NationStates Jolt Archive

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


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Texastein

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

Argument: Two wolves and a sheep get together to vote on what to eat for supper. Guess what was on the table?
Personally, Texastein is vehemently opposed to abortion. We believe that ALL have the right to life.
However; Texastein recognizes that not all share this view. Therefore; in effort to be fair to those who are in favor of baby-butchering in order to persue a more concequence free society, I humbly request the repeal of this resolution and return the decision to sovereign nations.
If you want to kill babies in your country, sad, but fine. That is your decision. But Texastein does NOT want it in our country and do not believe any nation has the right to force us to legalize it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is my arguement in a nutshell. Some things I go along with even if I don't like it, some I don't. This is one of those "I don't" things.
This issue is one best left to individual nations to decide for themselves. My proposal is NOT to BAN abortion, but to return the decision back to the nations. I have drawn up a new proposal will affirm as such. Seek out the proposal "Abortion is NOT a UN Interest" for a better understanding.
Surly, nations can agree that they rather decide things for themselves rather than be forced.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
-Prez Jes-

Nuts.

The Empire of ElectronX supports this Repeal.

I support this. Really, most things should be the decision of the individual nations, in my opinion.

Edit: Well, I support the idea of the repeal. This one needs some work.

I believe that it should be an individual choice. The current resolution does not force people to have an abortion - it just says they can if they want it/need it.

If you put it to the national level, thousands, if not billions, of women will have that choice removed from them.

And given the basis of the above repeal is freedom of choice, it would utterly fail to reach its intended goal.

Abortion should be Illegal!Instead, We should improve anticonceptional method
that doesn't kill embryos(like condoms)

Abortion should be Illegal!Instead, We should improve anticonceptional method
that doesn't kill embryos(like condoms)
Was your name supposed to tie in with the topic like that?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Abortion is a contriversial issue, and thus should be handled by the individual states. I support this repeal.

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

Argument: Two wolves and a sheep get together to vote on what to eat for supper. Guess what was on the table?

Depends on how well the wolves liked each other, how intelligent the sheep, and the sheep's disposition about meat.

Personally, Texastein is vehemently opposed to abortion. We believe that ALL have the right to life.

Nice belief, but life itself doesn't support it.

However; Texastein recognizes that not all share this view. Therefore; in effort to be fair to those who are in favor of baby-butchering in order to persue a more concequence free society, I humbly request the repeal of this resolution and return the decision to sovereign nations.

1) This strikes me as a piece of flamebait. But, meh.

2) It's not a baby until a certain point. Before that point, it's a parasite that can become a baby.

3) If you believe it comes without consequences, you obviously haven't seen a medical bill for it.

If you want to kill babies in your country, sad, but fine. That is your decision. But Texastein does NOT want it in our country and do not believe any nation has the right to force us to legalize it.

The UN declared it has the right, and it's not a nation. So, you are not being forced by any nation to legalize it, but by a group, and there are ways around it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is my arguement in a nutshell. Some things I go along with even if I don't like it, some I don't. This is one of those "I don't" things.

You have no choice in the matter. If you wish a choice, resign from the UN.

This issue is one best left to individual nations to decide for themselves. My proposal is NOT to BAN abortion, but to return the decision back to the nations. I have drawn up a new proposal will affirm as such. Seek out the proposal "Abortion is NOT a UN Interest" for a better understanding.

A repeal cannot ban it anyways.

[ Surly, nations can agree that they rather decide things for themselves rather than be forced.

If you wish to decide things for yourself, quit the UN. In this case, considering the average human, I would say I am not comfortable with the individual nations deciding on the issue.

DLE you just equated a fetus with a parasite...
Though it is technically a correct in definition (a thing living off or inside another thing)...parasite is given a more negative connotation so not the best word in the case against this proposal...but well nevermind.

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

Argument: Two wolves and a sheep get together to vote on what to eat for supper. Guess what was on the table?

Reply by DLE
Depends on how well the wolves liked each other, how intelligent the sheep, and the sheep's disposition about meat.

Sarcodina's reply: DLE you have changed my mind about abortion. How could I be so stupid to not see the light? :p

DLE you just equated a fetus with a parasite...
Though it is technically a correct in definition (a thing living off or inside another thing)...parasite is given a more negative connotation so not the best word in the case against this proposal...but well nevermind.

That's because a fetus and a virus both have the same number of requirements to be classified as life, which is not enough to actually be classified as life. However, it is not a virus. Calling it a parasite is the only thing that fits what it is.

Sarcodina's reply: DLE you have changed my mind about abortion. How could I be so stupid to not see the light? :p

I just found it odd that the wolf example was brought up.

DLE you just equated a fetus with a parasite...
Though it is technically a correct in definition (a thing living off or inside another thing)...parasite is given a more negative connotation so not the best word in the case against this proposal...but well nevermind.


In comparrison the phrase "baby-butchers" I think it is quite a polite description of a fetus :}

I just found it odd that the wolf example was brought up.

Maybe it was a subtle form of psychological attack. Wolves have been known to eat babies sometimes, and given the way the example is phrased it could be an attempt to show everyone who supports the right of women to chose as wolves, which are not generally seen as nice, cute, cuddly animals.

I was joking about the wolves... but for all I know you (DLE) and Tilenca are getting me back w/ sarcasm of your own by pretending you are not sure why wolves changed my mind. :)

Baby butchers is not the best name, but someone who performs abortions should not be looked of in a positive light (and for those who want abortions at least a neccessary light).
A Fetus, at least a soon to be child, is what all of us are early on. If you don't go on that human beings suck and life sucks train of thought then a fetus is still a 'positive' thing to be thought of positively. Not: "Hey lady, look you have a fetus in you, thats disgusting." A parasite is a thing that lives off others and is usually that way permenantly (also virus similar to fetus...geez)

Also if we did abortions on monkeys for scientific research would anyone object in the prochoice community. I could just imagine PETA if we aborted 1 of every 4 of certain type of animal for population control etc....they'd be POed...

Also if we did abortions on monkeys for scientific research would anyone object in the prochoice community. I could just imagine PETA if we aborted 1 of every 4 of certain type of animal for population control etc....they'd be POed...
I call straw man.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

I was joking about the wolves... but for all I know you (DLE) and Tilenca are getting me back w/ sarcasm of your own by pretending you are not sure why wolves changed my mind. :)


(grin) I was actually just comparing the use of one derogatary phrase with another one.


Baby butchers is not the best name, but someone who performs abortions should not be looked of in a positive light (and for those who want abortions at least a neccessary light).


Why? They are doctors performing an operation they are asked to perform. I think they should be commended for providing such a helpful service. And given that they are only doing what is asked of them, they certainly should not be condemmed and pillioried for their actions.
As for plastic surgeons - those are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves for what they do.


A Fetus, at least a soon to be child, is what all of us are early on. If you don't go on that human beings suck and life sucks train of thought then a fetus is still a 'positive' thing to be thought of positively. Not: "Hey lady, look you have a fetus in you, thats disgusting." A parasite is a thing that lives off others and is usually that way permenantly (also virus similar to fetus...geez)


Erm - if you can look at doctors who perform abortions as disgusting people, why can't someone else look at a fetus as a disgusting object?


Also if we did abortions on monkeys for scientific research would anyone object in the prochoice community. I could just imagine PETA if we aborted 1 of every 4 of certain type of animal for population control etc....they'd be POed...

As a rule monkeys don't walk in to clinics and ask for an abortion.
If women were being forced to have an abortion against their will then I would be the first one on the picket line protesting it. But they aren't. It is something they want, need and feel is necessary.

In all it's resource sucking glory:

http://www.nufw.com.au/

Precious isn't it.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

This one is disgracefully chock with shameless editorializing and ad hominem. Keep your vehemence out of your repeals next time, Texastein.

This one is disgracefully chock with shameless editorializing and ad hominem. Keep your vehemence out of your repeals next time, Texastein.
I fail to see how your post contributes anything other then an incite to flames in this thread. While it is true he used some ad hominem in his repeal it doesn't mean his positition is null and void.

I fail to see how your post contributes anything other then an incite to flames in this thread.

It was not my intent to incite flames, but I believe the wording in this repeal got the ball rolling on that already.

Calling us "baby-butchers" and "sad" because we want to kill what he considers to be babies incites me to call what I see just as bluntly.

While it is true he used some ad hominem in his repeal it doesn't mean his positition is null and void.

His position may not be, but this presentation tosses it out completely. That was my point.

I was joking about the wolves... but for all I know you (DLE) and Tilenca are getting me back w/ sarcasm of your own by pretending you are not sure why wolves changed my mind. :)

Actually, I find the wolves part to not be really all that relevant.

Baby butchers is not the best name, but someone who performs abortions should not be looked of in a positive light (and for those who want abortions at least a neccessary light).

Why? They are performing an optional medical procedure at the behest of a client. I don't see how that is any different than plastic surgery, cybornetic enhancement, or many others.

A Fetus, at least a soon to be child, is what all of us are early on. If you don't go on that human beings suck and life sucks train of thought then a fetus is still a 'positive' thing to be thought of positively.

I go on a more realistic viewpoint. Life ain't as pretty as you would like people to believe it is.

Not: "Hey lady, look you have a fetus in you, thats disgusting." A parasite is a thing that lives off others and is usually that way permenantly (also virus similar to fetus...geez)

Actually, a surprising number of parasites only temporarily feed on a target. Leeches, for example, will only suck blood until they are full and then fall off. Same with ticks.

Also if we did abortions on monkeys for scientific research would anyone object in the prochoice community. I could just imagine PETA if we aborted 1 of every 4 of certain type of animal for population control etc....they'd be POed...

PETA is a softcore terrorist organization best dealt with using large numbers of explosives and heavy artillery. And that's based on their general actions in real life and how the citizens of DLE would deal with them.

To be honest, I have no problem with abortions on animals or sentient beings.

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

If you want to kill babies in your country, sad, but fine.

Fetuses are not babies.

Life begins at birth. Any other definition is ridiculous.

As proved by the ridicule heaped on this resolution so far.

Personally, Texastein is vehemently opposed to abortion. We believe that ALL have the right to life.

From this statement, we can assume you voluntarilly have your immune systems shut down (it kills germs), eat nothing (plants are living, so are animals), and die off in droves.

Further, you have no defense systems at all (after all, shooting someone with a missile rather certainly messes with their "right to life"). Not that there's any point in conquering you before you wipe yourself out through disease and starvation.

but someone who performs abortions should not be looked of in a positive light (and for those who want abortions at least a neccessary light).

Considering in modern times that could potentially be every medical professional, you'll have to explain why. They provide a service - they remove parasites. Simple.

Originally Posted by Texastein
Personally, Texastein is vehemently opposed to abortion. We believe that ALL have the right to life.

Vastiva Reply: From this statement, we can assume you voluntarilly have your immune systems shut down (it kills germs), eat nothing (plants are living, so are animals), and die off in droves.
Further, you have no defense systems at all (after all, shooting someone with a missile rather certainly messes with their "right to life"). Not that there's any point in conquering you before you wipe yourself out through disease and starvation.

Sarcodina Reply: Ya like if you eat vegatables (j/k)... You are misinterpreting the quote and just being pain, vastiva, no offense.


Originally Posted by Texastein
but someone who performs abortions should not be looked of in a positive light (and for those who want abortions at least a neccessary light).


Vastiva Reply: Considering in modern times that could potentially be every medical professional, you'll have to explain why. They provide a service - they remove parasites. Simple.

Sarcodina: This is my quote, not Texastein...To back up my point though (because it has been brought a few time) is that an abortion doctor chooses to be an abortion doctor. A heart surgeon chooses to be a heart surgeon. The idea of just because a profession is legal, it should be exalted is ridiculous (which is what many have stated indirectly.) A tattoo artist or a adult shop owner are both legal jobs but (in Sarcodina anyways) not looked at fondly. I was just bringing up that the profession is a not exactly a positive one (in the sense that it does no real good for society...I hear people typing rapidly as they contend that statement) and that a fetus (I know what people are saying "life is ugly and terrible" and "I hate my life" and all that negative crap) is a more positive thing because it is what all of us where... To reiterate what was being talked about was DLE's comparsion to parasites and fetuses because despite definition similarities, it was inappropraite in my judgement.

Firstly - please, please - I am begging you, please use the QUOTE tags if you could. I know it seems like a little thing, but reading quoted stuff without it is REALLY hard and personally I tend to get lost as to who is saying what and why and to whom.

Please!!!



This is my quote, not Texastein...


A good example of why quote tags are good things!


To back up my point though (because it has been brought a few time) is that an abortion doctor chooses to be an abortion doctor. A heart surgeon chooses to be a heart surgeon.


They both chose to give their services to the public who demand it. If a doctor who performs abortions also performs heart surgery, should we both look up at him and down on him at the same time?

And if the abortion is required because the other will die otherwise, surely saving someone's life is an act worthy of respect from even the most cold hearted of people?


The idea of just because a profession is legal, it should be exalted is ridiculous (which is what many have stated indirectly.)


I think that plastic surgeons pray on the weak and vunerable, and make their living out of telling other people how ugly they are. In comparrison to helping a woman to get through what is maybe one of the hardest decisions they will ever have to make, plastic surgeons deserve no respect at all. But on the other hand they help people feel better about themselves and not live with crippling problems that make their life a misery.

Who are we to judge someone else if they are not breaking the law? They go to work, do a hard days work and come home. For that, at least, they should gain some respect. And given that they have to do it with people such as you yelling at them and telling them there is something wrong they do I think they deserve even more respect for sticking to their principals despite the hate that is thrown their way.


A tattoo artist or a adult shop owner are both legal jobs but (in Sarcodina anyways) not looked at fondly.


Again - they provide a service people want. We hold that everyone who provides a service, even if it is for money, is due some respect for that.


I was just bringing up that the profession is a not exactly a positive one (in the sense that it does no real good for society...


Huh? They HELP people. How is that not good for society?


I hear people typing rapidly as they contend that statement) and that a fetus (I know what people are saying "life is ugly and terrible" and "I hate my life" and all that negative crap) is a more positive thing because it is what all of us where... To reiterate what was being talked about was DLE's comparsion to parasites and fetuses because despite definition similarities, it was inappropraite in my judgement.


And, even though it was someone else, I think that calling doctors who have the courage of their convictions to help women who need helping should not be tagged as "baby-butchers", which is equally inappropriate and insulting.

As the leader of a nation that believes in traditional values and the sanctity of innocent human life, I am strongly in favor of repealing the Abortion Proposition. Furthermore, I think that every nation should decide for itself on such a contentious and nation-specific issue.

As the leader of a nation that believes in traditional values and the sanctity of innocent human life, I am strongly in favor of repealing the Abortion Proposition. Furthermore, I think that every nation should decide for itself on such a contentious and nation-specific issue.

You don't think that every *person* should decide?

Upon reading over what's been written thus far.....
Vastiva.... how is it that you have managed to quote me on something I did not say?
"Quote:
Originally Posted by Texastein
but someone who performs abortions should not be looked of in a positive light (and for those who want abortions at least a neccessary light)."

I NEVER uttered those words and anyone can scroll back and see for themselves. How DARE you try to influence people through such fraud!

Beyond that, the rest of you have turned this into an interesting debate. One that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic. I appreciate those who support me. I appreciate the opinions of those who do not. But, the topic is it being a STATE issue NOT a UN issue.
I hate to say it, but DLE has come the closest by saying something to the effect of "Don't like it, get out of the UN."
I honestly think DLE... well, he somewhat reminds me of what Will said in "I, Robot," ...."You are the dumbest smart person I know."
DLE, ya make some good points that are smart, and ya make some dumb noises also. Of course, that's singleing you out because you like to make so much noise. You actually are pretty entertaining.
Oh, and we may have the law on our books, but we secretly have abortion doctors aborted in the middle of the night. ;) A turnover of the Resolution will save the lives of these doctors. Hopefully they can turn their lives around and make a living as a pediatrician or a vitamin salesman.
As per Texastein's position on "vehemently opposing".. well, there it is, it's our position. And, the resolution also points out that it is NOT the UN's position, only the position of the submitting member.
To join in on the debate... is sick and sad of anyone to compare babies to parasites. But for those who say it is NOT a life, hey, even parasites are living things... that have FEELINGS and KNOW when they are being hurt. Just cause they can't scream like a lil girl doesn't mean they feel nothing.
Ok, I'm sick of this for now... good night.

I support the repeal of the Abortion law due to the importance of opinion in individual countries. Personally I'm against abortion, but either way as the issue is morality-based it has no place in the UN.

However, I do not support the repeal as worded! It contains loaded connotations to which I do not wish to be a party. I instead suggest that a more tolerant rewording be adopted.

I hate to say it, but DLE has come the closest by saying something to the effect of "Don't like it, get out of the UN."

DLE also has an amazing loophole for dealign with the UN...

I honestly think DLE... well, he somewhat reminds me of what Will said in "I, Robot," ...."You are the dumbest smart person I know."

If I were feeling like being vicious, I'd turn you in for that.

DLE, ya make some good points that are smart, and ya make some dumb noises also. Of course, that's singleing you out because you like to make so much noise. You actually are pretty entertaining.

Point out which points are "dumb noises." If you can't, retract the statement.

Oh, and we may have the law on our books, but we secretly have abortion doctors aborted in the middle of the night. ;) A turnover of the Resolution will save the lives of these doctors. Hopefully they can turn their lives around and make a living as a pediatrician or a vitamin salesman.

That's one of the ways around it.

To join in on the debate... is sick and sad of anyone to compare babies to parasites. But for those who say it is NOT a life, hey, even parasites are living things... that have FEELINGS and KNOW when they are being hurt. Just cause they can't scream like a lil girl doesn't mean they feel nothing.

Um, you do realize that viruses are not classified as alive, right? They meet the same number of the life qualifications as fetuses. Because fetuses don't meet enough to classify as life, the category of nonliving parasites and viruses is where they go. No other place to put them through process of elimination.

I'd support a Repeal of Abortion Rights, but not this one. The current Resolution needs to be cleaned up so the governement can regulate the practice.

I support this repeal, since the Frozen Empire of Ice Hockey Players does not believe that a monolithic stance on abortion should be taken by the UN. In Ice Hockey Players, abortion is legal, as it was before the resolution; the leadership of Ice Hockey Players believes that there are better ways to handle the abortion issue than simple pro-life vs. pro-choice dichotomies. Because there are so many dynamics to this issue, a single monolithic UN resolution should not be used.

With all due respect, DLE.... as well as the others who compare a fetus to a parasite or virus, the difference, if nothing else, is this: the fetus itself IS a life, it's still developing, and odds are it IS going to grow to be a full grown human being unless something prevents it. It's really no more parasitic than a 5 year old who STILL depends on it's parents for support. We call that nurturing, raising, taking care of, or something to that effect. Also, the parent (or you would say "host" is NOT trying to reject it. It's inate to protect it.
Well, perhaps my argument is lost on that last sentence. Protection can't be ultimately true in all cases because many women apparently want the abortions.
A parasite or a virus is already at its completed developmental stage and it's host rejects it and fights it. Not necessarily successful, but still fights in it's own way.
Sure viruses can mutate, but that's not growing or developing; that's adapting.
Still, the purpose of this repeal was NOT to get into the debate of "is it right or wrong" or "what is a fetus anyway." As I said, the purpose is to appeal to all nations to return the decision of abortion BACK to respective nations. I'm sick of all the debate on "what if's" and "what is."
I think you guys are wrong and sadly deluded and it makes me feel sorry for the kids. I can't believe anyone, especially a doctor, can look at a baby (even more so with partial-birth) and say something like "Ok, let's kill it!"
You actually call that "progress?" This is your idea of "civilized?" What get's me more is that (and yes, I'm generalizing here) so very many "anti-warmongers" who run around and call soldiers "baby killers" are the loudest ones that support doctors killing babies. That leaves me awestruck in itself.
Ok, my rant is done for the time being.

This issue is piontless. We, as leaders, cannot decide the individual chioces made by our citizens, but instead, must support there decision as long as that course of action does not led to the harming of others. Yes, one could argue that abortion is harming the fetus inside the mother's womb, but really this is not the case. What institutes life, not a overnight stand, but the experience given through life. Yes, once the baby is born it is not right to kill it, but it is better to die then to suffer a life of pain and loss.
No, abortion is a subject best left up to the individual to decide. We as leaders can not be prejudice, but open-minded to all society. I believe the UN should institute a rule that all nations must allow pro-abortion laws to pass, yet take precautions to make sure it doesn't become a norm in the society. Remember, if it is our attempt to unite and govern the world, then we must bring down the iron fist and allowed our citizens to be free, just regulated, regardless of our own believes.
Remember, we led a mass of diversed people, we cannot allow our own thoughts to rule, but thoughts for everyone, majority and minority alike.

Reworded version of the repeal now available for endorsement on the 24th page of proposals; I'm calling in request of your support! It basically explains the need for individual member states to make their own legislation on this topic, and makes the case that the UN would exceed its rights by giving an unilateral ruling on the topic.

Again, I personally reject abortion as immoral, but that is not the reason I seek to repeal the amendment; for it to succeed, all confrontational language such as "baby killers" must be removed. Rather, I support a repeal for the reasons stated in the bill description itself...
Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The purpose of the United Nations is to secure basic rights which are acknowledged by a clear majority of nations.

Bill #61, "Abortion Rights", details a basic right which is NOT acknowledged by a clear majority of nations. Abortion and the implications of it are interpreted DRASTICALLY differently by different nations and their constituencies; the reasoning behind this bill is thus not accepted by many of our member states. In addition, abortion is an issue whose answer should be resolved by religious belief, which is NOT the realm of the United Nations.

Therefore, in the interests of maintaining the right of individual states to legislate on this topic based on their constituency, United Nations Bill #61, Abortion Rights, ought to be repealed.

So, those who have expressed interest, please endorse this initiative and put the power to decice on the Abortion issue back into the hands of your own Nations!

Texastein's suggested repeal is wrong. The Cat-Tribe hopes it does not make the floor of the U.N., and will vehemently oppose it if it does.

This entire discussion (absent a few rays of light from DLE and others) misses the point: the current UN Resolution protects the rights of women. It is an international, and therfore UN, issue because it effects the rights of women everywhere.

Texastein is right that the main issue of his repeal is not abortion good/bad, but whether it is a matter for the UN. Texastein incorrectly believes this is a State's (i.e., nation's) rights issue. It is actually a critical issue of individual freedom for all citizens of UN nations, not to be subrogated to the whims (or dogmas) of various nations.

At least, unlike the citizens (or subjects) of the nations that value fetal tissue over the rights of women, nations have a choice not to belong to the UN.

With all due respect, DLE.... as well as the others who compare a fetus to a parasite or virus, the difference, if nothing else, is this: the fetus itself IS a life, it's still developing, and odds are it IS going to grow to be a full grown human being unless something prevents it. It's really no more parasitic than a 5 year old who STILL depends on it's parents for support. We call that nurturing, raising, taking care of, or something to that effect. Also, the parent (or you would say "host" is NOT trying to reject it. It's inate to protect it.
Well, perhaps my argument is lost on that last sentence. Protection can't be ultimately true in all cases because many women apparently want the abortions.

Your argument is completely lost on the last sentence. All women who have abortions want them (although their may be extremely rare exceptions involving extreme circumstances such as medical emergencies).

Still, the purpose of this repeal was NOT to get into the debate of "is it right or wrong" or "what is a fetus anyway." As I said, the purpose is to appeal to all nations to return the decision of abortion BACK to respective nations. I'm sick of all the debate on "what if's" and "what is."
Although your proposed repeal invited the side-circus, you are correct the discussion is misfocused. The issue is whether the decision of abortion belongs to individuals or to nations. Nations should do all they can to make abortions unecessary and promote alternatives. Nations should regulate abortions to protect the safety and decision-making of patients. Nations may take steps to discourage abortions and to create a social and moral culture that eliminates (or minimalizes) abortion. But individuals should remain free to control their own bodies and women should not be relegated to second-class citizen.

I think you guys are wrong and sadly deluded and it makes me feel sorry for the kids. I can't believe anyone, especially a doctor, can look at a baby (even more so with partial-birth) and say something like "Ok, let's kill it!"
You actually call that "progress?" This is your idea of "civilized?" What get's me more is that (and yes, I'm generalizing here) so very many "anti-warmongers" who run around and call soldiers "baby killers" are the loudest ones that support doctors killing babies. That leaves me awestruck in itself.
Ok, my rant is done for the time being.

Ah, ad hominen attacks. The Cat-Tribe has known more than one individual faced with an unwanted pregancy-some due to rape, some failed birth control, etc. The Cat-Tribe has known individuals who chosen to exercise their right to abortion, some after great moral struggle and most without regret. The Cat-Tribe does not wish to return Texastein's wild accusations in kind but does wonder whether (a) Texastein is personally capable of becoming pregnant or exercising the right to abortion and (b) Texastein would consider becoming better informed before submitting the repeal (learning, for example, that their is no such procedure as "partial-birth" abortion).

With all due respect, DLE.... as well as the others who compare a fetus to a parasite or virus, the difference, if nothing else, is this: the fetus itself IS a life, it's still developing, and odds are it IS going to grow to be a full grown human being unless something prevents it. It's really no more parasitic than a 5 year old who STILL depends on it's parents for support. We call that nurturing, raising, taking care of, or something to that effect. Also, the parent (or you would say "host" is NOT trying to reject it. It's inate to protect it.

1) No scientific evidence a fetus is a life. In fact, there is scientific evidence against a fetus being a life.

2) A five year old meets six of the seven requirements of life. A fetus and a virus both meet five. The five year old is considered alive while the fetus is not due to that. Note that not all life forms meet all seven requirements, but all meet at least six.

3) Not all parasites are rejected by the host. In fact, the successful ones aren't. And it really doesn't take much (a simply hormone secreted into the body) for a parasite to convince the host to protect it.

4) Not all women want to keep a fetus in them, which removes the protection issue.

Well, perhaps my argument is lost on that last sentence. Protection can't be ultimately true in all cases because many women apparently want the abortions.

The rare ones who don't want it are the ones forced to go through it to save their lives, usually in cases where only the mother can survive. Despite it being rare, certain viral and bacterial infections have been known to cause it to happen, and those are the ones among the candidates to become resistant or immune to modern methods of dealing with them (as many bacteria and certain viruses have). It's due to this mysterious adaption factor that vaccines are a gamble anymore.

A parasite or a virus is already at its completed developmental stage and it's host rejects it and fights it. Not necessarily successful, but still fights in it's own way.

Sometimes during a pregnancy, a mother's body will reject the child and her immune system will attempt to kill it. Actually a well known cause of miscarriages, something which requires immunosuppressants in many cases to deal with. Finally, the body doesn't always fight a parasite or virus due to the parasite or virus convincing the body's immune system it belongs, some parasites actually using the same method as a fetus to do so.

Sure viruses can mutate, but that's not growing or developing; that's adapting.

Actually, viruses are produced using a factory system. That leaves the suggestion that viruses may actually have resulted from a genetic mutation in their targets.

Still, the purpose of this repeal was NOT to get into the debate of "is it right or wrong" or "what is a fetus anyway." As I said, the purpose is to appeal to all nations to return the decision of abortion BACK to respective nations. I'm sick of all the debate on "what if's" and "what is."

You can't have an abortion debate without having a debate on whether or not it is right or wrong. That is going to come up because some people will oppose it based on the idea they think it should be outlawed. And I don't see this as an issue the states should have because the current system allows for maximum choice on the individual level with enough loopholes nations can work around it.

I think you guys are wrong and sadly deluded and it makes me feel sorry for the kids. I can't believe anyone, especially a doctor, can look at a baby (even more so with partial-birth) and say something like "Ok, let's kill it!"

Ad hominim. Final warning.

You actually call that "progress?" This is your idea of "civilized?" What get's me more is that (and yes, I'm generalizing here) so very many "anti-warmongers" who run around and call soldiers "baby killers" are the loudest ones that support doctors killing babies. That leaves me awestruck in itself.

You do realize that I am actually promilitary, right? I set up my nation in such of a way that the military is at the center of the economic structure. The military is pretty much how DLE controls its economy.

Here's a little secret: Life ain't sweet, life ain't grand. I admit many on both sides are hyppocrites. But I also don't delude myself into thinking of humanity as civilized or as having progressed. The caves and pointy sticks may have gotten bigger and shinier, but we're still that group of monkeys that fell out of the trees and hit our heads on the way down.

I say the above because the entirety of recorded history is filled with patterns that repeat themselves constantly, with only the faces and size of event being the variance. Humanity has yet to learn from its mistakes and by all hints has been making the same ones since the beginning of its existance. When humanity learns from its mistakes for once, then I'll grant the possibility it has finally advanced towards civilization.

Here's the problem. Abortions and the right to them is a matter dictated specifically by religious morals or ideals - specifically Catholic religion comes to mind, but the consideration of whether a fetus is a living creature turns to a religious argument because scientific evidence generally proves that it is not a life, as DLE was saying. So the issue it gets into is that of the seperation of Church and State, and it simply dissolves from there. I don't really want to be involved in this one unless it hits the floor, but that's where the argumentation traces its roots and that's probably where you should be putting your refutation/support.