repeal, but if it passes then I will support this proposal to replace it.

Well, and let me throw this out here, not as a part of the DRAFT text as of yet. But what if a UN wide ban of all abortion past 6 months from time of conception were imposed; with the ability of the state governments to set an earlier date, no less than 4 months from time of conception?

That seems quite an effective compromise to me. I, for one, would support it.

Well, and let me throw this out here, not as a part of the DRAFT text as of yet. But what if a UN wide ban of all abortion past 6 months from time of conception were imposed; with the ability of the state governments to set an earlier date, no less than 4 months from time of conception?

Honestly? No. Because I could possibly see a situation developing that would require the 6 month ban to be broken for the good of the health of the mother. Or does the six month ban only apply in cases where the mother's health is not in danger?

Honestly? No. Because I could possibly see a situation developing that would require the 6 month ban to be broken for the good of the health of the mother. Or does the six month ban only apply in cases where the mother's health is not in danger?

Well, it would for situations regarding choice-based abortion as opposed to ones involving medical reasons; the idea was in no way expressed how it would be in the text, merely putting out a feeler.

Well, it would for situations regarding choice-based abortion as opposed to ones involving medical reasons; the idea was in no way expressed how it would be in the text, merely putting out a feeler.

(smile) But then we come back to my original problem - if you are going to make something legal for one situation in abortion, it has to be legal for the rest.

Or my doctors are all going to be instructed to say "Yes - we had to do this for the well being of the mother" if they were asked about an abortion after six months.

Text could include alteration of the first part of the Article:

And likely could read something like this:

1. Abortions before the third trimester (up to 6 months from conception) shall be legal in all United Nations member states.
(a)This shall not construe to make abortions illegal, into the third trimester, where the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

And a modification of Part B, 2. To include the ability of states to restrict up to the 4 month period (1 month after beginning of second trimester).

(smile) But then we come back to my original problem - if you are going to make something legal for one situation in abortion, it has to be legal for the rest.

Or my doctors are all going to be instructed to say "Yes - we had to do this for the well being of the mother" if they were asked about an abortion after six months.

If the father brought the doctor to court, he would be required to prove that the mother's life was in danger. An arduos task if the condition and supporting evidence are false.

Your original problem is non-existent. By that logic, there could be unregulated capitol punishment, and no murder, as killing is legal when done in self defense, therefore all killing is legal. That makes no sense. And it does not work that way because there are codified exceptions and applications outlined in the rules.

I like the addition Tekania. Excellent work. You are quite the Ben Franklin on this issue:)

I like the addition Tekania. Excellent work. You are quite the Ben Franklin on this issue:)

T.J., B.F., J.A. and I, would have all gotten along together quite well ;)... I'm generally fiercly libertine in law and government.

TilEnca,

BTW, I want you to look at my proposed alteration text very closely... But don't comment too much on it here... TG me what you think ;)

If the father brought the doctor to court, he would be required to prove that the mother's life was in danger. An arduos task if the condition and supporting evidence are false.

Your original problem is non-existent. By that logic, there could be unregulated capitol punishment, and no murder, as killing is legal when done in self defense, therefore all killing is legal. That makes no sense. And it does not work that way because there are codified exceptions and applications outlined in the rules.

I like the addition Tekania. Excellent work. You are quite the Ben Franklin on this issue:)

The doctor had every reason to believe the woman would kill herself if she was forced to give birth. I think that is reasonable proof the woman's life is in danger.

My problem is that if you limit the reasons why someone can have an abortion (if it was accidental pregnancy they can't, if it was rape they can) then either people will lie to get one, or they will do it themselves, or go to an illegal clinic.

If you can have abortions in the ninth month because the mother's life is in danger, then why not because it was an accident, and this was the first time you could actually afford to go to a clinic? Or you get pregnant, then get in a car crash before you know you are pregnant, and then wake up in the ninth month, not wanting the child.

I know - these are all extreme, but not impossible.

A doctor would be able to provide documentation if making such a prognosis.

There is a big difference between protecting your life, and removing what is considered to be a mistake.

However, like I said, if individuals were taking precautions to prevent pregnancy, and a mishap lead to conception, they have not consented to pregnancy, and a cycle can be forced or abortion. If money is a concern, acquire a loan, do not allow it to develop beyond four months.

At nine months, she can have a c-section and place the child in a foster home or adoption. The government, sense it requires doctors to save and sustain both if possible, would be required to pay for the associated costs. Otherwise, insurance and private groups cover the costs of such situations.

Also, at nine months, it is a fully developed being. To abort it requires partial birth techniques, which I can not justify. At that stage, if childbirth poses a health risk not foreseen to the mother, a cessarian section is performed. Again, I am hard pressed to find justification for an abortion at that stage of development short of the fetus being brain/physically dead.

*getting damned close to firing IGNORE cannons*

You get it, and you choose to be dense. Last time.



My, but you're a sarcastic one tonight, aren't you?


Contracts test tonight. Starting to get antsy. Not really being sarcastic, but here, I will give it a go sparky

(OOC mark your ooc comments accordingly, please and thank you)




And you've made a right mess of several concepts, bungled them all together then called it soup!

LOL, for the confused NS soul!



Small wonder you're confused.



Correct, as I don't like soup.

*sends you several million cans*




First, life is not a sudden existance - it is a constant. The terminology "life is created" is a fallacy - without a live sperm and a live egg, fertilization in humans does not happen. Therefore, those are living cells. At no time is something which is not alive involved.

How are they alive? Please explain. A conceptus just meets the criteria, and that is a stretch. Sperm and eggs do not replicate, and transcribe genetic code, nor do they have a complete code, they have no metobolism, they do not grow and develop.

Or, pray tell, are they ensouled, and their two souls become one?

Sheesh, if you are going to call something a fallacy, explain how you reason it as such-in other words, how is a sperm and egg alive. Honestly, so sperm are always existing in the testicles, or are they developed in them. Again, life is created. Not continuos.

Do this again, and that's it.

Sperm have to be in the condition of "live" in order to begin fertilization. Period. Until you can leave them exposed to air for a month then start fertilization, simple logic rules. Criteria met. End subject.

We are not playing the "has to do all this crap to be alive" bickerwar game. Clear enough on that? Good.




You presuppose a duty of care to cells. This is fallacy as well - you do not owe your skin anything, you do not owe your hair anything. These are merely cells - living, yes, but not endowed with rights.


Skin cells do not grow and develop into an independant being that will be capable of self sustanence. Anyway, already explained this. By your attempt to illogicaly explain my logic, a piece of human feces would be deserving of a duty of care if given an affirmative act inducing detrimental reliance.

Show me some shit that breathes and this will miraculously become relevant.
Otherwise, this is more intentional denseness and stupidity, and as such, is irrelevant. I've stated the test who knows how many times. Period. End.

What "might eventually occur" is not relevant - its not a "human being with rights" at this point in time, its a pile of cells.



So we will go through the legal process. A man and a woman have sex, and by this act, she becomes pregnant. At this point, the mass of cells is treated no differently then any other mass of cells - it is within her body, and it is within her rights to do most anything she wishes of that particular mass. At this point, there are no responsibilities towards the male - his rights and responsibilties sit in legal limbo, as there is no "child" and his rights and responsibilities do not emerge until such time as there is one. Ergo, no say, no rights, no legal responsibilities in the matter (certain circumstances have allowed for alternative decisions, but we will remain in the realm of the normal for the moment).

There is no inequality, as they both still have full rights over their own body. Legally, and until birth, the insemination is considered a legal donation, and invokes no rights or responsibilities of any sort. Nor is there any responsibility of any sort to "insure birth occurs", as that would be an act requiring an overwrighting of the right to choose of the mother.


So, sex is an affirmative act on the part of a male as a sperm donor. Accepting that risk of pregnancy when engaging in intercourse. If you are looking at it from a donor standpoint. The mother is donating her body by consenting to sex, to pregnancy. Both accepting the risk of pregnancy by consenting to sex. As per UN Human rights resolution.

My, you twisted that one. Only one partner is giving anything, the other is receiving something. Cell exchange, legally defined as a donation. There is no legal body donation. Incredibly silly attempt. Next.



Can you try to be consistent, two paragraphs, both containing two competing ideologies. One inconsistently applied philosophy negates the other. Are you a priest?

No, but I'll gladly perform your eulogy. Hows tomorrow?




Nine months - give or take - later, there is a birth, and the mass of cells passes the three way test: it is external to the host, it is disconnected from the host, and it has taken a breath. Classified now as a "human being with rights, legally a child", this brings on a set of laws which gives the male both rights and responsibilties, and the female rights and responsibilties. At this point, we would allow for your "duty of care" to exist, as it would exist towards something classified legally as "a human being with rights" as opposed to "a mass of cells".

You adopted duty of care in your earlier post. Even if I first mentioned it, you adopted it, so do not try to pass it off as soley mine now.

Anyway, if you are purporting to "allow" my phiolosophy, that a child exists is not evidence of an affirmative act by the male invoking a duty. If he said no, I do not consent to parenthood, and leaves without ever offering support, he has done no affirmative act under my ideology given present abortion law.

So long as sex acts as consent to pregnancy for both parties. That would allow rights and responsibilities to automatically pass to both parents. But again, consistency is lost on you, and one is considered a donor for reasons that are arbitrarily limited to the male.

Tough luck to him. We are discussing legalities, and the male of the species donates. If we were discussing seahorses, the male carries the babies and the woman would have no say at that point. Such work at acting silly, you are grating on my nerves.




We find it is your assumption that the "mass of cells" has anything approaching rights, or is considered "human" by any means until such time as our three way test is passed.

Not an assumption, but what follows from your three competing ideologies of never ending life, a soul, and a three way test. You have again, failed to explain them all, despite offering to do so, and being asked to do so.
If you can not follow your own trains of thought, and explain them all, in a consistent manner that explains gaps in judgment, why bother to share them? Also, where does this soul come into play again?

Find a point of "no life" into which "life spontaneously exists". There is none. End on that one.

Souls? Already, we explained we are not going to attempt, and that was dumped. End on that one.

Test is simple. You've been given it repeatedly, and are making a hash mess of things, apparently in an attempt to be silly. I'm not laughing.




Now do get over yourself, see our arguement as is, and take it from there. Condescending statements do not better your cause - you make too many assumptions.


Hypocrite.

Now, do get over yourself, and take the time to reflect on your stance, and try to make it consistent, for the sake of not having to waffle between what works at the time

But, to be positive, you are consistently inconsistent on this issue



We repeat - last chance. Get it right, or goodbye. *finger on the trigger*

*getting damned close to firing IGNORE cannons*

You get it, and you choose to be dense. Last time.

Right back at yah;)



(OOC mark your ooc comments accordingly, please and thank you)

I am without an acronym dictionary. But take it to mean real life occurances should be labeled as such, and shall do so from this point forward.


*sends you several million cans*

Shall pass on to the masses. If they want bread, let them eat soup.


Do this again, and that's it.

What? And let you have the last word, I think not should I disagree with it, and I do:)

Sperm have to be in the condition of "live" in order to begin fertilization. Period. Until you can leave them exposed to air for a month then start fertilization, simple logic rules. Criteria met. End subject.

The protein can maintain function after being exposed to the elements. However, with respect to using period. Life did not originate from something alive. A sperm and agg are nothing more that protein forming a complete genetic coding. The egg does not become a cell before this happens. Neither are alive. Niether need to be alive. To further add, the prevailing theory is that particles of protien collided to for the first unicellular beings. Life, from not life. So, history repeats itself in the bedroom, so to speak.

And, by your logic, life would never exist.

We are not playing the "has to do all this crap to be alive" bickerwar game. Clear enough on that? Good.
Followed by:

Show me some shit that breathes and this will miraculously become relevant.
Otherwise, this is more intentional denseness and stupidity, and as such, is irrelevant. I've stated the test who knows how many times. Period. End.

Then it was dense and stupid to bring up a cell based slippery slope argument. We agree, fecal matter is not alive.

However, why comment on how we shall abandon a test for life, which others use to determine life, then adopt a breathing standard for life? Agreeable, yes. Consistent, no.

Followed by your three way test, as though your test should matter, provided the other encompases it?

What "might eventually occur" is not relevant - its not a "human being with rights" at this point in time, its a pile of cells.

It is, however, the consequences of a group's actions. To which both are responsible.

My, you twisted that one. Only one partner is giving anything, the other is receiving something. Cell exchange, legally defined as a donation. There is no legal body donation. Incredibly silly attempt. Next.

No, I just like to think multi-dimensionally. Both accept the risk of their action and make the appropriate donation. But if you really want to get into legalities we can discuss the issuance of sperm as consideration for a child. I can go there, to the nth degree if you want.


No, but I'll gladly perform your eulogy. Hows tomorrow?

You have to share it first. I am interested in what you have to say;)


Tough luck to him. We are discussing legalities, and the male of the species donates. If we were discussing seahorses, the male carries the babies and the woman would have no say at that point. Such work at acting silly, you are grating on my nerves.

Explain the legalities. A male is not without rights to offspring. Their can be legal repercussions to abortions. Where there are two consenting adults trying to bear children, sperm is issued as consideration for a child. But feel free to denigrate males.



Find a point of "no life" into which "life spontaneously exists". There is none. End on that one.

Souls? Already, we explained we are not going to attempt, and that was dumped. End on that one.

Test is simple. You've been given it repeatedly, and are making a hash mess of things, apparently in an attempt to be silly. I'm not laughing.

Simple answer, before the big bang or what have you. Possibly, prior to earth forming. That life exists is a spontaneous occurance.

As I can not mail you a textbook or two, here is one reference:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/2_first_life_earth.htm

I have reviewed it. It is not to technical. But it is enough. Even has tutorials. Given your belief on life, those might help;)

We repeat - last chance. Get it right, or goodbye. *finger on the trigger*

If I have to agree with you on this to be considered right, fire away. Your contestation to how life originates is what is humorous, not my responses to them.

I shall ignore you if you do not provide universal legal references that a male is the only donor to concieving a child (Abortion Rights and Human Rights do not constitute such), that life is never ending and has always been, and that a sperm and egg are alive.

This may also be of interest: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273

That you assume science has "the final answers" is laughable at best.

A cell is alive. Why? It can be killed. So can a virus. That scientists quibble about "at what point" is not relevant.

Sperm is alive, egg is alive. A consistant thread is created. There is no point of something "dead" making something alive.

As to "before the universe began" or "after it ends", you shall have to prove it began or ended first. Conclusively.


A sperm and agg are nothing more that protein forming a complete genetic coding. The egg does not become a cell before this happens. Neither are alive. Niether need to be alive.

Very well, microwave both and make a person. Can't happen. Both are alive, both need to be viable or nothing happens. Neither can be created in a laboratory - we know the formulas, but something appears to be missing. Ergo, there is something, an unknown variable perhaps, that allows reproduction.

Until such time as you show inert material becoming living tissue without the introduction of something alive - and yes, cells are alive, even specialized cells, until they are not - the arguement of spontaneous generation of life is (pardon the pun) dead.


And, by your logic, life would never exist.

Proof, if you would. Of course, you're going to have to prove that life did not exist at the beginning of the universe, and before such beginning. Again, prove conclusively.



However, why comment on how we shall abandon a test for life, which others use to determine life, then adopt a breathing standard for life? Agreeable, yes. Consistent, no.

*sigh* Again, this is *not* a test for something being alive, this is a test to determine if something is going to get legal rights or not. The "zero point" of the test is that the something emerge from someone with rights - in some form, as clones do have rights - and be genetically similiar enough to qualify as the same species/race. Do stop with the muddling things together, its annoying.


What "might eventually occur" is not relevant - its not a "human being with rights" at this point in time, its a pile of cells.


It is, however, the consequences of a group's actions. To which both are responsible.

Should it survive and pass our test, and assuming other conditions are not in place, yes.



My, you twisted that one. Only one partner is giving anything, the other is receiving something. Cell exchange, legally defined as a donation. There is no legal body donation. Incredibly silly attempt. Next.

No, I just like to think multi-dimensionally. Both accept the risk of their action and make the appropriate donation. But if you really want to get into legalities we can discuss the issuance of sperm as consideration for a child. I can go there, to the nth degree if you want.

:rolleyes: More proof you are missing it - we agree on this point. That during gestation this legal consideration is suspended in the absence of anything requiring such legal considerations is lost on you.



Tough luck to him. We are discussing legalities, and the male of the species donates. If we were discussing seahorses, the male carries the babies and the woman would have no say at that point. Such work at acting silly, you are grating on my nerves.

Explain the legalities. A male is not without rights to offspring. Their can be legal repercussions to abortions. Where there are two consenting adults trying to bear children, sperm is issued as consideration for a child. But feel free to denigrate males.

Again, should the mass of cells pass the three way test, at that point (gee, have I said this before?) yadda yadda yadda... There is no denigration, there is equal application of law as required by UN Resolution.



Simple answer, before the big bang or what have you. Possibly, prior to earth forming. That life exists is a spontaneous occurance.

As I can not mail you a textbook or two, here is one reference:
http://www.biology-online.org/10/2_first_life_earth.htm

I have reviewed it. It is not to technical. But it is enough. Even has tutorials. Given your belief on life, those might help

Inasmuch as I hate to tell you (not), the current theory has the initial substances of life arriving by asteroid. Plausible? Sure. Supports the "life continues" theory I have put forth? Yep. So, you are going to have to conclusively and definitively put forth a theory showing spontaneous occurance that allows for no arguement of any sort, or forget it as you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Next!



If I have to agree with you on this to be considered right, fire away. Your contestation to how life originates is what is humorous, not my responses to them.

Your responses show a lack of sensibility, tied to "science must be right in all cases", which is never the case.



I shall ignore you if you do not provide universal legal references that a male is the only donor to concieving a child (Abortion Rights and Human Rights do not constitute such), that life is never ending and has always been, and that a sperm and egg are alive.

Legally, in Vastiva, until birth and passing the three way test, a male is considered only a donor of sperm, nothing else, save where health is concerned (such as STDs, etc). No rights are conferred at this point, nor is responsibility, with the exception of that area. We've repeated this who knows how many times, and shall be sending you a sampler with this phrase sewn upon its face for reference.

You have yet to prove life spontaneously generates, because we cannot agree on any point where "life is not" and then "life is". It is unlikely we ever will.

Simplisticly - if it can be killed, it has to have been alive. We reject sciences definitions of what is alive and what is not. Next?

This may also be of interest: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273

Irrelevant.

Until such time as you show inert material becoming living tissue without the introduction of something alive - and yes, cells are alive, even specialized cells, until they are not - the arguement of spontaneous generation of life is (pardon the pun) dead.

Proof, if you would. Of course, you're going to have to prove that life did not exist at the beginning of the universe, and before such beginning. Again, prove conclusively.

Big bang (debate whether by quark strings or singularity), first element to be created would be hydrogen. Combining hydrogen leads to helium. Further cooling would lead to the formation of other elements, so on and so forth.

All life is organic matter. Organic matter would not exist during the beginings of the univers. Only inorganic material, therefore, organic material is the result of inorganic compounds colliding/reacting and cooling to form organic compounds.

Life came from a primordial soup, a gel so to speak, how it developed is not entirely understood. Science is still trying, which is better than I think this because it works for me.... so, how could compounds combine so as to develop a genetic system, can they, they are disordered when alone, would they ever organize? If yes, then there is good reason to believe that yes they will organize over time so as to yield the first forms of life... any evidence of organization occuring... yes... completely understood, no...


From: LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT BIS-UREA ORGANOGELATORS, Reported by Kimberly R. Deaton, February 21, 2002,

Introduction:
Gels are pervasive materials that behave much like solids and are composed of a fibrous three-dimensional network whose interstitial spaces are filled with liquid.1 Historically, most gels are composed of covalently crosslinked polymers that have typical molecular weights above 3000. More recently it has been found that the aggregation of certain low molecular weight compounds in an organic medium can result in the formation of organogels. These compounds often form gels in a variety of organic solvents at a concentration of less than 2% weight/volume.2 They are referred to as low molecular weight organic gelators (LMOG) because contrary to polymer gels they usually have molecular weights less than 1000. In solution, low molecular weight organogelators self-assemble strictly by non-covalent interactions. The nature of the intermolecular interactions between the organogelator molecules, whether van der Waals interactions, π-π stacking, dipole-dipole interactions, electrostatic interactions, or hydrogen bonding, allows these molecules to assemble in one-dimensional arrays producing elongated fibrous structures.2a Entanglement of the fibers subsequently produces a three-dimensional network capable of trapping the solvent and yielding the gel (Figure 1). CoolingLMOGFibersGelHeatingSolvent Figure 1. Steps in gelation of low molecular weight organogelators (LMOG)Many classes of LMOG have been discovered, including fatty acids, steroidal compounds, anthracene derivatives, porphyrins, carbohydrates, peptide derivatives, calixarenes, and various two-component systems.2c Several characteristics have been noted among the various organogelators, including limited solubility at room temperature, complete dissolution upon heating, and highly directional self-assembly into linear fibers. Little is understood about why these molecules prefer an ordered self-assembly in dilute solutions versus a disordered state. To elucidate the driving force for gelation, many researchers have focused on reducing the structural complexity of LMOG.3

Application:
Bis-urea self-assembled organogels are novel materials owing to their thermoreversibility and highly ordered but low-density packing. Structural modifications to the organogelators provide a means to confer other interesting properties onto the gels. Several groups have reported structurally modified gels that exhibited chiral recognition, intermolecular charge transport, and the production of microporous aerogels.9

This is relating to polymers, why share this? It show the ability of oranic gels to organize, and carry a charge. Similar tests are being conducted using gels to try and create DNA, and in carbon spheres. A proper fluid medium is required to exist, so to is charge. At present, organization of DNA is improbable, but not impossible, and we are taking steps to find the big picture. Another beer bet? In the past, prior to modern physics and theories of the begining of the Universe people thought inorganic material was distinct from organic. Urea changed all that.

Absent another explanation, this one is developing, and other are formulated. Until now, I was aware of none, not even creationists, who believed life was present at the begining of the universe, and require an explanation to say otherwise. Learn something new everyday I guess. ;)

Never said a cell is not alive, it is not a new human life.

*sigh* Again, this is *not* a test for something being alive, this is a test to determine if something is going to get legal rights or not. The "zero point" of the test is that the something emerge from someone with rights - in some form, as clones do have rights - and be genetically similiar enough to qualify as the same species/race. Do stop with the muddling things together, its annoying.

Should it survive and pass our test, and assuming other conditions are not in place, yes.

You said in the past your test for life counts for a being to be deserving of rights. It is quite unorthodox to even discuss giving rights or a duty to something that is not alive, or never has been. The point being, you will not give rights or a duty to something you do not want to consider alive, so you have developed a test that does not allow fetus to be considered alive. It is also quite unorthodox and annoying that someone that someone would say that something is not alive when in a host, but automatically becomes alive once it leaves the womb. Denying an encompassing objective test, for one that denies life to a being that is fully developed and contains the same genetic coding as being given rights and duties.

:rolleyes: More proof you are missing it - we agree on this point. That during gestation this legal consideration is suspended in the absence of anything requiring such legal considerations is lost on you.

A male can not reproduce without a female. Vice versa. Therefore, offering sperm when both agree to have a child, is consideration that the sperm will be utilized to develop a child by the woman. Not that the other will agree at present, and is allowed to change their mind for no reason later.
That is an inequitable balance of rights.



Inasmuch as I hate to tell you (not), the current theory has the initial substances of life arriving by asteroid. Plausible? Sure. Supports the "life continues" theory I have put forth? Yep. So, you are going to have to conclusively and definitively put forth a theory showing spontaneous occurance that allows for no arguement of any sort, or forget it as you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It does not support your life continues theory. Prove an asteroid carried life to Earth. More importatnly, how did life develop on the asteroid? Any asteroid could have been part of a planet that developed life the same way earth may have. As stated above, the beginings of the universe were not such that organic material existed and could combine to form life.

(A)Your responses show a lack of sensibility, (B) tied to "science must be right in all cases", which is never the case.

A&B added. A) As do yours. B) No I have not. Science is a way of explaining, that through observation is proven or disproven, and adopted accordingly. Which is always the case in my world. You appear to be of the If I think therefore I am, Then, If I think it therefore it is fact, mentality.

Simplisticly - if it can be killed, it has to have been alive. We reject sciences definitions of what is alive and what is not. Next?

You can not kill what is not alive. And, many biologists do consider viruses to be alive, it is a grey area, but they have a form of reproduction. Sperm are merely created, transport until they dissasociate. Eggs are produced, and lost. They are part of the reproductive process. Not reproducing. They are as dead as saliva.

Thank you for getting off the "silly/stupid" horse. Much appreciated.


Until such time as you show inert material becoming living tissue without the introduction of something alive - and yes, cells are alive, even specialized cells, until they are not - the arguement of spontaneous generation of life is (pardon the pun) dead.

Quote:
Proof, if you would. Of course, you're going to have to prove that life did not exist at the beginning of the universe, and before such beginning. Again, prove conclusively.

Big bang (debate whether by quark strings or singularity), first element to be created would be hydrogen. Combining hydrogen leads to helium. Further cooling would lead to the formation of other elements, so on and so forth.


Mmmm... you are aware this theory is being challenged seriously, with a theory of a waveform universe which goes from positive to negative "phases", without termination?



All life is organic matter. Organic matter would not exist during the beginings of the universe. Only inorganic material, therefore, organic material is the result of inorganic compounds colliding/reacting and cooling to form organic compounds.

"All life is organic material" - Proof. And do prove that for the entire universe, not just Earth.

Can't? Thank you.

Proof that it started in some sort of material form would have to be accompanied by proof of the complete lack of any "spark of life" transitioning between the universes (assuming the waveform universal model is correct, which I believe closer to the truth yet not the truth).


Life came from a primordial soup, a gel so to speak, how it developed is not entirely understood. Science is still trying, which is better than I think this because it works for me.... so, how could compounds combine so as to develop a genetic system, can they, they are disordered when alone, would they ever organize? If yes, then there is good reason to believe that yes they will organize over time so as to yield the first forms of life... any evidence of organization occuring... yes... completely understood, no...


This is theory, not proof.



(removed long quote)

This is relating to polymers, why share this? It show the ability of oranic gels to organize, and carry a charge. Similar tests are being conducted using gels to try and create DNA, and in carbon spheres. A proper fluid medium is required to exist, so to is charge. At present, organization of DNA is improbable, but not impossible, and we are taking steps to find the big picture. Another beer bet? In the past, prior to modern physics and theories of the begining of the Universe people thought inorganic material was distinct from organic. Urea changed all that.

Absent another explanation, this one is developing, and other are formulated. Until now, I was aware of none, not even creationists, who believed life was present at the begining of the universe, and require an explanation to say otherwise. Learn something new everyday I guess.

This will go long into the philosophical, possibly into the "nature of life" (an energy pattern, perhaps?) which I am not willing to go into as we both are unequipped.



Never said a cell is not alive, it is not a new human life.


Sorry, but a reproductive cell is therefore alive, and forms the continuance of life I've been talking about - a live thing creates a live thing, with complexity being the only difference.



*sigh* Again, this is *not* a test for something being alive, this is a test to determine if something is going to get legal rights or not. The "zero point" of the test is that the something emerge from someone with rights - in some form, as clones do have rights - and be genetically similiar enough to qualify as the same species/race. Do stop with the muddling things together, its annoying.

Should it survive and pass our test, and assuming other conditions are not in place, yes.

You said in the past your test for life

It is NOT a test for life, it is a test if the mass of cells legally becomes a "huamn being/person with rights". Period.



counts for a being to be deserving of rights. It is quite unorthodox to even discuss giving rights or a duty to something that is not alive, or never has been. The point being, you will not give rights or a duty to something you do not want to consider alive, so you have developed a test that does not allow fetus to be considered alive.

If you would point out anywhere we stated it was "not alive"?



It is also quite unorthodox and annoying that someone that someone would say that something is not alive when in a host, but automatically becomes alive once it leaves the womb. Denying an encompassing objective test, for one that denies life to a being that is fully developed and contains the same genetic coding as being given rights and duties.

Again, didn't say it "wasn't alive". Said it was not a "human being/person with rights". Plants are alive. They don't have rights. Neither do viruses, which are alive.



More proof you are missing it - we agree on this point. That during gestation this legal consideration is suspended in the absence of anything requiring such legal considerations is lost on you.

A male can not reproduce without a female. Vice versa. Therefore, offering sperm when both agree to have a child, is consideration that the sperm will be utilized to develop a child by the woman. Not that the other will agree at present, and is allowed to change their mind for no reason later.
That is an inequitable balance of rights.

Nope. If there is a contract, it becomes a civil case. If there is no contract, it is legally a situation of parasitic infection, and is treated as such. Consistant. Deal with it.



Inasmuch as I hate to tell you (not), the current theory has the initial substances of life arriving by asteroid. Plausible? Sure. Supports the "life continues" theory I have put forth? Yep. So, you are going to have to conclusively and definitively put forth a theory showing spontaneous occurance that allows for no arguement of any sort, or forget it as you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

It does not support your life continues theory. Prove an asteroid carried life to Earth. More importatnly, how did life develop on the asteroid? Any asteroid could have been part of a planet that developed life the same way earth may have. As stated above, the beginings of the universe were not such that organic material existed and could combine to form life.

Define what life is, applicable to all locations in the universe, known and unknown. Can't? Theory remains.

Prove it? Don't care enough to, other people may or may not. How did life get there? Who knows, no one will ever be able to prove it either way. And to the final point - good luck, see above.



(A)Your responses show a lack of sensibility, (B) tied to "science must be right in all cases", which is never the case.

A&B added. A) As do yours. B) No I have not. Science is a way of explaining, that through observation is proven or disproven, and adopted accordingly. Which is always the case in my world. You appear to be of the If I think therefore I am, Then, If I think it therefore it is fact, mentality.

I am of the mentality of "having been exposed to enough science, particularly biology, I am of the opinion we know enough to realize how little we know".

The flaw of science is to adapt blindly to a theory until someone pummels it out of the system - witness Astronomy, where "The Earth is the Center of the (fill in the blank)". How long did that take to be pummelled out? How many died in the proving? The more baseline the idea, the more pummelling it takes.



Simplisticly - if it can be killed, it has to have been alive. We reject sciences definitions of what is alive and what is not. Next?

You can not kill what is not alive.

I just said that.



And, many biologists do consider viruses to be alive, it is a grey area, but they have a form of reproduction.

Reproduction not relevant - a hinny and a mule are both alive, and cannot reproduce.



Sperm are merely created, transport until they dissasociate. Eggs are produced, and lost. They are part of the reproductive process. Not reproducing. They are as dead as saliva.

Nope. Sperm is alive, Egg is alive. Saliva is bodily fluid. Why? Sperm and egg are functioning cells, no less then those in your stomach, white blood cells, or any other active cell. A white blood cell is alive - it is an end result, a tool, and yet alive. That it cannot reproduce itself is not relevant. Sperm is alive, it is a tool for a process, but nonetheless it is alive. The same goes for the egg.

Do show me cellular structure in saliva, or you're doing it again and I don't appreciate it.

State the title of your wavelength theory.

A sperm cell is not alive, so it can not be killed. White blood cells are fully formed cells, sperm and eggs are not.

Civil law, is still law. Just as tort law is the civil variant of criminal Law. Contract law is a branch with both statute and common law components.

If you are asserting there is non-organic life, proof it.

Proove life can exist as an energy wavelength.

A sperm cell is not alive, so it can not be killed. White blood cells are fully formed cells, sperm and eggs are not.

Ergo, fifty year old sperm left in the air is still viable.

Its not.

Therefore, sperm is alive.

The level of formation is not relevant.

Proove life can exist as an energy wavelength.

Prove it can't. Of course, first you'd have to show what life is, and we still can't do that.

:p

If you are asserting there is non-organic life, proof it.

Prove their can't. In short, we don't know and can't prove otherwise.

Your the one making statements without attempting proofs.

That I know biology, and it does not prove everything is no excuse. State how the qualifications are inadequate. A thing need not meet all of them to be considered alive. Their are poeple incapable of reproducing.

Spent years working in a nuclear physics lab. I stated two theories, a singularity and string. Do I state neither is true or false, no. I use them because they are the two current accepted theories with mathematical proofs, and physical anomelies consistent with their predictions. In both, organic matter would not be present at the onset of a universal bang.

If you are going to claim life on other planets, or how it need not be organic. Explain how life would come to exist on other planets, and need not be organic. I have proffered reasoning for my stances, do the same.

Yes you can, hypothesize how inorganic life would come to be, and try to recreate it. Worked for anti-matter, will work for this.

State the title of your wavelength theory.

OOC: :rolleyes: Too much effort for the season.

As stated above, we are developing an understanding of how organic matter has lead to observable life. Take baby steps towards the opposite.

Yes you can, hypothesize how inorganic life would come to be, and try to recreate it. Worked for anti-matter, will work for this.

OOC: Then have fun doing it, I'm not that deeply interested. Could it? Yep. Does it? Probably. Prove otherwise? Not my job.

OOC: :rolleyes: Too much effort for the season.

OOC: You disapoint me. If I am to proof without reasonable doubt, the least you can do is provide a title for a theory presented as a rebuttal. I have shown events leading to the formation of organic matter, based on two theories with observable hypothesis as to how the universe was created, and one of several papers showing our understanding of how organic matter can combine into an organized state, with charge. Proof that organic matter is capable of combining, with the possibility of creating advanced organization (DNA).

OOC: Here's the problem, AP.

First, its 3 am, so deep thought will have to wait for another time. Its also December, so I've other things on my mind.

Second, you're showing old knowledge. Whoopie - Science is constantly undergoing change, particulary in the realm of "theory". It used to be thought women were just incubators - later hard science proved they're not. There's an immense distance between "hard science" and "theoretical science" parameters, and discussions about what is alive fit in the latter category.

Unless you can show me a cup of "life", its theory. As such, there is no perfect point, regardless of the paperwork involved.

Are we going to play "scientist v scientist"? Nope. Sorry, but without the same level of "give a damn" you have, this ceases being entertaining. Turning a game into work isn't my idea of fun. Here's the theories I'm holding to. Don't like it - fine, don't bother with it. Honestly, don't care anymore. If you don't like the theories, great. If you want to hide deep in "established science", great, but wait and watch as things change. "Theoretical Science", it's checklists and ideas, constantly changes. That's why its theoretical.

I'm not spending hours looking back for a theory name, I don't care to, though it might be entertaining to review past vacations and lecture series attended. Sorry, not that interested. If I run back across it, I'll send you the name. Beyond that, I don't care.

You've shown lots of work - yippee, did you enjoy yourself? Didn't change either of our opinions, and it is unlikely anything ever will. You've shown current theories. That's all they are, that's all they will remain save when proven or disproven.

As such, the matter is "No Longer Fun". You're in an area of science in which nothing is proven, much is assumed, and the end point is "we don't know, but we think that..." and frankly, its an area in which nothing is certain, no point can be absolutely proven or disproven, and its not that much fun.

So, if you want to continue to dance, do, but it will remain in Vastiva that abortion is legal, the woman has the right to abortion until such time as the mass of cells passes our three-way test and becomes a "human being/person with rights". And if you don't like that, :p

As stated above, we are developing an understanding of how organic matter has lead to observable life. Take baby steps towards the opposite.

Nope, you're developing theories that maybe this happened then that happened and ....

When you make life in a test tube and create a human from thin air, you'll have something. Beyond that - it's theory and nothing more.

OOC: MAN, GET SOME SLEEP! The sun rises in a few hours.:)
This has lost its entertainment value. I too feel like I am back at work, just shy posting math equations on what should be a game.
I apologize.
And, MERRY CHRISTMASS or HAPPY HOLLIDAYS.
Get some rest.

Nope, you're developing theories that maybe this happened then that happened and ....

When you make life in a test tube and create a human from thin air, you'll have something. Beyond that - it's theory and nothing more.

OOC I guess: The paper is an actual lab experiment/review. That Organic material in a gel state can combine into an ordered state is known. And such gel fits time periods of the Earth's development. To the level of life, is well, a lot harder to do, and ways away from happening. But, it is part of why I will be owing you a beer next time I head east. But yeah, still theory until fully realized via all hypothesis observed. Have dabbled in both the old and new theories of universal creation. That a big bang has happened is known. How, is another question.



Get some rest.

OOC: Slight memories. I was having a talk with an author at the opening of the Science Fiction museum (after meeting Spielberg and Lucas... :D it all so rocked!). Anywhose, string theory came up and after this came up the theory of the reflective universe, where things went positive/negative/positive etc into eternity both ways. Damned if I remember the actual name of the theory, but it was based off one of the seventeen string theories we discussed.

Here's the museum (http://www.sciencefictionexperience.com/) and another page. (http://www.analogsf.com/information/museum.shtml)

Methinks I was talking with Lawrence Krauss about it. But I could be wrong, there were many theoreticals there.

OOC: Okay, think I know what you are talking about now. It is part of the corrections to the laws of thermodynamics and deals in part with particle wave duality. (Twin Universe) Never met Krauss, but he is an acquiantence of my old boss, and aided with work done on particle acceleration at the lab. It was with respect to possible phase shifting as particles approach/surpass the speed of light (dissasociation then disappearance and reappearance. I was leaving and switching interests when that was going on.

Sounds like it was fun conference ;)

I like String ::smile::

OOC: Okay, think I know what you are talking about now. It is part of the corrections to the laws of thermodynamics and deals in part with particle wave duality. (Twin Universe) Never met Krauss, but he is an acquiantence of my old boss, and aided with work done on particle acceleration at the lab. It was with respect to possible phase shifting as particles approach/surpass the speed of light (dissasociation then disappearance and reappearance. I was leaving and switching interests when that was going on.

Sounds like it was fun conference ;)

That it was, that it was. :)



I like String ::smile::

"Mouse Hunt"?