NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a proposal to the UN entitled "Repeal 'Abortion Rights'." This resolution calls for the repeal of Resolution #61. Here it is, in context.

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #61


Proposed by: The Iroqouis

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

Argument: Article 1 - Issue: United Nations Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights" is hereby rendered null and void.
Article 2: The UN will create an agency, named "United Nations International Children and Mother Administration" (UNICAMA) to oversee the care of children and mothers-to-be, and will be open as an alternative to abortions.
Article 3 - Justification:
Section 1: As murder is defined as "to kill intentionally and with premeditation," and that abortions do not happen by accident, abortion is hereby recognized as a form of murder. Abortion right's activists have claimed that it is their choice to end the life of their child, but statistics show that 99% of abortions are performed because the mother does not want a child.
Section 2: Abortions are not only performed routeenly without the permission of the father, but they are also performed on teenage girls without their parent's permission. This would suggest that it is the act of someone who does not wish to take responsibility for their actions rather than a mother whose life is endanger or a mother who cannot take care of a child.
Section 3: Science has proven that a fetus shows independent brain wave patterns as early as 20 days, with the baby's heart pumping independently at 24 days. The fetus also produces a hormone that keeps the mother's body from rejecting it - it is a subconsciencous thought of every human to protect it's own existence.
Section 4: There are many women in the world who are barren and cannont have children. They try hard to adopt children but are hindered by international laws that would stop them from adopting a baby. The second Article of this repeal would allow them to easily adopt children into their families.
Article 5: The United Nations General Assembly is authorized to enforce this act with appropriate legislation."

Your support would be greatly appreciated to push forward this Resolution.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Mispelled Nashun of The Iroqouis

I have submitted a proposal to the UN entitled "Repeal 'Abortion Rights'." This resolution calls for the repeal of Resolution #61. Here it is, in context.

Yay! Another one to tear to shreds!

Argument: Article 1 - Issue: United Nations Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights" is hereby rendered null and void.
Article 2: The UN will create an agency, named "United Nations International Children and Mother Administration" (UNICAMA) to oversee the care of children and mothers-to-be, and will be open as an alternative to abortions.

Illegal. A repeal cannot propose something and a proposal cannot repeal something. If you ask a mod to remove it, you may not have to face repercusions.

Article 3 - Justification:
Section 1: As murder is defined as "to kill intentionally and with premeditation," and that abortions do not happen by accident, abortion is hereby recognized as a form of murder.

Murder can only happen to living things. Fetuses do not meet the full qualifications of life.

Abortion right's activists have claimed that it is their choice to end the life of their child, but statistics show that 99% of abortions are performed because the mother does not want a child.

They are not actually ending a life, as fetuses have not been proven to be such. And that part about mothers is their perogative.

Section 2: Abortions are not only performed routeenly without the permission of the father, but they are also performed on teenage girls without their parent's permission.

So are piercings and tattoos.

This would suggest that it is the act of someone who does not wish to take responsibility for their actions rather than a mother whose life is endanger or a mother who cannot take care of a child.

Non sequitor with previous statement. Who is not told does not necessarily indicate ability or inability to raise the child.

Section 3: Science has proven that a fetus shows independent brain wave patterns as early as 20 days, with the baby's heart pumping independently at 24 days. The fetus also produces a hormone that keeps the mother's body from rejecting it - it is a subconsciencous thought of every human to protect it's own existence.

Viruses and several other parasites also have ways of convincing the human body to not reject them. Plus, human DNA does not a human make. They are not proven to be living beings or even human beyond a case of genetics at that point, and the genetics arguement is invalid due to the large portions of the human body that can easily be shed which have human DNA.

Section 4: There are many women in the world who are barren and cannont have children. They try hard to adopt children but are hindered by international laws that would stop them from adopting a baby. The second Article of this repeal would allow them to easily adopt children into their families.

What about the species barrier? Besides, those laws do not necessarily apply to NS.

Article 5: The United Nations General Assembly is authorized to enforce this act with appropriate legislation.

Once again, a repeal and a proposal cannot be the same piece of legislation. If you are to make laws on abortion that require it to be repealed, repeal it first and then try the laws.

Your support would be greatly appreciated to push forward this Resolution.

No support will be given. Also, it's a repeal, not a resolution.

Article 2: The UN will create an agency, named "United Nations International Children and Mother Administration" (UNICAMA) to oversee the care of children and mothers-to-be, and will be open as an alternative to abortions.


I am not sure you can pass new laws as part of a repeal. (Actually I know you can't)


Article 3 - Justification:
Section 1: As murder is defined as "to kill intentionally and with premeditation," and that abortions do not happen by accident, abortion is hereby recognized as a form of murder. Abortion right's activists have claimed that it is their choice to end the life of their child, but statistics show that 99% of abortions are performed because the mother does not want a child


And murder only applies to living, protected beings. You can not kill an animal and be charged with murder, even if you do it with premeditation and intentionally.
No where in the UN does a law exist to suggest a fetus is a living, protected being. So I would argue this section is not valid.


Section 2: Abortions are not only performed routeenly without the permission of the father, but they are also performed on teenage girls without their parent's permission. This would suggest that it is the act of someone who does not wish to take responsibility for their actions rather than a mother whose life is endanger or a mother who cannot take care of a child.


If the teenage girl has been raped by her father and impregnanted then there is probably a good reason she either doesn't want to get, or can't get her parents permission. So you think that she should just be forced to go through with the pregnancy because her father was the one who knocked her up?

Also - why should the choice of the father force a woman to give birth against her will?


Section 3: Science has proven that a fetus shows independent brain wave patterns as early as 20 days, with the baby's heart pumping independently at 24 days. The fetus also produces a hormone that keeps the mother's body from rejecting it - it is a subconsciencous thought of every human to protect it's own existence.


Your science has proven that. Mine disagrees with it completely.


Section 4: There are many women in the world who are barren and cannont have children. They try hard to adopt children but are hindered by international laws that would stop them from adopting a baby. The second Article of this repeal would allow them to easily adopt children into their families.


The second article is illegal. So this article is also either illegal or invalid.


Article 5: The United Nations General Assembly is authorized to enforce this act with appropriate legislation."[/i]


Again - it can't until you repeal the current resolution.


Your support would be greatly appreciated to push forward this Resolution.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Mispelled Nashun of The Iroqouis

Even if it wasn't illegal I would not support any moves to take the choice of abortion out of the hands of the people.

I am going to ignore the fact that this repeal is not done properly (as mentioned before) and just deal with the 'issues' you bring up, hopefully preventing any further repeal to resolutions on this matter as my nation idealizes Freedom of Choice above all else.


Section 1: As murder is defined as "to kill intentionally and with premeditation," and that abortions do not happen by accident, abortion is hereby recognized as a form of murder. Abortion right's activists have claimed that it is their choice to end the life of their child, but statistics show that 99% of abortions are performed because the mother does not want a child.


To be convicted of murder, you had to have murdered a person. Since there is still intense debate about the point when a fetus becomes a person, this should be dealt with before you go accusing women of murder.

Also, I would like to point out that the Mother who choses to have an abortion is activly being an 'Abortion Rights Activist' or Pro-Choice. Mother's are not forced into this decision, unless there is a serious medical reason to abort the child - and even then, the mother is still able to make a choice.

Section 2: Abortions are not only performed routeenly without the permission of the father, but they are also performed on teenage girls without their parent's permission. This would suggest that it is the act of someone who does not wish to take responsibility for their actions rather than a mother whose life is endanger or a mother who cannot take care of a child.

Considering that the fetus lives in the mother for its gestation period, and she owns her body, she is allowed to do whatever she wishes with it - regardless of the father, which by the way won't be known for sure until the baby is born and a DNA test is performed.

Define 'teenage girls', and why they should have their parents permission to perform an abortion.

I would also like to mention that I am deeply offended by describing women who use the option of abortion as irresponsible.

Section 3: Science has proven that a fetus shows independent brain wave patterns as early as 20 days, with the baby's heart pumping independently at 24 days. The fetus also produces a hormone that keeps the mother's body from rejecting it - it is a subconsciencous thought of every human to protect it's own existence.

Actually, the fetus' heart beat can be found at the earliest of 42 days, when it becomes independant of the mother's heartbeat.

The idea of brain wave patterns at twenty days is untrue, and is spread as a factoid by pro-life activists. The origional document, often quoted improperly, was by Dr. Hannibal Hamlin entiltled "Life or Death by EEG" which was actually a personal essay exploring the possiblity of Brain Death in 1964. Through ceasaren section abortions, no longer performed, they tested the EEG and ECG, removed the fetus (some at 40 days) and measured both again. It was reported that the fetus' had irregularly slow EEG's and their ECG's where not unique, and when removed the EEG and ECG faded.

What this means: the EEG can indicate any abnormalities in the brain, and also indicate whether the subject is at rest, sleeping, or awake. Since the fetus had irregularly slow EEG's, the brain is still developing. Because the ECG was not unique, this means the fetus' heart was beating along with the mother's heartbeat, and not independantly.

I'd also like to mention that women are known to have miscarriages, which is a hormonal abortion of the fetus. Hormones work to protect the fetus, as well as reject it.

Section 4: There are many women in the world who are barren and cannont have children. They try hard to adopt children but are hindered by international laws that would stop them from adopting a baby. The second Article of this repeal would allow them to easily adopt children into their families.

LMAO. Yes, there is such a limited choice in adoptable children. (I'm being sarcastic, btw)

Pro-Life Forces a set of belief systems on to a people, Pro-Choice leaves an option open. If this isn't thrown out because you rolled a repeal and resolution into one, you definatly do not have my support.

You do not have our support and I would question whether someone who is pregnant can be called a mother if they have no children.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

As long as you don't take care of the living don't claim to take care of the unborn.

As an active and very strong pro-life activist (for a very long time), i, as the leader of Glefkers, have found it very difficult to condone the act of abortion.

However, i have also found it increasingly difficult to answer questions of pro-choice (i hate that word :P) schools of thought that ask what to do if the mother's life is in danger.

My answer, has, as of yet, not been properly formulated to that question.

If, as the above posters have all stated, the repeal was incorrectly formatted, then it would be best to restate the resolution/repeal before debate continues on this topic :P

On the other hand, I would like to challenge those who continuously say that a fetus, an unborn child, whatever the terminology, is not a human being. It is not a far step from taking that precedent and then applying it to other things that people find to be "inconveniences." Viruses and bacteria kill. (I admit that sometimes a baby could very well endanger the life of a mother... but this is not usually the rule) Fetuses grow into new life.

I do recognize the comment made about the father knocking up the daughter, etc. Those are most unfortunate cases, but should we necessarily punish this unborn child because of the emotional trauma it causes the "mother"? What about the emotional trauma of the abortion? Is getting rid of the baby/fetus going to lessen the emotional pain that the mother suffers?

And there's a point that i'm not clear on whether my fellow members who have responded to this agree upon or not. Abortions are often used as a method of birth control... a girl went out, got pregnant, and now she wants to dump this "thing" that will cause her a horrible inconvenience. So because it's "inconvenient", it is perfectly OK to dump the fetus? Is it OK to dump an animal because it becomes merely inconvenient? Why the double standard?

The representative of Glefkers hopes that these questions do make the other respected members of this body consider this a little more deeply instead of just hiding behind scientific blather.... i never did like science :P

Good night.

On the other hand, I would like to challenge those who continuously say that a fetus, an unborn child, whatever the terminology, is not a human being. It is not a far step from taking that precedent and then applying it to other things that people find to be "inconveniences." Viruses and bacteria kill. (I admit that sometimes a baby could very well endanger the life of a mother... but this is not usually the rule) Fetuses grow into new life.

I do recognize the comment made about the father knocking up the daughter, etc. Those are most unfortunate cases, but should we necessarily punish this unborn child because of the emotional trauma it causes the "mother"? What about the emotional trauma of the abortion? Is getting rid of the baby/fetus going to lessen the emotional pain that the mother suffers?

And there's a point that i'm not clear on whether my fellow members who have responded to this agree upon or not. Abortions are often used as a method of birth control... a girl went out, got pregnant, and now she wants to dump this "thing" that will cause her a horrible inconvenience. So because it's "inconvenient", it is perfectly OK to dump the fetus? Is it OK to dump an animal because it becomes merely inconvenient? Why the double standard?

The representative of Glefkers hopes that these questions do make the other respected members of this body consider this a little more deeply instead of just hiding behind scientific blather.... i never did like science :P

Good night.
By animal I take that to mean pet?

Well, see, when you get a pet you choose to look after it and take care of it and all that. And, no one forces you to incubate it. Lady Des had a fear of pregnancy.

With a foetus (not baby as a matter of confusion) you never agree to look after it. Even with adoption you still have to look after it for nine months or so. And, if you take sex to mean agreement that you will give birth, I'd like to quote I'm not sorry.net

Ah, now we’re getting to the real issue. Remember, it was only very recently that women have been “allowed” to enjoy sex, and a lot of people are still suspicious of women who are free in their sexuality, a leftover from the joyless Puritans who founded this country. Quite frankly, we’d prefer it if the anti-choicers would just come out and say, “Since our religion or upbringing tells us that enjoying sex is a sin and we’re so sexually repressed we squeak, we think that any woman who has sex for any reason other than to conceive is a whore.

Of course I wouldn't be quite as... blunt.

And finally a foetus only has potential to be alive, an animal is alive. It dosn't an the animal shouldn't die, only that it be treated humanely.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I do recognize the comment made about the father knocking up the daughter, etc. Those are most unfortunate cases, but should we necessarily punish this unborn child because of the emotional trauma it causes the "mother"? What about the emotional trauma of the abortion? Is getting rid of the baby/fetus going to lessen the emotional pain that the mother suffers?


Maybe, maybe not. But in one case the girl is chosing to have an abortion, and accepting the trauma and pain that she will go through. In the other case the girl is being FORCED to go through trauma and pain against her will, which will only make it many times worse.


And there's a point that i'm not clear on whether my fellow members who have responded to this agree upon or not. Abortions are often used as a method of birth control... a girl went out, got pregnant, and now she wants to dump this "thing" that will cause her a horrible inconvenience. So because it's "inconvenient", it is perfectly OK to dump the fetus? Is it OK to dump an animal because it becomes merely inconvenient? Why the double standard?


Now I admit I am in (sort of) agreement with you here. Given the amount of methods of birth control in the world, there should be no reason to use abortion as another one.
BUT (and it is quite a serious but) you can't discriminate. If you pass a law that says "you can have an abortion" you can't them limit it because of the motive of the person who wants to have it. Because it would be impossible to enforce.

Example : Sandi goes out with her boyfriend Trent. They have sex, using a condom. But the condom breaks and Sandi becomes pregnant. She goes to the clinic and tells them that, and because she took reasonable precautions they say she falls in to the group who can have an abortion.

Example : Stacy goes out with her boyfriend Ted. They have sex, not using any protection, and she becomes pregnant. She goes to the clinic and tells them she used a condom but it snapped. So she also falls in to the group.

You can extend this to any circumstance you like and there are ways round it. So either abortion is legal under every circumstance, or it is not legal at all, even if the woman will die from the birth, or the "woman" is a ten year old girl who's father can't keep his hands to himself.


The representative of Glefkers hopes that these questions do make the other respected members of this body consider this a little more deeply instead of just hiding behind scientific blather.... i never did like science :P


No science in mine at all. Just (what I believe is) balanced arguement and logic. But I suspect it won't change your mind, in the way that nothing will change mine :}

Interesting story:
My mother tells me she almost had me aborted. My mother and father were both already at the hospital, waiting in line for the doctor to see them. They'd been uneasy about it for quite a while, but when my mother actually got to the hospital, she just broke down crying. Well, quite naturally by then, they both realized they couldn't go through with it, and so walked home. Lucky for me huh?

The moral of the story is, I'm not mad at them or anything for it, and that although I wasn't a "planned" baby (i.e. they were not trying to start a family at that time), they let their instincts guide them and made their own choice. I'm glad they chose what they did, but I'm also glad to know that they had a choice.

I just can't get around why people think it would be better if abortion were made illegal.

When it's legal, it's SAFE. People don't seem to give a damn about the women who actually go through with the procedure itself, whether out of convenience or not. Granted, an illegal status would likely cut down on the number of abortions out of convenience (yes, abortions/baby dumping would still go on even under the letter of the law, like prostitution). However, would we rather have our desparate women and disputedly "living" fetuses bled out and infected by clothes hangers and drumsticks in an alley, or performed on with clean instruments and safe methods?

Whether you care about the fetus' chance at life or not, I believe there are those who would also create a double-standard and say that a mother's life and health is not on par with a fetus', when here I thought ALL life ought to be protected. The fetus > mother inequality is an impression that turns my stomach, especially when there is little and inconclusive evidence that the fetus is recognized as life in the first place.

The thing to do is not outlaw abortion; instead, like this repeal vaguely (and illegally) offers, give alternatives and better help to mothers, preferably through proliferic and available contraception and education. I believe the better equipped a woman is, the more she is likely to make a better "choice" when faced with optional circumstances. In this theory, abortion will gradually become more unnecessary.

However, more mandatory circumstances that cause of conception, namely rape, are a different ballgame. I believe it is where pro-choice and pro-life hit gray. Yet theoretically, if there are less convenience abortions, abortion may be more associated with rape and resources can be made available in clinics for help, counseling, etc.

Hey, or maybe that's just my imagination running a bit too wild.

[...]it is a subconsciencous thought of every human to protect it's own existence.

This is the most presumptive part of the whole repeal. Some of us say it's not a thought, like "Kill me? I'll show you, MOM!", it's just an evolved survival mechanism, something a fetus doesn't just decide to do.

In short, I find that this repeal is being offered solely on the grounds of personal belief without any decent objective reasoning. I cannot support it, outside of it being illegal for the game.

I, Prez Jes of Texastein, support the repealing of Abortion Rights mandated by the UN, but I do so for different reason.
I believe it is a decision to be made by individual nations. I started a thread on this subject a couple days ago (Repeal Abortion Prop.)
I have also submitted another proposal to take it's place once (assuming) the repeal goes through. It is entitled "Abortion is NOT a UN Interest."
I have decided to keep my opinion on abortion to myself as I'm sure I can add nothing new to the debate. The subject matter can simply boil down to "soveriegn rights."
I rest.

Fetuses grow into new life.

And yet I'll bet you eat eggs.

ection 2: Abortions are not only performed routeenly without the permission of the father, but they are also performed on teenage girls without their parent's permission. This would suggest that it is the act of someone who does not wish to take responsibility for their actions rather than a mother whose life is endanger or a mother who cannot take care of a child.

Three things:

1. Why should a man's word be taken over a woman's?

2.Many fathers do agree, too, so this argument is a void one.

3. If parents should be able to make decisions regarding their childrens' bodies and their own, then the pregnant daughter should have the same choice of what to do to her and her fetus'.

This proposal, repeal, or whatever it is to be called will never get the support of Zootropia.

And yet I'll bet you eat eggs.

I would like to point out that hens can lay eggs that haven't been fertilized and therefore have no possibility of hatching.

Though this current repeal will not pass and is not the best in wording, the idea of repealing of 'Abortion Rights' is important.
One, I do not believe a fetus is equivalent to a human, but it is not something to be treated lightly or with such a broad brush (as 'abortion rights' does.) The mother's health I agree comes first, but the mother does not deserve the right to act as she pleases with the fetus within. For instance, it is widely accepted that a mother who uses drugs or alcohol and thus causes birth defects or miscarriages is liable in Sarcodina and many other countries.
Moreover, medical technology has made huge advancements in giving birth. I believe the earliest premature baby was born 26 weeks after pregnancy (about 6 monthes and change) and that might change anyday. The fact is the total freedom to have abortions and the total illegality of abortions both do not make sense. I think that certain factors should effect abortion legislation:
1) Time: If someone has sex then they should check w/in a reasonable period of time if they want an abortion. If it is a few cells, then the entire process is far less inhumane and w/o doubt easier on the women. If someone waits 7 or 8 monthes to get an abortion because they have delayed it that is absurd. If the baby was born right then, it would stand a very high chance of living. No women has the right to say I don't think I want to have this kid because it is just not the time at 8 monthes (though it is their "right" currently)...this situation happens very little but that does not mean it should be allowed.The need to create a reasonable balance in the matter of time in legislation is necessary, but frankly something that indivual nations should decide.
2) Mother's condition: Rape, Incest, Health Problems etc. play an effect too.

I hope someone does create better repeal though the Iroquis one is a respectable piece of legislation and will get my symbolic support.
Abortions today are different than they were a hundred years ago. The abortion then was about money and the lack of ability to support the baby. Currently, it is in Sarcodina and many other places it is largely based on ability of women to continue work, or do other more "important" things.
As argued by many pro-choice folk, I agree that organizations should be implented in all nations that support education and policies that will cut down on unwanted pregancies. This includes education in schools etc. Also, Sarcodina has supported helping expecting mothers in poverty stricken settings to decide to keep the child if it is a matter of financial matters.

The fact is billions of babies most likely get aborted in NationStates every year, think of the potential for good they could bring and all the accomplishments lost because of their premature endings.

Someone without a doubt will question my statistic of billions each year. So here is my math.

US has 300m people and 1m each year on average. If you used this and said even that 1m occur each 1billion people then it would in the billions indeed in NS.

As an active and very strong pro-life activist (for a very long time), i, as the leader of Glefkers, have found it very difficult to condone the act of abortion.

This should be interesting.

However, i have also found it increasingly difficult to answer questions of pro-choice (i hate that word :P) schools of thought that ask what to do if the mother's life is in danger.

Hmm. Appears this one may actually know something on the subject.

My answer, has, as of yet, not been properly formulated to that question.

If, as the above posters have all stated, the repeal was incorrectly formatted, then it would be best to restate the resolution/repeal before debate continues on this topic :P

It is. See the rules about proposals and repeals.

On the other hand, I would like to challenge those who continuously say that a fetus, an unborn child, whatever the terminology, is not a human being. It is not a far step from taking that precedent and then applying it to other things that people find to be "inconveniences." Viruses and bacteria kill. (I admit that sometimes a baby could very well endanger the life of a mother... but this is not usually the rule) Fetuses grow into new life.

Humans also kill. So, really, using that definition of what they are, humans are either a virus or a bacteria. Besides, humans actually require bacteria to survive.

A fetus is not considered a human being for the same reason a corpse is not. A fetus does not meet enough of the requirements of being a living being to count as alive. It meets the same number of requirements that viruses do, and viruses are not alive.

I do recognize the comment made about the father knocking up the daughter, etc. Those are most unfortunate cases, but should we necessarily punish this unborn child because of the emotional trauma it causes the "mother"? What about the emotional trauma of the abortion? Is getting rid of the baby/fetus going to lessen the emotional pain that the mother suffers?

In some cases, it does. But in any case, forcing the mother to keep it will most likely result in the child living a far less happy life in the long run. Adoptions are not exactly that easy to get in any nation, foster care I would only wish on the most hardenned criminals, and life with the mother is going to suck when she looks at the child with horror during her unguarded moments.

And there's a point that i'm not clear on whether my fellow members who have responded to this agree upon or not. Abortions are often used as a method of birth control... a girl went out, got pregnant, and now she wants to dump this "thing" that will cause her a horrible inconvenience. So because it's "inconvenient", it is perfectly OK to dump the fetus? Is it OK to dump an animal because it becomes merely inconvenient? Why the double standard?

No double standard exists in DLE on that issue. Pets are returned every week by people who cannot take care of them, and in some cases their lives are aborted humanely.

The representative of Glefkers hopes that these questions do make the other respected members of this body consider this a little more deeply instead of just hiding behind scientific blather.... i never did like science :P

Science is really inconvenient when it goes on about things you don't like, and yet you enjoy the fruits of its labor enough to post on here. Something to think about.

One, I do not believe a fetus is equivalent to a human, but it is not something to be treated lightly or with such a broad brush (as 'abortion rights' does.) The mother's health I agree comes first, but the mother does not deserve the right to act as she pleases with the fetus within. For instance, it is widely accepted that a mother who uses drugs or alcohol and thus causes birth defects or miscarriages is liable in Sarcodina and many other countries.

The problem is a question of if it is alive or not. If not, a broad brush is appropriate. If so, that is a different issue.

Moreover, medical technology has made huge advancements in giving birth. I believe the earliest premature baby was born 26 weeks after pregnancy (about 6 monthes and change) and that might change anyday. The fact is the total freedom to have abortions and the total illegality of abortions both do not make sense.

Why? Technology advancing does not have as much of an impact in abortions anyway. Often in the past, it was more about inconvenience than about anything else. Nothing has actually changed except the excuses people tell themselves.

1) Time: If someone has sex then they should check w/in a reasonable period of time if they want an abortion. If it is a few cells, then the entire process is far less inhumane and w/o doubt easier on the women. If someone waits 7 or 8 monthes to get an abortion because they have delayed it that is absurd. If the baby was born right then, it would stand a very high chance of living. No women has the right to say I don't think I want to have this kid because it is just not the time at 8 monthes (though it is their "right" currently)...this situation happens very little but that does not mean it should be allowed.The need to create a reasonable balance in the matter of time in legislation is necessary, but frankly something that indivual nations should decide.
2) Mother's condition: Rape, Incest, Health Problems etc. play an effect too.

I agree on the first one. The second one has, ironically, been one of the bigger sources of late-term abortion around.

Abortions today are different than they were a hundred years ago. The abortion then was about money and the lack of ability to support the baby. Currently, it is in Sarcodina and many other places it is largely based on ability of women to continue work, or do other more "important" things.

Merely a case of inconvenience back then. Same today.

The fact is billions of babies most likely get aborted in NationStates every year, think of the potential for good they could bring and all the accomplishments lost because of their premature endings.

Try trillions.

The fact is billions of babies most likely get aborted in NationStates every year, think of the potential for good they could bring and all the accomplishments lost because of their premature endings.

But by that arguement the billions of babies could all turn in to psychopathic killers who would bring about the end of the world. In which case the abortion is a good thing.

indeed, for every albert einstein that is aborted, how many Hitlers are aborted as well?

This arguement is counter-productive.

But by that arguement the billions of babies could all turn in to psychopathic killers who would bring about the end of the world. In which case the abortion is a good thing.

Tilenca, what? Pessimmism is not an argument. I find human life to be most important thing period.
And there are few Hitlers every generation (that of which we should be able to stop w/ a proper teamwork from the world community and isolationists not getting control) but there are millions of artists, scientists, writers, etc.

Tilenca, what? Pessimmism is not an argument. I find human life to be most important thing period.
And there are few Hitlers every generation (that of which we should be able to stop w/ a proper teamwork from the world community and isolationists not getting control) but there are millions of artists, scientists, writers, etc.
If pessimism is not an argument how can optimism be one? Let's face it; most of your writers, artists, and Hitlers will probably just be pencil pushers.

Personally I find human life quite overrated. People matter. People with rational minds and self awareness. Until you have that you may as well be an amoeba. And even then people are quite worthless in the grand scheme of things. We will live and die eventually just like any other species.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Tilenca, what? Pessimmism is not an argument. I find human life to be most important thing period.
And there are few Hitlers every generation (that of which we should be able to stop w/ a proper teamwork from the world community and isolationists not getting control) but there are millions of artists, scientists, writers, etc.

And yet one Hitler managed to kill millions of potential artists, scientists and writers etc.

The point is that if you can argue that you should not have abortion because the child might be a genius who will save mankind, then I can argue that you should because the child might be an evil genius who will doom mankind.

I never ceased to be amazed when this argument comes up.

Until such time as a fetus can exist on its own, outside of a woman's body, it is NOT alive. Period. It is a potential - nothing more, nothing less.

Life is not sacred and people are not equal. Once the I live in a world that doesn't exist optimitists accept this, the easier it will be on everyone.

Interesting that I don't see a proposal to set up orphanages or whatever that will accept and place any and ALL unwanted babies - preferably by the pro-lifers. But then, they don't really want to care for unwanted children either - they just want to tell someone else that *they* have to.

Personally I find human life quite overrated. People matter. People with rational minds and self awareness. Until you have that you may as well be an amoeba. And even then people are quite worthless in the grand scheme of things. We will live and die eventually just like any other species.

Thank you. I'm glad there are some of us who understand and are not bothered by the value of existential humility.

Oh, and just one marginally relevant thing: at the rate some of us are defying our Malthusian crises, something will have to give and our populations will stay in check, whether through abortions or starvation.

Until such time as a fetus can exist on its own, outside of a woman's body, it is NOT alive. Period. It is a potential - nothing more, nothing less.

Although I am pro-choice, I don't agree with this idea.

If we did believe that a fetus is not a person until it is out of the woman's body, than an abortion method called Partial-Birth Abortion would be 'acceptable'. In a partial birth abortion, a doctor delivers the baby until the head remains in the womb. Then, the doctor punctures the baby's skull and removes the brain before delivering the rest of the baby.

The first tri-mester of a woman's pregnancy is the only acceptable time to have an abortion by choice, IMHO.

In the second or third trimester, an abortion should be only performed if there is a serious health risk to the mother, or a major defect found in the unborn infant, and recomended by a doctor.

They are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of "abortion" which is used by most of the public.
The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level. We will generally use the medical terms in this section.
The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Yeah it is icky but even at that point it has no self awareness and is not capable of making rational decisions. The pregnant woman and her doctors, on the other hand, are fully capable of deciding if she can have a child.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Until such time as a fetus can exist on its own, outside of a woman's body, it is NOT alive. Period. It is a potential - nothing more, nothing less.

I suppose then, that all species of animals that depend upon a symbiotic relationship to live are not living as well?

As for pro-lifers passing sweeping judgements on people and telling those with unwanted pregnancies to care for their unwanted babies... this representative would kindly like to ask the representative of Zamundaland to get their head out of whatever hole they have stuck it in :) If you look around, majority of concerned pro-lifers are also in favour of services that will take care of these unwanted children for the mother.

Either optimism or pessisimism arguments for or against abortion can be validated due to the nature that both are entirely speculative. Thus, the honourable representative from TilEnca makes a point. I just want to point that out... i have no response :P

Eggs, as has been mentioned before, are unfertilized and (using the pro-choice def'n) do not even have the potential for life. Let's keep the examples relevant here :)

The thing that TilEnca mentioned about forcing mothers to go through the trauma... I would like to point out that often times abortions happen because a family will force a women to have the "inconvenience" taken care of... thereby forcing trauma that way as well. Either way, it is forced trauma. Therefore, I feel that the forced trauma that brings about life is a better decision... but that's a value judgement on my part I admit.

Life being sacred or not, being overrated or not, is once again a value judgement based on the observations of this world and how people so wantonly kill and destroy things (i'm guessing.) Simply because you don't agree with the normative ideals of another person does not mean that such a world does not or cannot exist.

I guess what I'm trying to drive at is this. Securing abortion as a RIGHT is slighly overzealous in my opinion. TilEnca argued that if we only allow abortions in dangerous conditions or in rape/abuse, that it is discrimination... I do not feel so. The words discrimination, rights, and human rights violation are words that are thrown around too often with little disregard for the actual meaning of such words. How is it discriminating if you don't allow those that were acting foolishly to perform an abortion? There's too much emphasis on rights and not enough emphasis on responsibility. Also securing abortion as a right is something that would then force governments to publicly fund the action... something which is unacceptable, especially if a large majority of the citizens within a nation are in complete disagreement with the idea of abortion. In a way, abortion as a right is making people who disagree with that notion support it via their tax dollars.

(and if your condom breaks... you didn't check the expiry date :P If in my frosh week orientation, my group could fit 37 pitchers of water in a condom before it broke.... well you can figure out the rest :P)

([out of character]I'm deliberatly not quoting... cuz their was so much information from so many people and I'm on a crappy school computer that i can't reference back to it)

(as for the bost that Rose just made... I disagree. How is it that the fetus is unaware of what's going on? Are you telling me that only the moment that a baby's head leaves its mother's body that it can become aware of its surroundings? And define rational. Why is rational better than irrational, or emotional? Sorry... just saw your post :P)

^
Well Put.


Another point isn't it the right of people to kill others to benfit the killer, for it life is not sacred then who cares about genocide etc.

How is it discriminating if you don't allow those that were acting foolishly to perform an abortion? There's too much emphasis on rights and not enough emphasis on responsibility.

If you are worried about 'responsibility' why don't we pass resolutions about people *with* children.

Not everyone who has an abortion was 'acting foolishly', but this stereotype continues to pop up.

I think the women who choose to have an abortion are acting responsible because they are willing to go through with the procedure, pay for it in some cases, and possibly deal with emotional issues with the imbalance of hormones because they know that they cannot properly care for a child. Mistakes happen, rapes happen, incests happen, and abortions happen. Whether you outlaw it or not.

As for pro-lifers passing sweeping judgements on people and telling those with unwanted pregnancies to care for their unwanted babies... this representative would kindly like to ask the representative of Zamundaland to get their head out of whatever hole they have stuck it in :) If you look around, majority of concerned pro-lifers are also in favour of services that will take care of these unwanted children for the mother.


But still forcing them to have the child.


Either optimism or pessisimism arguments for or against abortion can be validated due to the nature that both are entirely speculative. Thus, the honourable representative from TilEnca makes a point. I just want to point that out... i have no response :P


Nice response :}


The thing that TilEnca mentioned about forcing mothers to go through the trauma... I would like to point out that often times abortions happen because a family will force a women to have the "inconvenience" taken care of... thereby forcing trauma that way as well. Either way, it is forced trauma. Therefore, I feel that the forced trauma that brings about life is a better decision... but that's a value judgement on my part I admit.


You think that familes "taking care of it" would stop if abortion were suddenly made illegal? It would not stop - it would just go underground.

And I disagree with your value judgement, but that is just my judgement I guess.


Life being sacred or not, being overrated or not, is once again a value judgement based on the observations of this world and how people so wantonly kill and destroy things (i'm guessing.) Simply because you don't agree with the normative ideals of another person does not mean that such a world does not or cannot exist.


I do believe that life is special, if not sacred (that is a word with connatations I don't accept). But I also don't believe fetuses are covered by the specialness (for want of a better phrase)


I guess what I'm trying to drive at is this. Securing abortion as a RIGHT is slighly overzealous in my opinion. TilEnca argued that if we only allow abortions in dangerous conditions or in rape/abuse, that it is discrimination... I do not feel so. The words discrimination, rights, and human rights violation are words that are thrown around too often with little disregard for the actual meaning of such words. How is it discriminating if you don't allow those that were acting foolishly to perform an abortion? There's too much emphasis on rights and not enough emphasis on responsibility.


I did not use the phrase human rights violation, but I did use the word discrimination. And I think that is what it would be. If you say "she was raped, so she can have an abortion" but you say "she was wreckless, so she can't" that is being somewhat judgemental and discriminatory. How do you know she was wreckless? You can use every precaution under the sun and still end up pregnant. I woudl not call that wrecklessness - I would just call it unfortunate. And people should not be punished for an act of the gods against them - it's not fair.

And there is too much emphasis on punishment, and not enough on forgiveness.


Also securing abortion as a right is something that would then force governments to publicly fund the action... something which is unacceptable, especially if a large majority of the citizens within a nation are in complete disagreement with the idea of abortion. In a way, abortion as a right is making people who disagree with that notion support it via their tax dollars.


People don't get to chose what their taxes go to. I happen to disagree with some of what the army does, but I am not allowed to have my taxes go elsewhere. Some people don't agree with some of the agencies my government has set up, but they don't get to pick and chose where their taxes go.


(and if your condom breaks... you didn't check the expiry date :P If in my frosh week orientation, my group could fit 37 pitchers of water in a condom before it broke.... well you can figure out the rest :P)


I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Sometimes condoms break. It's unforntunate, but it happens.


My whole thing with abortion is that it should be the choice of the individual. And the only way to ensure that is to take the choice out of the hands of the national governments. Which means the UN has to enforce it on all nations, so that everyone has a choice.

I never ceased to be amazed when this argument comes up.

Until such time as a fetus can exist on its own, outside of a woman's body, it is NOT alive. Period. It is a potential - nothing more, nothing less.
I am always amazed when this argument is presented as undeniable fact. While I agree with the concept, plenty of others don't. Slapping your "truth" on the table as the sole "truth" has never and will never convince others that your argument is correct.

In short, prove it. Just like you'd demand anyone else to disprove it.


Can't do it? Wah.

Anybody else get the feeling these civil rights repeals are coordinated assaults on NSUN by a group of christian conservatives?

It's been tried before. Remember Aliste?

I am always amazed when this argument is presented as undeniable fact. While I agree with the concept, plenty of others don't. Slapping your "truth" on the table as the sole "truth" has never and will never convince others that your argument is correct.

In short, prove it. Just like you'd demand anyone else to disprove it.


Can't do it? Wah.
Would you be more comfortable with the argument that it's not yet a human being before birth?

Call an acorn alive, if you want; it's still not an oak tree.

Life is not sacred in any religion I've heard of except Buddhism - human life is sacred, but not any other kind of life.
At birth, the fetus becomes a human being. Before birth, it's a potential human being. Like a sperm is a potential human being, say. Or... like an acorn is a potential oak tree.

The best definition of when a foetus is alive that I've ever heard:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo."

Viability is around 24 weeks when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb) with current (non fantastic) technology.

The other defintion I like is if the point of death can be defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. If this is the end of a human person's life, one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life? Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, perhaps as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then we could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks.

It's been tried before. Remember Aliste?

Ahhhh Aliste. I had almost forgotten him :}

I am always amazed when this argument is presented as undeniable fact. While I agree with the concept, plenty of others don't. Slapping your "truth" on the table as the sole "truth" has never and will never convince others that your argument is correct.

In short, prove it. Just like you'd demand anyone else to disprove it.


Can't do it? Wah.
Can't do it? Maybe *you* can't.

This is simple. Surgically remove the fetus or induce labor. If it can survive on its own - it's alive, notwithstanding Hirota's definition which *is* better. But you get my drift.

I wouldn't mind a repeal if it were simply a matter of allowing member nations to decide the issue for themselves. But as we all know, the conservative right won't let matters stand there. There are a few things that the UN is involved in which I believe are "moral" issues (for want of a better word) and best decided on a local level. However, since that will not change the need of some people to impose their will on others on "moral" issues (which really breaks down to religious issues in most cases), Zamundaland stays fixed in its position on this issue.

I've got lots of different definitions you could use on the matter:

Almost all spontaneous natural abortions, (a.k.a. miscarriages), occur fairly early during pregnancy - before the 15th week of gestation. For reasons that are not entirely clear, "nature" realizes that the embryo or fetus is defective for genetic or other reasons. It is expelled from the woman's body and pregnancy ceases. One might argue that the fetus is not potential life until nature has determined the true potentiality of that life by deciding whether to abort the fetus spontaneously.

After all, nature can perform abortions, so why can't we?

*representative from Glefkers starts laughing uncontrollably and only stops after being asked by the Secretary General to control himself.*

I'm sorry... just realized how far off topic this thread has gone :P

I'm no longer going to discuss the morality or lack thereof with regards to abortion... we're obviously NOT going to change each other's minds.

I would like to address something perhaps more productive. A rewording of the repeal, and a resolution that could be put in place of the right to an abortion.

(and please... those of us with more conservative vews have yet to call anyone here a left wing liberal freeloader.... do you mind affording us the same respect?)

I'm in the process of considering a resolution that defines the exact scope of what a government should control or not... I'll brign that forth later once it is more developed, but this is similar to that. Here is the proposal as I lay it forth.

a) Formulate a proper repeal if you will. Like everyone says, the rules do not allow repeals to propose and vice versa.

b) In place of right to abortion (or whatever the resolution is called... but I do know that it is there) put in a piece of legislation, much as is being discussed about prostition, decriminalizing it. To reiterate my argument that I put forth before, positing abortion as a right forces governments to subsidize an action with which they may not necessarily agree.

And Tilenca... although the tax payer may not necessarily get to choose where the taxes go, the government has duty of allocating the tax money to where they think it should go (in democracies you vote, in dictatorships the dictator decides, but in the end, the gov't allocates the funds) and we are all leaders or representatvies of leaders of gov'ts. Thus your argument does not stand in this particular context.

The sticky issue does arise whether decriminalizing an act is the same as condoning it... but very interesting alternatives have been proposed here to abortion, and those who are against abortion may choose to adapt those proposals for legislation in their own nation. I know that I'll be adopting some of these ideas the next time the issue of abortion comes forth in my government. (hehe... adopting.... :P)

What do you all think about this?

I am always amazed when this argument is presented as undeniable fact. While I agree with the concept, plenty of others don't. Slapping your "truth" on the table as the sole "truth" has never and will never convince others that your argument is correct.

In short, prove it. Just like you'd demand anyone else to disprove it.


Can't do it? Wah.

*has surgery committed on pregnant female, removing four month old fetus. It dies within minutes*

Any other questions? Its not an independant life form. Ergo, it is not "a human being with rights", it's "a lump of cells, a parasite, a passenger with potential but no rights".

The best definition of when a foetus is alive that I've ever heard:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being?

Up to here, we agree with you.



When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo."

Here, we do not. You cannot prove it "feels pain", you can only prove it reacts to a set of stimuli in a mechanical way.



Viability is around 24 weeks when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb) with current (non fantastic) technology.

Outside the woman's body? Yep.
Disconnected? Yep.
Took a breath? Yep.

Ok, now it's a "human being person with rights".



The other defintion I like is if the point of death can be defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. If this is the end of a human person's life, one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life? Under this argument, some primitive neurological activity in the cerebral cortex begins during the fifth month, perhaps as early as the 22nd week of pregnancy. If we allow a two week safety factor, then we could set the gestation time limit at which abortions should not be freely available at 20 weeks.

We disagree here. Simple neuron firing does not relate to conciousness or any sort of "separate life" - it's a mechanistic form doing what it does, preparing itself for future life. But is it a "human being with rights"? No.

And Tilenca... although the tax payer may not necessarily get to choose where the taxes go, the government has duty of allocating the tax money to where they think it should go (in democracies you vote, in dictatorships the dictator decides, but in the end, the gov't allocates the funds) and we are all leaders or representatvies of leaders of gov'ts. Thus your argument does not stand in this particular context.


See - I disagree. For example if there was a huge disaster in GeminiLand, the government might send 20,000,000 gold pieces over there to help. But a lot of my people dislike GeminiLand cause they think it is a fascist, evil nation full of horrible people. So should the government refuse to offer help to people who need it just because the people say so?

And a fair amount of people would argue that since art is subsidised, shouldn't all other forms of entertainment be equally subsidised? If not why should art get the money?

And then there is the other arguement - if you start witholding funds (which is what taxes are) to hospitals that don't live up to your own moral standards, you are trying to enforce your morals on the rest of the country. And although I disagree with all the attempts to seperate Church and State in the UN, government should not be about one person's morals dictating everyone elses life.That would be the act of a petty dictator, not a democratically elected leader.

Fellow delegates, it is imperative that we vote in favor of this resolution.

Advocates for the opposition will say that as we all have the right to life, fetuses can't be killed.

However, I'm here to argue this- it is certainly true that people have inalienable rights, and one such right is the right to life. But the right to life includes control over one's body. A fetus is entirely inside one's body, so until birth, it is still part of the mother's body, which means it is the mother's prerogative as to whether or not they get an abortion. In my eyes, it's similar to debating about suicide's legality. The fact is, we control our own bodies. If someone wants to commit suicide, that is part of their right to control their own body; same for abortions.

We all know the many good reasons why people would need abortions- I have no need to go into them right now, because you've heard them all many times. I simply present the alternative argument that the right to life covers our right to abortions.

Further, I don't think we can consider fetuses living humans. They are not fully living creatures like out of the womb humans; if we're going to ban killing something because it has living cells, then say goodbye to salad- how can we kill the cells of that poor lettuce? Not to mention animals.

It's quite simple, to me- the people who impose their view on abortion upon us are people who want their religious beliefs imposed on everyone else around them. But let's try freedom for a change- vote yes.

Fellow delegates, it is imperative that we vote in favor of this resolution.

Advocates for the opposition will say that as we all have the right to life, fetuses can't be killed.

However, I'm here to argue this- it is certainly true that people have inalienable rights, and one such right is the right to life. But the right to life includes control over one's body. A fetus is entirely inside one's body, so until birth, it is still part of the mother's body, which means it is the mother's prerogative as to whether or not they get an abortion. In my eyes, it's similar to debating about suicide's legality. The fact is, we control our own bodies. If someone wants to commit suicide, that is part of their right to control their own body; same for abortions.

We all know the many good reasons why people would need abortions- I have no need to go into them right now, because you've heard them all many times. I simply present the alternative argument that the right to life covers our right to abortions.

Further, I don't think we can consider fetuses living humans. They are not fully living creatures like out of the womb humans; if we're going to ban killing something because it has living cells, then say goodbye to salad- how can we kill the cells of that poor lettuce? Not to mention animals.

It's quite simple, to me- the people who impose their view on abortion upon us are people who want their religious beliefs imposed on everyone else around them. But let's try freedom for a change- vote yes.

So basically you are saying we should support this repeal because of freedom of choice.

But if this repeal is sucessful then several nations will be permitted to ban abortion on the spot. Limiting the freedom of the people of that nation to chose whether they have an abortion or not.

So how is supporting this repeal supporting freedom?

So basically you are saying we should support this repeal because of freedom of choice.

But if this repeal is sucessful then several nations will be permitted to ban abortion on the spot. Limiting the freedom of the people of that nation to chose whether they have an abortion or not.

So how is supporting this repeal supporting freedom?
I believe they meant vote yes on abortion not the repeal and just got confuggled. But what do I know.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I believe they meant vote yes on abortion not the repeal and just got confuggled. But what do I know.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I thought that was well, but then he seemed to change tack.

If he supports the resolution and opposes the repeal then I went on a minor tirade for no reason (except fun, which is always worthwhile!)

To paraphrase Darwin, "Humans are the only animal that allows its weakest members to breed." Along those lines, abortion in Damacia is not only legal, but in some cases mandatory. A weak life is not sacred, that is the place of the strong members of the Damacian people. Just as any mother in nature will leave her weaker children to die so that the strongest may grow to populate, so do the people of Damacia give birth and raise only those who meet the standards imposed by the Council of Social Welfare.
Attempts to repeal abortion are laughable. The act will be commited with or without a nations consent and it's always messier when it isn't sanctioned. Abortion is yet another issue that is best decided upon within each nation's borders, not in a grand stroke of "love for mankind."
Damacia refuses to support this joke.

ROFLMAO

eheheheheh.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Still off topic i see :P

just because we repeal the right to an abortion doesn't mean that we are repealing abortions... geez :P

has surgery committed on pregnant female, removing four month old fetus. It dies within minutes*

Any other questions? Its not an independant life form. Ergo, it is not "a human being with rights", it's "a lump of cells, a parasite, a passenger with potential but no rights".

Take a baby, leave it alone out in the woods somewhere. Come back the next day. Oh... it died. I guess it's not a life.

Take any two creatures in symbiotic relationship. Separate them. Oh, look, they died. I guess they don't count as life either.

Have I made my point yet, the fact that it can't live on its own or control its own body does not mean that it doesn't have rights. Paralyzed people that must be fed, pushed, and taken everywhere they need to go have no control over their body. I guess they aren't life either.


BTW, did ANYONE see what i posted about amending this repeal?

And TilEnca, once again you miss the point. And you reversed your argument. Before you were saying that people don't get to choose where their tax dollars go, and now your saying that they do? I said that GOVERNMENTS allocate funds. Please... read the lines more carefully.

neway... if you could perhaps critique the thing that is on topic? please? :P

The Empire of Sleipner will not support this proposal.

We of Sleipner believe that the right of women to choose an abortion should be held sacrosanct, and that abortion should be allowed under any and all circumstances.

Kelly Simonsen
The Liberal Utopia of United Freedoms
Senior United Nations Delegate of The Empire of Sleipner

ROFLMAO

eheheheheh.... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Still off topic i see :P

just because we repeal the right to an abortion doesn't mean that we are repealing abortions... geez :P

Take a baby, leave it alone out in the woods somewhere. Come back the next day. Oh... it died. I guess it's not a life.

Take any two creatures in symbiotic relationship. Separate them. Oh, look, they died. I guess they don't count as life either.

Have I made my point yet, the fact that it can't live on its own or control its own body does not mean that it doesn't have rights. Paralyzed people that must be fed, pushed, and taken everywhere they need to go have no control over their body. I guess they aren't life either.

So far, your point is obtuse. You are also proving you cannot read what is written.


has surgery committed on pregnant female, removing four month old fetus. It dies within minutes*

Any other questions? Its not an independant life form. Ergo, it is not "a human being with rights", it's "a lump of cells, a parasite, a passenger with potential but no rights".

Is it an independant life form? No it is not. Ergo, it is not a "human being with rights", its a parasite.

The rest of your examples prove you are far off course, and did not read what was written.

Is a paralyzed individual independant? They were - and the status is not revokable. Ergo, they are a "formerly independant, now dependant, human being with rights".

A baby is placed in the woods - as it too classifies as an "independant human being with rights" once it passes our three way test, this is a case of child abuse and dereliction of parental duty.

Please, another ridiculous example, you're amusing to say the least.

The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood has never been and never will be in favour of abortion rights. It is wrong and, quite frankly, a disgusting and immoral practice. DemonLordEnigma states that:

"Murder can only happen to living things. Fetuses do not meet the full qualifications of life."

Wrong! A fetus is a living thing! If not, what is it? It needs to be looked after and well treated. If not, it will die! Just like every other living thing. So, how can you say that it does not meet the full qualifications of life?

Also, a fetus is a very small human being! Its not just a clump of cells and everyone says. Abortions can be carried out up to 6 months into the pregnancy. By then it has fully functional organs, eyes, ears, legs and arms. If you kill that, it is murder.

Wrong! A fetus is a living thing! If not, what is it? It needs to be looked after and well treated. If not, it will die! Just like every other living thing. So, how can you say that it does not meet the full qualifications of life?


Are you also saying a plant is a life and needs protecting under the UN? Animals?

Ice Sculptures melt if they are not looked after properly - they cease to exist. Are they alive?

If you don't treat a car properly it will rust away and cease to exist. Is a car alive?

If you are willing to submit a proposal that says you can not kill animals, insects, plants, viruses (cause they are alive by this definition), and that anyone who allows these things to die through neglect or mistreatment is to be punished, then I would consider supporting your position. But I would only support a repeal of abortion rights if you can get that rproposal passed first.

Otherwise it is just hot air.

Are you also saying a plant is a life and needs protecting under the UN? Animals?

Ice Sculptures melt if they are not looked after properly - they cease to exist. Are they alive?

If you don't treat a car properly it will rust away and cease to exist. Is a car alive?

If you are willing to submit a proposal that says you can not kill animals, insects, plants, viruses (cause they are alive by this definition), and that anyone who allows these things to die through neglect or mistreatment is to be punished, then I would consider supporting your position. But I would only support a repeal of abortion rights if you can get that rproposal passed first.

Otherwise it is just hot air.

Are you people retarded? We are talking about human life! Not a plant, animal, a car or a God damn ice sculpture. A human life! A fetus has the right to live. You pro-abortionists say that a fetus has only the potential of being a person so it's ok to kill it. If thats the case, why dont we kill all the criminals, homeless and mentally challenged? Most of them don't have the potential to be anything apart from what they already are (a drain on society!) or they dont have the potential to contribute anything to society apart from crime and taking our money! Why don't we do that? Because we value life, thats why!

The Rogue Nation of The Irish Brotherhood has never been and never will be in favour of abortion rights. It is wrong and, quite frankly, a disgusting and immoral practice.

And this is the point where reason is left behind.

DemonLordEnigma states that:

"Murder can only happen to living things. Fetuses do not meet the full qualifications of life."

Wrong! A fetus is a living thing! If not, what is it? It needs to be looked after and well treated. If not, it will die! Just like every other living thing. So, how can you say that it does not meet the full qualifications of life?

There are seven items that are the qualifications of life. You have to meet at least six to be qualified as alive. Viruses, which are not alive, meet five. Fetuses also meet five. Ain't science grand?

Also, a fetus is a very small human being! Its not just a clump of cells and everyone says. Abortions can be carried out up to 6 months into the pregnancy. By then it has fully functional organs, eyes, ears, legs and arms. If you kill that, it is murder.

1) A fetus is not a "very small human being" until it reaches a certain in life. Before that, it is a clump of cells with human DNA that cannot survive outside of the body. Much like your liver.

2) Abortions, when done by nature, can sometimes happen as late as eight months of the pregnancy, depending on how the fetus is being aborted. Keep in mind that's nature doing it. Most of us prefer not to go that far.

3) A recently-deceased human corpse can have fully functioning organs, eyes, ears, legs, and arms. But that doesn't make it alive.

4) Murder can only be done on living things.

Are you people retarded?

Ad hominim. Arguement disqualified due to being unable to keep arguement civil. One more and I will turn you in.

We are talking about human life! Not a plant, animal, a car or a God damn ice sculpture. A human life! A fetus has the right to live.

A fetus has been proven to not be alive by scientific evidence. The human issue requires a lot more than a fetus can be tested for. DNA does not a human make. It's just a start.

You pro-abortionists say that a fetus has only the potential of being a person so it's ok to kill it.

A blood sample has the same potential, thanks to cloning.

If thats the case, why dont we kill all the criminals, homeless and mentally challenged? Most of them don't have the potential to be anything apart from what they already are (a drain on society!) or they dont have the potential to contribute anything to society apart from crime and taking our money! Why don't we do that? Because we value life, thats why!

They also tend to meet at least six of the seven qualifications of life. Thus, they are alive.

Are you people retarded? We are talking about human life! Not a plant, animal, a car or a God damn ice sculpture. A human life! A fetus has the right to live. You pro-abortionists say that a fetus has only the potential of being a person so it's ok to kill it. If thats the case, why dont we kill all the criminals, homeless and mentally challenged? Most of them don't have the potential to be anything apart from what they already are (a drain on society!) or they dont have the potential to contribute anything to society apart from crime and taking our money! Why don't we do that? Because we value life, thats why!

Erm - no. I am using exactly what you said.


Wrong! A fetus is a living thing! If not, what is it? It needs to be looked after and well treated. If not, it will die! Just like every other living thing. So, how can you say that it does not meet the full qualifications of life?


You said it is a living thing - and then proceeded to define something that could apply to ALL living things. Incuding animals, plants, viruses and so forth. They all meet, to some degree, the qualifications for life. And yet you are saying we shouldn't treat other living things with such respect.

Why? The fetus is way below a plant before it is born - it can't survive on it's own and if you kill the body caring for it, it dies too. Plants exist on their own, and if you kill their owner they can be looked after by someone else.

So why is one group of inanimate cells more worthy than another group of inanimate cells? Because of what it *could* become? A plant could turn out to contain the cure for all the worlds diseases, and yet we burn them and destroy them all the time.

At the moment of conception the fetus is one egg and one sperm. Yet (young) men are known to waste thousands of sperm at a time when they are feeling lonely (and horny), and the egg is disposed of every month if it is not used. So if we kill eggs and sperm all the time then are we not already destroying the potential for human life? Should we outlaw masturbation and find a way to stop periods?

No - because sperm and eggs on their own are not considered as living beings deserving of protection. And until the fetus is born, I don't think it should be considered either.

the representative from vastiva seems to enjoy saying indepent life form with rights and mentions some sort of three way test.

Unfortunately, I don't remember seeing any qualifications of either the phrase "independent life form" nor do i see a qualification of this "three way test." If i recall, your inital comment was about 5 lines long. Therefore, before we begin calling each other fools and idiots, explicit or otherwise, run the test you run on me upon yourself.

I was taking your logic, and then applying it elsewhere to show you that it does not hold. The only qualification that you made was that if you remove a four month old fetus from a pregnant women's body that it is not an independent human being with rights.

Simply because it cannot live on its own means that it has no rights? You have most certainly established that such creatures are not independent. Nobody contests that point. But a baby born paralyzed, or a healthy baby even, is born dependent. What suddenly makes it a dependent being with rights?

I would say that you are being insulting more than intelligent. Qualify your statements before you go critiquing someone elses.

DemonLordEnigma... if you could give me a boolean word to search on google (something specific) I'd like to look into this argument you bring forth (re: qualifications of life... i typed it in and can't find a list). Much thanks.

Why? The fetus is way below a plant before it is born - it can't survive on it's own and if you kill the body caring for it, it dies too. Plants exist on their own, and if you kill their owner they can be looked after by someone else.

Symbiotes cannot live when separated from their partner in the symbiotic relationship. You kill one, you may as well kill the other too because it is unable to care for itself any longer. Your argument doesn't mean anything.

So why is one group of inanimate cells more worthy than another group of inanimate cells? Because of what it *could* become? A plant could turn out to contain the cure for all the worlds diseases, and yet we burn them and destroy them all the time.

I like your point about the plant thing.... hmmmm speculation galore :P

At the moment of conception the fetus is one egg and one sperm. Yet (young) men are known to waste thousands of sperm at a time when they are feeling lonely (and horny), and the egg is disposed of every month if it is not used. So if we kill eggs and sperm all the time then are we not already destroying the potential for human life? Should we outlaw masturbation and find a way to stop periods?

No - because sperm and eggs on their own are not considered as living beings deserving of protection. And until the fetus is born, I don't think it should be considered either.

At the moment of conception, the fetus is a combination of an egg and a sperm. No longer your DNA. No longer yours. Now we get into the whole "dna-does-not-a-human-make" thing. My response to that is pending.

anyway, this whole thing has turned into an argument about the morality of abortion... a futile exercise in my belief.

To respond to something that TilEnca said earlier about my proposals about a modified repeal (immediately followed by proposal).

The government would not necessarily cut funds to hospitals that gave abortions. In Glefkers, doctors record their activities and are appropriately paid for depending on what they did. For example, if a doctor performed a vaccination on a child, the doctor would record that and then he would be given his payment according to the standards established. However, is a doctor performed a cosmetic surgery to remove a wart, such an action is not covered by the universal healthcare system of Glefkers, and so the patient would have to pay for it themselves.

Thus, people would not be forced to pay for something they disagreed with.

And after a little more thought, I finally see what you mean with your example about GeminiLand and the natural disaster that occurred there. If your people are that biased about the situation, it is unfortunate... but I'm sure that there are many people in your country who would be willing to overlook the political differences to help people in need. Much like some nations did in a recent disaster, you could match every dollar that non-government charity organizations raised to be sent for disaster relief. The fact that people are donating means that there are people who care enough about human suffering... and so you could fully justify a position of giving aid because there are clearly people in your country who wish aid to be sent.

My argument is no longer about the act of abortion itself, it is about the RIGHT to have an abortion.

Symbiotes cannot live when separated from their partner in the symbiotic relationship. You kill one, you may as well kill the other too because it is unable to care for itself any longer. Your argument doesn't mean anything.


But quite obviously this is not the case with fetus/mother. Otherwise everyone women who exerts the right to chose what happens to her body, by having an abortion, would have fallen over dead by now.


I like your point about the plant thing.... hmmmm speculation galore :P


The truth is the topic of this repeal has been around since I started (which seems like forever ago, but was only last September) and not once has a single proposal made it to the floor. So I have to find new and inventive ways of debating it or I will just get bored and start yelling at people :}


At the moment of conception, the fetus is a combination of an egg and a sperm. No longer your DNA. No longer yours. Now we get into the whole "dna-does-not-a-human-make" thing. My response to that is pending.

(grin) But it is a combination of your DNA and your (for want of a better phrase) partner's, so even sperms and egg have the *potential* to be human life, and yet no one seems to have put forward a proposal to ban masturbation (as it is killing thousands of potential lives every time).

And if I may venture off in to lunacy for a moment, people who have a vasectomy would be guilty of false imprisonment, people who use condoms or masturbate would be guilty of genocide, and as for people who..... well who engage in oral activities (for want of a better phrase) would be guilty of canibilism.

And now I want to put forward such a proposal, just to see what happens!!!

(grin) But it is a combination of your DNA and your (for want of a better phrase) partner's, so even sperms and egg have the *potential* to be human life, and yet no one seems to have put forward a proposal to ban masturbation (as it is killing thousands of potential lives every time).

aah... an interesting viewpoint. However you forget that i never disagreed with the view that a potential is not the same thing as life. I disagree that a fetus is potential, I hold that it is life! :P

And if I may venture off in to lunacy for a moment, people who have a vasectomy would be guilty of false imprisonment, people who use condoms or masturbate would be guilty of genocide, and as for people who..... well who engage in oral activities (for want of a better phrase) would be guilty of canibilism.

being completely serious, I would veto because of the arguments others put forward about potential for life. Potential for life (as has been said many... MANY times before) is not the same as life. Pro-lifers however, hold that a fetus can be defined as having life. :P

On the not so serious side, I would support it just because it's so funny :P

DemonLordEnigma... if you could give me a boolean word to search on google (something specific) I'd like to look into this argument you bring forth (re: qualifications of life... i typed it in and can't find a list). Much thanks.

Actually, they have been posted on this forum before. Search for the term "Requirements of Life" and you'll find it.

when I type in requirements of life, I get a whole bunch of websites that talk about the minimum conditions required to survive. Or the things that a living organisms need in order to survive. The only thing that even mentions requirements for life in the context we are talking about is this thing about viruses and it doesn't list them all. Just reproduction... and one other one.

Are these requirements called anything else?

You make good points but remember this. All babies arn' t made with the consent of the woman. Your forgetting about rape. What if a young woman was raped and inpregnated? She would be forced to birth the child she was forced to have. I think not. If thie resolution comes under vote, I shall vote aginst it.

You make good points but remember this. All babies arn' t made with the consent of the woman. Your forgetting about rape. What if a young woman was raped and inpregnated? She would be forced to birth the child she was forced to have. I think not. If thie resolution comes under vote, I shall vote aginst it.

Of course.

The logical solution to the rape of the woman isn't to punish the rapist but to murder the child.

That makes perfect sense to me.

You make good points but remember this. All babies arn' t made with the consent of the woman. Your forgetting about rape. What if a young woman was raped and inpregnated? She would be forced to birth the child she was forced to have. I think not. If thie resolution comes under vote, I shall vote aginst it.

I would suggest you go back and read over my arguments again ;)

There are many places where I address this particular issue. I also give a response to it: just because the women went through a traumatic experience, do we take it out on the baby? It's not like it is going to lessen the trauma any by aborting the child. If anything, the stress of an abortion will probably place just as much trauma on the mother as the birth.

But there is one other thing to think of in this case. The proposal is illegally stated. SO it WON'T come to pass. I put forth a proposal for a repeal and a resolution as an immediate followup. But everyone seems to be ignoring that. If you're interested in talkinga bout that.... then post and i'll reiterate waht I suggested. The arguments about a fetus as life or not have been entirely exhausted in these threads... with no conclusive persuasion either way. It's pointless debating the subject anylonger.

Of course.

The logical solution to the rape of the woman isn't to punish the rapist but to murder the child.

That makes perfect sense to me.

Now I don' t know on which side I stand.

I would suggest you go back and read over my arguments again ;)

There are many places where I address this particular issue. I also give a response to it: just because the women went through a traumatic experience, do we take it out on the baby? It's not like it is going to lessen the trauma any by aborting the child. If anything, the stress of an abortion will probably place just as much trauma on the mother as the birth.

But there is one other thing to think of in this case. The proposal is illegally stated. SO it WON'T come to pass. I put forth a proposal for a repeal and a resolution as an immediate followup. But everyone seems to be ignoring that. If you're interested in talkinga bout that.... then post and i'll reiterate waht I suggested. The arguments about a fetus as life or not have been entirely exhausted in these threads... with no conclusive persuasion either way. It's pointless debating the subject anylonger.


DOH!I' m not thinking clearly today.

hehe... well do some research. Maybe read this whole thread. Very interesting arguments from both sides. Some are ridiculous and foolish, some are well made.

You be the judge :)

Listen, I'm going to make this very simple.

As a Christian, abortion is against my moral beliefs. Nobody in my family will ever get one.

But we shouldn't impose our moral viewpoint on everyone else. Give them the choice.

The fact is, I'm not convinced that it's murder to kill a fetus anyway-- so as long as there's that doubt, I won't support legislation that forces my moral views on others when it comes to this issue.

Let the people decide if they want to have an abortion or not.

Listen, I'm going to make this very simple.

As a Christian, abortion is against my moral beliefs. Nobody in my family will ever get one.

But we shouldn't impose our moral viewpoint on everyone else. Give them the choice.

The fact is, I'm not convinced that it's murder to kill a fetus anyway-- so as long as there's that doubt, I won't support legislation that forces my moral views on others when it comes to this issue.

Let the people decide if they want to have an abortion or not.

You see, i was starting to think like that initially, but then I started thinking about the fetus. Once you see the fetus as life, this no longer becomes just a matter of pushing a Christian moral viewpoint, but about the life that is inside each women's womb.

At that point, the issue becomes much more than a women's choice. Because the question is: her choice to do what? Kill a human being because it is an inconvenience to her? Because it will cause her emotional pain?

Man... new people coming into this debate throw thigns off so much :P

You wanted the seven signs of life? Here it is: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7652355&postcount=12

Here's an exact quote of that posting:

An end to this, once and for all. The following is what everyone, including geneticists and DNA science, uses to define life:

Biology attempts to answer the question scientifically, without resorting to philosophy or theology. Ultimately, science recognizes that a wholly biological answer is inadequate, and therefore, we try to characterize life rather than precisely define it.
What are the characteristics of life? There are a number of features that could be used to characterize life.


A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.

Are all seven of these essential characteristics? Some are debatable, such as item D. While it is definitely of adaptive value to have a stable internal environment, it is probably not absolutely essential. Small organisms tend to have a less stable internal environment than large organisms, yet they are definitely alive.

©1997 McGraw-Hill College Division

Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

B. Embryos do this.

C. Embryos do this.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

F. They barely do this at first.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

By virtue of the above, embryos do not fit in enough categories to count as life. You know what else fits in some of the categories but not enough to count as life? Viruses.

And that is the standard being used. And the arguement that effectively proved embryos, and fetuses, are not alive.

Of course.

The logical solution to the rape of the woman isn't to punish the rapist but to murder the child.

That makes perfect sense to me.

So if any man wants to have a child, he can just go out and rape the first woman he finds, regardless of her feelings on the topic?

Good plan :}

You see, i was starting to think like that initially, but then I started thinking about the fetus. Once you see the fetus as life, this no longer becomes just a matter of pushing a Christian moral viewpoint, but about the life that is inside each women's womb.


But isn't that also pushing a moral view point on people? A lot of people don't acept that the fetus qualifies as a life form in the same way a human does, and so should not be protected.

Seven Traits of Life as Posted By DLE
A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.



I disagreed with your facts about fetuses related to this...I think after a good 40 days or so, they fall under the following catergories...
First they do grow(B), metabolize(C), and relative homeostatic internal enviroment(D) ("their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment."), they do respond to stimuli around which is part of them remaining stable(F), and they most definitely change to the enviroment (G)(sometimes to chagrin of the mother who suffers pain because of a reaction by fetus)...

So the two ones that are not simply yes are shape and reproduction.
One, shape (after the period stated) becomes relatively basic and does maintain the same sort of shape until pregancy. Many animals give berth to equivalent of fetus and then it grows outside the mother (I don't believe scientists content the animal's baby is not alive)

Two, reproduction is definitely an essential part of life but for example though children cannot produce, they still are alive. The fetus from an early stage forms sexual organs and thus for all intensive purpose is built for reproduction...I believe that counts.

I know there are not too many hard facts in my argument but having taken biology for a few years I learned the above (please comment if I am wrong)

Also I do not maintain that a fetus is equivalent to a human, but the fetus is important and needs respect. And (mostly) the one legitmate reason to abort is health concerns for the mother.

I disagreed with your facts about fetuses related to this...I think after a good 40 days or so, they fall under the following catergories...

This should be interesting...

First they do grow(B), metabolize(C), and relative homeostatic internal enviroment(D) ("their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment."), they do respond to stimuli around which is part of them remaining stable(F), and they most definitely change to the enviroment (G)(sometimes to chagrin of the mother who suffers pain because of a reaction by fetus)...

Actually, the fetus isn't changing to environment, but from what I have read are beginning to explore stimuli and try random things as their brains begin functioning and adapt to the body.

However, even if we include that for fetuses, that's only five of the requirements, which is the same number as viruses. Thus, they still don't count as alive.

So the two ones that are not simply yes are shape and reproduction.
One, shape (after the period stated) becomes relatively basic and does maintain the same sort of shape until pregancy. Many animals give berth to equivalent of fetus and then it grows outside the mother (I don't believe scientists content the animal's baby is not alive)

Two, reproduction is definitely an essential part of life but for example though children cannot produce, they still are alive. The fetus from an early stage forms sexual organs and thus for all intensive purpose is built for reproduction...I believe that counts.

One, shape in a fetus isn't relatively stable. Keep in mind they undergo drastic changes from the time they are a zygote (a round ball of a cell) until they are a baby. It's not really until you get a baby that the shape becomes relatively stable.

Two, only six of the seven are needed to be counted as alive. Don't forget that science used to believe mules can't reproduce and yet included them as alive. The discovery they can reproduce merely gained them the final sign.

I know there are not too many hard facts in my argument but having taken biology for a few years I learned the above (please comment if I am wrong)

Also I do not maintain that a fetus is equivalent to a human, but the fetus is important and needs respect. And (mostly) the one legitmate reason to abort is health concerns for the mother.

On that last one we do agree, but I would rather people have the choice in the matter. After all, it's not a living being.

> Man... new people coming into this debate throw thigns off so much :P


Can't have that, now can we? NEW people might have something NEW to say that we don't already have an argument against! :-)


> Of course.
>
>The logical solution to the rape of the woman isn't to punish the rapist but >to murder the child.
>
>That makes perfect sense to me.

Everyone look at the above argument very carefully. The rapist is cnsidered, and the foetus is considered, but the woman is not.

This is fairly typical, IMHO, of many anti-abortionists who want to enforce their views on others. The woman is a breeding machine, who should be punished for having sex, and gives up all rights as a person when she gets pregnant.

Give the woman the responsibility but don't give her rights. Make her alone bear any unwanted results of sex. But no matter how much money or jail time a man is made to give a woman to compensate her for rape or even pregnancy resulting from consensual sex, it isn't the same as donating her body in the service of another (the foetus).

Do I feel sad about all of the aborted foetuses in the world and that they have no say in the end of their lives? You becha. But I also feel sorry for persons waiting around for kidney and bone marrow transplants that don't get them. But that doesn't mean that we should start forcing people to give up their kidneys and bone marrow. And I don't think that we should start making women use their body to support anyone else. Even if it means the death of the other (foetus).

My first post, yay. Anyways I think this guy (http://nawoksrance.blogspot.com/2005/01/abortion-slang-for-legal-murder.html) sums it up nicely.

Little something to think about; A teenager is not married, is dirt poor, and is pregnant. Her boyfriend is not the father. Do you think she should have an abortion? Grats, you've just killed Jesus.

My first post, yay. Anyways I think this guy (http://nawoksrance.blogspot.com/2005/01/abortion-slang-for-legal-murder.html) sums it up nicely.

Little something to think about; A teenager is not married, is dirt poor, and is pregnant. Her boyfriend is not the father. Do you think she should have an abortion? Grats, you've just killed Jesus.

Firstly - so what?

Secondly - there is a rich family in Europe. Mother is well off, father works for the Customs and Excise Agency. They are both described as good people by their neighbours.

Then mother finds out she is pregnant, but they don't want kids so she decides to have an abortion. Do you stop her?

You do? Congrats - you just let Hitler be born.

> Man... new people coming into this debate throw thigns off so much :P


Can't have that, now can we? NEW people might have something NEW to say that we don't already have an argument against! :-)


Actually, i was referring to the fact that new people don't bother to read the entire thread, and so try to make a point that has already been flogged five million times by both sides.

Before making insulting comments, do a little bit of background research first.

and due to the fact that this entire post is sucking up too much valuable time that I need to be studying, doing essays etc.... You won't see me around here anymore. But I will look into that seven requirements of life thing.

Most of y'all have presented nice arguments for me to consider (TilEnca, DLE most of all) and I thank you for the stimulating debate. See you round when I have more time :P

My first post, yay. Anyways I think this guy (http://nawoksrance.blogspot.com/2005/01/abortion-slang-for-legal-murder.html) sums it up nicely.

Little something to think about; A teenager is not married, is dirt poor, and is pregnant. Her boyfriend is not the father. Do you think she should have an abortion? Grats, you've just killed Jesus.

GOOD! Think of the centuries of bloodshed and violence lost to history - The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials - all of it GONE!

I get to sleep in on Sunday, no twerps in suits knocking, no idiots yelling about how "Jesus said this" and "Jesus said that". And absolutely no more of those idiotic "What Would JESUS Do?" stickers.

No more Sunday preachers, no more yowling twits throwing tomes in my face, no more hypocracy over "JESUS TOLD ME TO!"

YAY!

Next question?

So if she refuses to have an abortion, she gives birth to Hitler, but if she does, she kills Jesus? So he'd have just died for our sins a little earlier.

So if she refuses to have an abortion, she gives birth to Hitler, but if she does, she kills Jesus? So he'd have just died for our sins a little earlier.

LOL
My minds already made up,so no amount of arguement is going to change it. It's not like I haven't heard every arguement on this thread anyway. I will vote against the repeal.

My minds already made up,so no amount of arguement is going to change it.
I believe that that's true about everyone who has posted in this thread.

GOOD! Think of the centuries of bloodshed and violence lost to history - The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials - all of it GONE!

I get to sleep in on Sunday, no twerps in suits knocking, no idiots yelling about how "Jesus said this" and "Jesus said that". And absolutely no more of those idiotic "What Would JESUS Do?" stickers.

No more Sunday preachers, no more yowling twits throwing tomes in my face, no more hypocracy over "JESUS TOLD ME TO!"

I'm sorry... i know i siad you wouldn't see me but I just had to respond to this post...

a) Christ came as the saviour of the world. Just because he didn't come doesn't meant that Inquisitions wouldn't have happened, Crusades wouldn't have happened, and witch hunts wouldn't have happened either. People are violent, so they would have happened anyway. Just under different names, and under different motives. The Crusades, if you would note, was a way for the church and the European nations to try and conquer the middle east. It was all about power, they just used Christianity as a front... if they didn't have religion, then they would have used something else as their cover.

b) You get twerps in suits knocking and calling your house everyday. They're called telemarketers and door to door salesman. Your point?

-Sorry... just had to say that. Carry on with the conversation about abortion was it?

I'm sorry... i know i siad you wouldn't see me but I just had to respond to this post...

a) Christ came as the saviour of the world. Just because he didn't come doesn't meant that Inquisitions wouldn't have happened, Crusades wouldn't have happened, and witch hunts wouldn't have happened either. People are violent, so they would have happened anyway. Just under different names, and under different motives. The Crusades, if you would note, was a way for the church and the European nations to try and conquer the middle east. It was all about power, they just used Christianity as a front... if they didn't have religion, then they would have used something else as their cover.

b) You get twerps in suits knocking and calling your house everyday. They're called telemarketers and door to door salesman. Your point?

-Sorry... just had to say that. Carry on with the conversation about abortion was it?

It got sidetracked because someone was basically saying if you support abortion you will kill Jesus. Which is nonsense, and had to be indicated as such, either by indicating if you don't support abortion you would let Hitler be born, or that there are a lot of people who think that the birth of Jesus was not the wonderful thing other people think it is.

Either way - the potential for what the fetus could be is not a reason to say abortion should be banned.