NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion Compromise Act of 2005

ACKNOWLEDGES the merits of arguments coming from all sides in the political debate over abortion.

RECOGNIZES that there are women that cannot afford to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues.

PROVIDES a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.

OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion, which is a barbaric practice in which a developed fetus, which can feel pain, is killed by destroying the fetal brain.

ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.

ESTABLISHES a global system of charities to help mothers who decided to give their children life. The charity could only provide aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the lowest 15% income bracket shall be used.

STRESSES that this proposal is not geared towards serving a religious purpose, and was actually submitted by the secular government in the Commonwealth of Voltairea.

PROPOSES that punishments for partial-birth abortion are to be decided by the individual nations and it is their decision whether or not to regard partial-birth abortion as murder.

I want to see what some people think before I submit it.

I am personally against a proposal that not only restricts women's rights to control their reproductive organs but that also restricts the state's ability to fund programs of its choice. While I personally feel that the optimal number of abortions is zero, I would rather a woman choose to abort an unwanted child than become dependent on the state for every material need.

Plus I think there are several resolutions that your proposal would contradict - you would need to repeal those resolutions before submitting your proposal or it's an illegal proposal.

You're right, Krioval. This is clearly illegal.

And Fass would never support the banning of "partial-birth" abortions. That is a medical decision best left to the individual doctors to make.

[
ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.


This is shocking. You're banning condoms and contraception pills? Or at least implying that they are wrong? I think you would find that more abortions would be necessary should this happen. And it is also a very dangerous law to try and pass, as birth control methods such as condoms are also required to help stop the spread of STDs such as AIDS, especially in developing countries where up to 50% can be infected.

Is this merely a pro-abstinence proposal in disguise?

Abortion Compromise Act of 2005

ACKNOWLEDGES the merits of arguments coming from all sides in the political debate over abortion.

RECOGNIZES that there are women that cannot afford to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues.

PROVIDES a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.



Okay, good ethos. You're connecting with the opponent, picking fairly common issues. I think you’ve picked good starting clauses. Maybe a proposal I’ve submitted in the past could direct you to some things you might not have seen before (I myself being directed to them by another) that could help even more narrow the focus of these…maybe not. But still, it should be worth a shot.


OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion, which is a barbaric practice in which a developed fetus, which can feel pain, is killed by destroying the fetal brain.



I tried a partial-birth abortion proposal in early January, with partial-success from a partial-telegram campaign. Heh. I'm sure with a full telegramming it could make it through. I could post the text of it for your review if you'd like. Would you like that?


ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.


Well...I'm not sure I like this clause. It doesn't really do anything. I mean, if my country wants to effectively outlaw birth control, we'd just define the circumstances to use them as "you must be a cross-pollinated leprechaun without a drinking problem". Even if there are cross-pollinated leprechauns out there, there are certainly none without a drinking problem ;). What you could do with this is just tighten it up a little and suggest what you would like nations to do. Such as--well, I don't know. I have no idea what it is you mean by this clause. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, it just means it probably needs some changing.


ESTABLISHES a global system of charities to help mothers who decided to give their children life. The charity could only provide aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the lowest 15% income bracket shall be used.

I like this. Perhaps the world to look for is "network" of charities rather than a "system" of charities. The UN members are quite worried about cost nowadays and a "system" sounds like something we'll have to build from scratch. A "network" sounds more like a game of connect-the-dots.


STRESSES that this proposal is not geared towards serving a religious purpose, and was actually submitted by the secular government in the Commonwealth of Voltairea.

This should probably go more towards the top of your proposal. It's still in the "idea we're adhering to" area, which I like to put near the top of the proposal. As you get further down, I like to see more "effects of ideas that we're adhering to" than the "ideas" themselves. Just something to consider.


PROPOSES that punishments for partial-birth abortion are to be decided by the individual nations and it is their decision whether or not to regard partial-birth abortion as murder.

Good! I like that. It should keep the UN from, in the future, legislating that "partial birth abortion is murder and should lead to hanging" or that "partial-birth abortion is a minor misdemeanor punishable by a fine". Those aren't really likely to come up, but that it's codified as a right of UN nations to choose punishment is a plus. One thing, though, make it something stronger than "PROPOSES". It's a fairly popular idea to give nations the right to choose punishments themselves, go ahead an splash in a "REQUIRES" or "MANDATES"

I want to see what some people think before I submit it.

Well, I think you might need to sharpen the focus a little, specifically with the clauses about partial birth abortion and contraception. Clauses that don't make nations do anything (such as you're first two: ACKNOWLEDGES, RECOGNIZES and possibly you're later STRESSES) need to end in
"-ING". So it goes as so:

"the UN,

RECOGNIZING x and y,

SUGGESTING z and a,

DICTATES b;

PICKS a bone about c;

TELLS nations to shove off with regard to d and e;"

It just makes things a little easier to read.

I'm still not sure there's a compromise about abortion. It doesn't actually address the previous resolution about abortion ("Abortion Rights"). Just a little more clarification, a few mechanical changes, and a little more clarification is what I would like. And I'm still willing to post what I did with my Partial Birth Abortion proposal--I think it could be helpful. I've shelved it. It doesn't fit into my schedule to run a full campaign on, and might be seen as too divisive to regular delegates, who I still need support from for many-a-more proposals. Anyway, it's all your decision.

ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.

Remove this clause and maybe I'll consider it.

I applaud the notion of compromise that would make abortions rarer without infringing human rights. Your proposal fails to suceed, however.

1. You ask for substantial concessions by reproductive-rights advocates and offer no concessions by anti-abortion advocates. Your suggested proposal consists of: (a) a charity for disadvantaged women, (b) a ban on a (fictional) type of abortion procedure, and (c) banning of contraception except in special circumstances. Setting aside the merits, the second and (especially) the third parts are highly obectionable to reproductive-rights advocates. Thus, your proposal is anything but a compromise. It is more lopsided than a chicken proposal to a pig for them to make ham and eggs for breakfast.

2. You need to consider what you are trying to achieve and how you are trying to achieve it. Are you seeking to reduce abortions? Increase births? Consider just some concerns with one portion of your proposal:

RECOGNIZES that there are women that cannot afford to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues.

PROVIDES a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.

...

ESTABLISHES a global system of charities to help mothers who decided to give their children life. The charity could only provide aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the lowest 15% income bracket shall be used.

Other than your labeling it a charity, this appears to be simply an international welfare program. ("Welfare" is generally programs such as Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)). This is not necessarily objectionable (I like it), but its not clear that is what you intended. Moreover, it is very unclear. Are nations required to contribute? Is aid only provided prior to birth? Or to raise children? Is aid only available if a woman wishes to keep a child after birth? What if they cannot afford the pregnancy, but would choose adoption over abortion if they were given aid? Is aid available to anyone who becomes pregnant and is disadvantaged? Need one be considering abortion first? Need one be opposed to abortion but financially pressured (as your prefaces assume)?

3. There is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion." The term was invented by anti-abortion groups. It is not used medically and has no clear medical corollary. Even “dilation and extraction” or “intact dilation and evacuation,” which are often assumed to be medical corollaries, have very few published medical references. Among copious other problems, the lack of a clear meaning of "partial-birth abortion" means that any ban may apply to a myriad of other procedures and seriously infringe reproductive rights. In fact, professional medical organizations have opposed bans on "partial birth abortion" because such bans could be applied to a wide-range of safe and common procedures performed throughout pregnancies. The (now predominately conservative) U.S. Supreme Court (and many other courts) have overturned bans on "partial-birth abortion" based, in large part, on this ambiguity in such legislation, which would restrict a woman's right to choose prior to fetal viability.

Here are some sources of information about so-called "partial birth abortion":
http://www.aclu.org/interactive/0503a/acluMythAbortion.html
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/public_policy/stenberg_amicus.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp

4. Restricting contraceptives is wrong and counterproductive. This is self-evident and I will elaborate only briefly. Beyond increasing the spread of STDs, restricting contraceptives will increase the number of unwanted pregancies and will increase abortions. These are not opinions, but facts.

5. A modest proposal. If you wish to reduce abortion without infringing individual rights, you should consider a proposal with some or all of the following: (a) a financial program like the one who proposal reducing economic burdens on pregancy and/or child-raising, (b) improving worldwide access and quality of sex education, family planning, and contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies, (c) improving worldwide access and quality of prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and women's health care in general to reduce medical reasons for abortion, and (d) programs to assist disadvantaged women and the disadvantaged in general.

As worded, I will bitterly oppose your proposal. I hope this critique will help you suggest a truer and better compromise. Good luck in that effort.

Alright....


Abortion Compromise Act of 2005

ACKNOWLEDGES the merits of arguments coming from all sides in the political debate over abortion.

RECOGNIZES that there are women that cannot afford to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues.

PROVIDES a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.

This we have to see....



OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion, which is a barbaric practice in which a developed fetus, which can feel pain, is killed by destroying the fetal brain.

Nope.



ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.

Hell No. Illegal.



ESTABLISHES a global system of charities to help mothers who decided to give their children life. The charity could only provide aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the lowest 15% income bracket shall be used.

The lowest 15% in Vastiva are still millionaires. Pointless.



STRESSES that this proposal is not geared towards serving a religious purpose, and was actually submitted by the secular government in the Commonwealth of Voltairea.

Meaningless.


PROPOSES that punishments for partial-birth abortion are to be decided by the individual nations and it is their decision whether or not to regard partial-birth abortion as murder.

We don't regard removal of a parasite as anything more then a medical proceedure.



I want to see what some people think before I submit it.

We think you're submitting an illegal proposal we would never support.

You can't compromise on rights. Especially not with an illegal proposal.

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

OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion, which is a barbaric practice in which a developed fetus, which can feel pain, is killed by destroying the fetal brain.

Whether or not partial-birth abortion actually exists, why do you suppose that the fetus can feel pain? I personally have never seen any evidence for this. A resolution partially based on a fallacy should surely not be proposed.

I would expect that most countries would have laws regarding when a fetus can still be terminated. I would guess that in most cases, the fetus could not be terminated when it has the chance of surviving outside the womb (at around 24 weeks). Significant amounts of brain tissue would not have formed by then.

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. And I don't see how this is illegal. Perhaps one of the (seemingly pre-decided) opponents would like to be a little more helpful and explain what's so illegal about it.

The illegality of this proposal is based on

Abortion Rights
Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion
Making late term abortions illegal interferes a bit.

And I don't like it when reproductive freedoms are taken away through legislation.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

The illegality of this proposal is based on

Making late term abortions illegal interferes a bit.

And I don't like it when reproductive freedoms are taken away through legislation.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Initially, that would appear to be the case, but upon further review, consider The Universal Bill of Rights, article 5:

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

Should a proposal simply define late-term abortion as an inhumane treatment of human beings, then late-term abortion could not be covered by "Abortion Rights" (which was passed 10 months after The Universal Bill of Rigths, by the way).

In fact, in my proposal to ban partial-birth abortion I do just that. Here's the text in question:

RECALLING the rights granted to women via "Abortion Rights", implemented June 5, 2004,

NOTING various practices employed to perform said abortions,

RECOGNIZING the UN’s precedent of disallowing cruel behaviors (“End Barbaric Punishments”, implemented December 11, 2003, and “The Universal Bill of Rights”, implemented August 8, 2003),

SADLY NOTING some UN member nation’s justification of inhumane practices via “Abortion Rights”,

1. DEFINES, as cruel and inhumane treatment, as abolished in “The Universal Bill of Rights”, “partial birth” abortion;

...


The proposal went through the proposal list at least twice, neither time being deleted. No mods found it illegal. It is a fully available tool for propsals to define lines between possibly contradictory or different-headed resolutions. All Voltairea would need to do to validate his perscriptions on late-term/partial birth abortions is reference both resolutions and lay out the argument similar to the way I did mine. It would be entirely legal.

3. There is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion." The term was invented by anti-abortion groups. It is not used medically and has no clear medical corollary. Even “dilation and extraction” or “intact dilation and evacuation,” which are often assumed to be medical corollaries, have very few published medical references. Among copious other problems, the lack of a clear meaning of "partial-birth abortion" means that any ban may apply to a myriad of other procedures and seriously infringe reproductive rights. In fact, professional medical organizations have opposed bans on "partial birth abortion" because such bans could be applied to a wide-range of safe and common procedures performed throughout pregnancies. The (now predominately conservative) U.S. Supreme Court (and many other courts) have overturned bans on "partial-birth abortion" based, in large part, on this ambiguity in such legislation, which would restrict a woman's right to choose prior to fetal viability.

Regardless of where the term comes from, if it defines something in practice, it's viable. While striking down terms for late-term abortions you refuse to provide a better one. If there's a disagreement over which terms are used, then provide a more suitable one. The procedure described by "partial-birth abortion" is still the same procedure, and the disagreement with the right-ness of late-term abortions is still present.

I feel the most functional legislation definition would be one which leaves discretion to individual nations, with some guidelines these nations must follow. Orginally, I used (prior to my refining of it) the following clause:

2. DEFINES as “partial birth” abortion, the practice of aborting a late-term fetus by birthing a section of said fetus;

This is insufficient to protect late-term fetuses which deserve rights guaranteed by "Universal Bill of Rights" as alternative methods which don't birth the fetus is not addressed. Perhaps the most proper legislation would disallow "late-term" abortions rather than "partial-birth" abortions. This would also change the argument about definitions into one which will more easily find a solution.

So, while I still think you need to provide a better terminology for "partial-birth" if you don't like the current one, it isn't really at issue here, since it's "late-term" abortions which I think legislation should find fault with.

Even with "late-term" there's still the problem of definition. Again, I feel national definition based on certain guidelines is the best course. Such as a the following:

DEFINES "late-term" abortions as abortions performed at a time in the pregnancy term in which the fetus is determined, by the member nation, to feel pain, to form emotional response, and to have large likelihood of surviving after birth;

This balances national right to disagree scientifically and morally with other nations while still keeping members nations from straying into abuse of the resolution. It could even further restrict member nations as follows:

...surviving after birth;

DISALLOWS nations from defining an abortion as "late-term" for any time in the first four months of pregnancy;

REQUIRES legitimate scientific foundation to nations' assertions of fetuses at the said stage "feeling pain", "forming an emotional response", "having a large likelihood of surviving birth"


Those are the clauses I'd make certain I added if I were Voltairea. Also, medical reasons for abortion needs to be protected. Included in my previous proposal was this:

4. EMPOWERS medical personnel to take heroic measures, including partial birth abortion or a like practice, provided there is legitimate, seriously threatening medical expediency to do so;

There is legality in restricting an outlawing late-term abortions, and I beleive there is need to do so. If a mother is going to have an abortion, the type abortion we should endorse is a thought out, reasonably considered, planned abortion. Not a barbaric, last minute pregnancy. While I'm not about to disagree with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, I feel she has a responsibility to do so in a timely procedural manner--in order to limit any inhumane treatment of her fetus.


ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.

This is shocking. You're banning condoms and contraception pills? Or at least implying that they are wrong?


ALLOWS birth control and contraception pills only under specific circumstances to be determined by the individual nations.

Remove this clause and maybe I'll consider it.

Actually, as the proposal now stands, it doesn't infer or change anything. Right now, nations are free to decide on this matter as they will. If this clause were codified into UN law then it would not change this fact. This clause does nothing to restrict or spread contraception in the UN as each nation has the ability to set the terms under which their "allowed". This is already the case as the UN isn't in the practice of mandating any bahavior with regard to birth control from its member nations (to the best of my knowledge).

First of all, I am fully aware that the Abortion Rights Resolution still exists, and this is meant to wait until after it is repealed, if such a time comes. I've also decided to reword the proposal, partially based on the suggestions of Powerhungry Chipmunks, but also to make it clear what I meant, saying some people are misinterpreting what I am saying. I had to change it somewhat to get it past one of my constituents, but since he withdrew his endorsement for me anyway, he no longer has a say in what I do in the UN, so here's the not diluted, less right-wing version.

Abortion Compromise Act of 2005

AIMS to make everyone shut up once and for all (at least in NationStates) on the issue of abortion.

ACKNOWLEDING the merits of arguments coming from all sides in the political debate over abortion. (statement to keep anyone from whining that I have a political axe to grind, which has already failed)

STRESSING that this proposal is not geared towards serving a religious or moral purpose, and was actually submitted by the secular government in the Commonwealth of Voltairea. (statement to keep anyone from whining that I have a religious axe to grind, which has already failed)

RECOGNIZING that there are women that cannot afford financially to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues. (provides base for the rest of the argument)

PROVIDING a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.

OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X, or dilation and extraction), which is a medical procedure in which a developed fetus is killed by removing it from the womb and destroying the fetal brain, unless there is a situation where the mother's life is in grave danger. (concession made by pro-choice) If it doesn’t actually exist, then what’s the harm in banning it? Partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X, or dilation and extraction) is possible, after all, and in the opinions of many, slightly barbaric.

ESTABLISHES that a late-term fetus is a life, since its brain is developed and has intelligence. No other fetus qualifies legally as life. (concession made by pro-life)

PROPOSES that punishments for partial-birth abortion are to be decided by the individual nations and it is their decision whether or not to regard partial-birth abortion as murder.

UPHOLDS the right of individual nations to define their own laws and regulations regarding birth control and contraception. (concession made by pro-life)

ESTABLISHES a global network of charities to help mothers who decided not to abort their child. The charity can only provide financial aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the $14,000/year mark shall be used as a line of poverty (yes, I know that this is real world stuff, I didn’t know how to express money otherwise, since I have no clue what the value of the Voltairean credit, or any other NationStates currency, is).

Anything in italics will not be in the finished proposal.

We reaffirm our opposition to complete banning of "partial-birth" abortions. This is a medical decision best left to medical experts.

The lowest 15% in Vastiva are still millionaires. Pointless.
Please show me how that would be possible without the bottom falling out of your economy. If there were so many rich people who didn't have to work for a living, there would be a shortage of workers producing exports, meaning that the value of the currency would fall, bringing us right back to square one. Your people would be millionaires, but they would be millionaires in the same way that people who use the Turkish lira are millionaires (exchange rate bewteen US Dollars and Turkish Lira, $1=1,309,500.04 Turkish Liras, source www.xe.com)

We reaffirm our opposition to complete banning of "partial-birth" abortions. This is a medical decision best left to medical experts.
Now it's a partial ban. Happy?

I liked the first one better. The second one has a clause that makes banning all abortions illegal, which is a goal I hope to acheive someday. I would suggest removing the clause about contraception, and worry about that topic in a different resolution. A proposal is more likely to succed if it has only one dimension, much like a person is more likely to be right-handed if both his parents were right-handed rather than a leftie and a rightie.

Personally, when someone decides to insult my intelligence, I prefer it to not be labeled as a "compromise". But in the interests of actually analyzing the proposal, I find the following:

AIMS to make everyone shut up once and for all (at least in NationStates) on the issue of abortion.

This is a perfectly good way to alienate half the people who might have otherwise taken an interest in the remainder of the proposal.

ACKNOWLEDING the merits of arguments coming from all sides in the political debate over abortion. (statement to keep anyone from whining that I have a political axe to grind, which has already failed)

Despite the disclaimer, I find the entire statement to be political pandering. You are trying to get approval from both sides of the "abortion divide", and it's plain as day from my perspective. Further, the rest of your proposal is all about restriction, so how does that mesh with the above statement?

STRESSING that this proposal is not geared towards serving a religious or moral purpose, and was actually submitted by the secular government in the Commonwealth of Voltairea. (statement to keep anyone from whining that I have a religious axe to grind, which has already failed)

Irrelevant. An idea is validated by the virtue of the idea, not the ideology of the proposer of the idea.

RECOGNIZING that there are women that cannot afford financially to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues. (provides base for the rest of the argument)

I fail to see why this should concern me, the Commander of Krioval, the Parliament of Krioval, or the taxpayers of Krioval. We don't subsidize every person's moral decisions. We firmly believe that if someone makes a mistake, that person needs to correct it.

PROVIDING a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.

I've been fighting tooth and claw (metaphorically) to prevent Krioval from becoming a welfare state. Why would I want to suddenly reverse course on that?

OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X, or dilation and extraction), which is a medical procedure in which a developed fetus is killed by removing it from the womb and destroying the fetal brain. (concession made by pro-choice) If it doesn’t actually exist, then what’s the harm in banning it? Partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X, or dilation and extraction) is possible, after all, and in the opinions of many, slightly barbaric.

If it doesn't exist, it's beneath the United Nations to consider banning it. After all, I have yet to see a serious proposal dealing with restricting unassisted porcine aviation.

If it does exist, I think individual nations can deal with the issue. Some will find merit in allowing the procedure while some will not. And before it gets compared to the ban on clitoridectomy, I will remind the assembly that the latter has no benefit to anybody, while late-term abortions can be seen to serve a purpose - namely to end an unwanted pregnancy.

ESTABLISHES that a late-term fetus is a life, since its brain is developed and has intelligence. No other fetus qualifies legally as life. (concession made by pro-life)

Krioval will decide what is considered "life" in Krioval, thank you. We already have a complicated set of cloning and adoption laws on the books there, and we don't need to further complicate it by deciding what constitutes a "late-term fetus".

PROPOSES that punishments for partial-birth abortion are to be decided by the individual nations and it is their decision whether or not to regard partial-birth abortion as murder.

Wow. This is both slanted and self-contradictory. Not only is the entire thrust of this proposal to ban certain types of abortions (hardly a "compromise" from my standpoint), but it then goes on to determine a "late-term fetus" is alive, but that "killing" it (as opposed, to say "removing" it - another example of bias) wouldn't necessarily be considered murder.

Whatever. Krioval establishes that the punishment for performing these abortions is a one-kerotar fine. I'm sure that the one hundred procedures like this performed in Krioval will really suffer as a result.

UPHOLDS the right of individual nations to define their own laws and regulations regarding birth control and contraception. (concession made by pro-life)

Hardly a concession. What right does another country have to tell me how Kriovalians can use condoms or birth control pills? That this sentence is even in here is telling.

ESTABLISHES a global network of charities to help mothers who decided not to abort their child. The charity can only provide financial aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the $14,000/year mark shall be used as a line of poverty (yes, I know that this is real world stuff, I didn’t know how to express money otherwise, since I have no clue what the value of the Voltairean credit, or any other NationStates currency, is).

I don't really want international "charities" interfering with my population, as I could imagine that they would attempt to rally against legal abortion in Krioval. It's just another example of "big brother" trying to stamp out something considered undesirable in one place universally.

In case I've been too subtle, Krioval will actively fight this and anything similar to this.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
UN Ambassador - Krioval
Regional Delegate - Chaotica

AIMS to make everyone shut up once and for all (at least in NationStates) on the issue of abortion.


Good luck with that :}


ACKNOWLEDING the merits of arguments coming from all sides in the political debate over abortion. (statement to keep anyone from whining that I have a political axe to grind, which has already failed)


Everyone has an axe to grind.


STRESSING that this proposal is not geared towards serving a religious or moral purpose, and was actually submitted by the secular government in the Commonwealth of Voltairea. (statement to keep anyone from whining that I have a religious axe to grind, which has already failed)


Even more so than above, given that one of your clauses sets out to define what life actually is. This is not a logical arguement, but an emotive one based on belief. Which has to be moral or religious.


RECOGNIZING that there are women that cannot afford financially to have a child, but do not want to have an abortion due to religious or moral beliefs, emotional or physical pain, or economic or geographical issues. (provides base for the rest of the argument)


Ok - just so as we are all on the same page here, the current resolution does not force anyone to have an abortion if they don't want one. There are no clauses in the current resolution that put a gun to a woman's head and tell her to have an abortion. This clause - the one you say provides the basis for the rest of the arguement - appears to be implying that that is the case - that the only choices are to keep the child or have an abortion. And since that is patently not true, I have little hope that the rest of the proposal will be anything other than misleading nonsense as well.


PROVIDING a solution to such women so that they may keep their children and have enough money to sufficiently raise them.


Why? If people don't want to have an abortion, but want to have the child, they can get it adopted. If they chose to keep it for themselves then they can damn well live with the consequences of that choice.


OUTLAWS the practice of partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X, or dilation and extraction), which is a medical procedure in which a developed fetus is killed by removing it from the womb and destroying the fetal brain, unless there is a situation where the mother's life is in grave danger. (concession made by pro-choice) If it doesn’t actually exist, then what’s the harm in banning it? Partial-birth abortion (also known as D&X, or dilation and extraction) is possible, after all, and in the opinions of many, slightly barbaric.


God doesn't exist. But if anyone tries to put forward legislation banning him then I am certain there would be objections to it.

Also - Many? Which many? How is this not a religious/moral arguement if you are quoting the opinions of "many" and yet refusing to name them.


ESTABLISHES that a late-term fetus is a life, since its brain is developed and has intelligence. No other fetus qualifies legally as life. (concession made by pro-life)


This is not a concession. This is a limitation. One that you have chosen to state as fact, when there is no evidence to support this. You are now classing late-term fetuses as life, and thus making abortion of them murder. How is that not a moral arguement? (since you said that this proposal has no moral axe to grind, I figured I should ask)


PROPOSES that punishments for partial-birth abortion are to be decided by the individual nations and it is their decision whether or not to regard partial-birth abortion as murder.


So you are now enforcing your morals on every nation in the UN, but you don't have a moral axe to grind. And even if this won't affect us - we are happy to let people become criminals when the law is created by criminals themselves - you are forcing nations to punish people for not submitting to your moral judgement (Which you are not putting in to the proposal, according to your previous statements).


UPHOLDS the right of individual nations to define their own laws and regulations regarding birth control and contraception. (concession made by pro-life)


Bwahahahahahahahahahaha. So not only are you going to have a mass pregnancy epidemic, you are going to ban abortion and make people suffer for obeying your rules? Did you not think this through at all? You ban birth control. You ban contraception. So, apart from the MASSIVE explosion in STDs (notably HIV and AIDS) that is going to trip through the UN, assuming this passes, you are going to basically force people in to abstinance because they can't have sex without ending up with a kid, which they then have to have because of the other parts of the proposal. And you are still sure there is no religious or moral imperitive in this arguement? Please!


ESTABLISHES a global network of charities to help mothers who decided not to abort their child. The charity can only provide financial aid to women below the line of poverty, or if no such financial boundary exists in their nation, the $14,000/year mark shall be used as a line of poverty (yes, I know that this is real world stuff, I didn’t know how to express money otherwise, since I have no clue what the value of the Voltairean credit, or any other NationStates currency, is).


No. As I said - if someone doesn't want to keep the child, but doesn't want an abortion, there is this wonderful system called adoption. It's great - seriously. The child goes to a (theoretically) loving home and everyone is happy. I can show you leaflets about it if you want. But if a woman in your nation choses to have the child, and to raise it herself, then why should my government be forced to pay for it? It's her choice - she has to deal with the consequences. Just like she has to deal with the consequences of having an abortion.

This whole proposal is ludicrous, and a severe (possibly fatal) attack on freedom of choice. You will take away the woman's control of her own body, you will take away her choice to use birth control (so she can have sex without the risk of having a child, not to mention the risk of catching all sorts of horrible diseases) and then you will take away her choice to have an abortion. All because you, and some of your small minded, petty, biggotted friends, find it distateful.

But still - you have no moral or religious axe to grind, so why should you not be permitted to run (and ruin) the life of every woman in the UN.

Now it's a partial ban. Happy?

No. It still outlaws it.

I can think of some very good non-religious benefits to abstinence. One, for example, is that it makes it harder for companies to use sex in their advertising so they have to focus on making better products to get to the just closed market. Also, abstinence increases the value of a personal relationship by encouraging people to find partners that they can get along with, and hopefully use that to find other people to get along with and promote peace.

I can think of some very good non-religious benefits to abstinence. One, for example, is that it makes it harder for companies to use sex in their advertising so they have to focus on making better products to get to the just closed market. Also, abstinence increases the value of a personal relationship by encouraging people to find partners that they can get along with, and hopefully use that to find other people to get along with and promote peace.

Do you mind leaving something for my government to govern? If we want to suppress sex in advertizing, I have no doubt in my mind that Commander Raijin could force a decree through Parliament that would stop it immediately. Further, I do not think that it is any of the business of the United Nations how interpersonal relationships are conducted. None whatsoever. If Kriovalians want intimacy through abstinence, I have every confidence that they will find it. If some prefer sex, our government ensures that they have options to prevent transmission of disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Lord Darvek Tyvok
UN Ambassador - Krioval
Regional Delegate - Chaotica

Well, I have a few suggestions for the new version--but before I advise any more, I need to ask you Voltairea: are you willing to commit the time in telegramming, possibly, over 350 delegates to get this to quorum?

I can think of some very good non-religious benefits to abstinence. One, for example, is that it makes it harder for companies to use sex in their advertising so they have to focus on making better products to get to the just closed market. Also, abstinence increases the value of a personal relationship by encouraging people to find partners that they can get along with, and hopefully use that to find other people to get along with and promote peace.

Not true. Without wanting to get into the abstinence debate, this is a fallacy for a variety of reasons:

1) You assume that by stressing abstinence people will not want sex. On the contrary, they always will- sex is as natural an impulse as the need to eat, for obvious reasons. Assuming that you will convince everyone to abstain until marriage (which is impossible, but that is another debate), you will not stop people from wanting sex- they'll just ensure that they get married first. The need for sex doesn't just occur in perverts or "players"- it occurs in all of us, only that at least some of us repress the urge until we've found someone special- however, that urge will still be there regardless.

2) Usually, the first thing anyone notices about someone is how they look. More often than not, someone will decide to approach a potential mate because they feel that person is physically attractive, because they do not know anything else about that person. This is also natural- biologically, we look for the best person to pair up with because we want to make sure we'd be able to raise healthy babies. Unfit people probably won't be able to do the work needed to raise a family, whereas fit people will. It's more a throwback to the cavemen times, when physical fitness meant more, but, biologically-speaking, the more fit you are the longer you'll live, so, from a biological perspective you'll want someone who is fit so you'll have a partner who will be able to raise a family for a long time.

In short, what this means is that a) you can't stop people from wanting sex, even if they delay having it, and b) you can't stop people from wanting "good-looking people", meaning that you won't stop sexually-provocative advertising (unless by government mandate, which won't be easy) AND you won't stop some people from wanting people just for their looks and/or their sexual capabilities. As a schoolmate of mine once said, you can change the laws but you can't change the attitudes, or, in this case, the feelings. Mandate morality all you want, but you won't stop some people from overstepping it.

Please show me how that would be possible without the bottom falling out of your economy. If there were so many rich people who didn't have to work for a living, there would be a shortage of workers producing exports, meaning that the value of the currency would fall, bringing us right back to square one. Your people would be millionaires, but they would be millionaires in the same way that people who use the Turkish lira are millionaires (exchange rate bewteen US Dollars and Turkish Lira, $1=1,309,500.04 Turkish Liras, source www.xe.com)

Easy. We rape and pillage other nations and they do the work. Our nation reaps capital. How much is available to each individual is also another question.

I can think of some very good non-religious benefits to abstinence. One, for example, is that it makes it harder for companies to use sex in their advertising so they have to focus on making better products to get to the just closed market. Also, abstinence increases the value of a personal relationship by encouraging people to find partners that they can get along with, and hopefully use that to find other people to get along with and promote peace.

Oh joy, another nut with an opinion based in dreamland.


One, for example, is that it makes it harder for companies to use sex in their advertising so they have to focus on making better products to get to the just closed market.

If you have abstinence, you make sex less available. Less availability means more desire. Which means companies using sex in their advertising have even more sales and more penetration.

If you had any experience in advertising or media, you would know that.


Also, abstinence increases the value of a personal relationship by encouraging people to find partners that they can get along with, and hopefully use that to find other people to get along with and promote peace


:rolleyes: Beneath contempt and beneath commentary. Obviously relationships are not high priority in your nation, nor is understanding of human dynamics.

Next contestant please.

Which means companies using sex in their advertising have even more sales and more penetration.
No pun intended, right? ;)

Voltairea, I recognize and appreciate your attempts to respond to at least some of my points. But your proposal is still highly objectionable and will not achieve its objectives.

1. Why not propose measures that would really reduce legal abortions? Your new proposal contains none of my suggestions for reducing the necessity of abortions. I don't take that personally, but I question the sincerity of anyone's desire to save "unborn lives" if they are not willing to support measures (like improved access and quality to family planning and prenatal care) that could reduce both abortions and miscarriages. (I understand that saving "unborn lives" may not be your goal.)

2. You still do not understand about "partial-birth abortion." I guess since no one who responded looked at the material I cited (which I didn't really expect) the point I made about partial-birth abortion was missed.

In RL, the US Supreme Court caselaw since Roe v. Wade allows states to prohibit abortion after fetal viability, except where the abortion is medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Thus, long-standing, unchallenged laws in 41 states and the D of C ban third-trimester abortions except when necessary to the life or health of the mother. A few states allow third-trimester under other specific circumstances such as severe fetal abnormality or rape or incest of a minor. Almost all of the remaining states have (unconstitutional and sometimes pre-Roe) laws banning abortions.

In RL US, post-viability and/or third-trimester abortions are very rare:

• Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period).

• More than half of abortions are performed before 9 weeks after the last menstrual period, or within 5 weeks of the first missed period.

• Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.

• An estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks, when the fetus may be viable.

So, late-term abortions are very, very, very rare. Legally they are allowed only in narrow circumstances -- in almost every state it is allowed only if necessary to the life or health of the mother. In the handful of late-term abortions (including D&X procedures or so-called "partial-birth" abortions) that occur, they are due to extreme circumstances. Failure to provide for these circumstances are (next to vagueness) the reason why no ban on "partial-birth abortion" enacted in the US has survived legal challenge.

Moreover, because there is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion" as a medical procedure (rather there is a political label applied to horror-story anecdotes), attempts to define "partial-birth abortion" in banning legislation result in definitions that are unworkable and encompass normal procedures. This includes definitions similar to the one in the proposed legislation. Your new definition, for example, ignores that

Even “dilation and extraction” or “intact dilation and evacuation,” which are often assumed to be medical corollaries, have very few published medical references.

I haven't offered any definition of "partial-birth abortion" to be used in the legislation because there is no acceptable definition.

The bottom line is you are seeking a blanket ban on something you cannot clearly define based on a gut reaction to a horrorific image. To the extent the image is based on reality, it is taken out of context of extreme circumstances that justify the procedure. As a result, you are (for no good reason) banning abortions that are medically necessary and ethically justifiable. Moreover, because you are seeking to ban a phantasm, you end up banning more (i.e., other legal abortions).

3. This is simply wrong:

ESTABLISHES that a late-term fetus is a life, since its brain is developed and has intelligence.

4. Still too vague:
ESTABLISHES a global network of charities to help mothers who decided not to abort their child.

What does this mean? I assume nations need not contribute, but you didn't address my question. Who qualifies as a "mother[] who decided not to abort their child"? Is that any women who gives birth?

In conclusion, I think it patently clear your resolution will not resolve the abortion debate. If that is truely your objective, this will solve nothing.

No pun intended, right? ;)

Nope, totally intended. ;)

If you truly wish an "abortion compromise", you might consider giving some reason not to have the abortion, not this cockamamy pile of rubbish.

As yet, this proposal is a heap of half-thoughts and worthless.

The only thing worse than constraining a woman's right to choose, in my opinion, are the blatant constraints placed upon the State by this monstrosity. Krioval wishes to abort this proposal long before it gets to term. We don't want to swell up with insane tax rates and give birth to a welfare state and massive budget shortfalls.

The only thing worse than constraining a woman's right to choose, in my opinion, are the blatant constraints placed upon the State by this monstrosity. Krioval wishes to abort this proposal long before it gets to term. We don't want to swell up with insane tax rates and give birth to a welfare state and massive budget shortfalls.
Can we please stop with the puns, everybody! My brain is losing the will to continue functioning!

yes, we should indeed stop with the puns about abortion. We wouldn't want something unwanted coming of this.

[QUOTE=Powerhungry Chipmunks
Actually, as the proposal now stands, it doesn't infer or change anything. Right now, nations are free to decide on this matter as they will. If this clause were codified into UN law then it would not change this fact. This clause does nothing to restrict or spread contraception in the UN as each nation has the ability to set the terms under which their "allowed". This is already the case as the UN isn't in the practice of mandating any bahavior with regard to birth control from its member nations (to the best of my knowledge).[/QUOTE]

I know that it does leave it up to the individual nation- but there are still 2 reasons why this is a dangerous statement.

Firstly, birth control methods are vital and should be promoted in the interests of sexual health and the prevention of unwanted pregnacny.

Secondly, (and therefore), this proposal implies that such methods are to be frowned upon, something which I believe the UN should not do. The UN should promote them, given that it is committed to good health practice.


[Edit] Sorry, I didn't notice the redrafted version of the proposal. However, my objections still stand. The legality of birth control is now listed as a "concession", again implyin moral judgement. I fail to see why the pro-life movement would oppose birth control since it helps prevent abortion. Unless you belong to the minority of that group, and are devout Catholic. In which case you should list it a a concession made by the Catholic Church, and not by the pro-life movement as a whole, many of whom would find that comment offensive.

yes, we should indeed stop with the puns about abortion. We wouldn't want something unwanted coming of this.
Good Lord. I don't know whether to chuckle or cry myself to sleep.

Actually, as the proposal now stands, it doesn't infer or change anything. Right now, nations are free to decide on this matter as they will. If this clause were codified into UN law then it would not change this fact. This clause does nothing to restrict or spread contraception in the UN as each nation has the ability to set the terms under which their "allowed". This is already the case as the UN isn't in the practice of mandating any bahavior with regard to birth control from its member nations (to the best of my knowledge).

I know that it does leave it up to the individual nation- but there are still 2 reasons why this is a dangerous statement.

Firstly, birth control methods are vital and should be promoted in the interests of sexual health and the prevention of unwanted pregnacny.

Secondly, (and therefore), this proposal implies that such methods are to be frowned upon, something which I believe the UN should not do. The UN should promote them, given that it is committed to good health practice.

In you're first point, are you saying that you oppose the idea of stopping future resolutions forcing certain usage of birth control within nations are? Otherwise I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in that.

In response to your second point, connotation is easily changed. The basic ideas behind the clause though, I still believe to be unobjectionable.

Though I might suggest Voltairea, just generally, that it's probably a good idea to either focus the proposal to more address abortion, or change the title and premise to address contraception and pregnancy as a whole. I think the first of these two would be most passable.

yes, we should indeed stop with the puns about abortion. We wouldn't want something unwanted coming of this.

Good Lord. I don't know whether to chuckle or cry myself to sleep.

Well, that depends on a few things. First, are you pro-choice? :D

I am against this. a woman should have the choice to have an abortion whenever she wants. The baby is not even legaly alive untill it takes its first breath. so how do we give something that is not living rights?

:upyours:

I am against this. a woman should have the choice to have an abortion whenever she wants. The baby is not even legaly alive untill it takes its first breath. so how do we give something that is not living rights?


Perhaps it isn't legally alive until it takes its first breath in your country, but that isn't the case in all countries. It isn't mandated by the UN as to when a fetus is considered alive in its member nations. And it should stay that way. There isn't nearly a consensus (scientifically, morally, personally, etc.) as to when exactly a fetus become alive--or alive enough to gain the rights of people. Perhaps the UN should keep nations from considering life at conception (one extreme), and perhaps the UN should keep nations from considering life only after birth (the other extreme). But setting an arbitrary time for a fetus to gain rights in between those two is an abuse of the UN's power.

I am very surprised that people haven't heard of partial birth abortion. As somebody who is Pro-Choice, I do not agree with this proposal (especially since it puts unknown limits on contraceptives) - but I do agree with the ban of partial birth abortions.

To describe it: The procedure can be done in the late second term, and all throughout the third term. It could even be done when the baby has reached full term, and is on its way out. Usually, the doctor induces labour. The baby is turned feet down. When he is half way out, and his skull is showing, the doctor pushes into the baby's head and suctions out his brain. The dead baby is now delivered. To me - this is a ghastly procedure. I don't know why anybody would want to perform it, or go through it.

I think that abortions should be limited to the first term, and perhaps the early second term. Or if any medical reasons should arise and a doctor recomends abortion after such time, up to the third term. We don't need partial birth abortions; there are plenty of other abortion methods out there, that yes; wouldn't work late into the pregnancy - but I think that women can make up their decision to keep or not to keep the baby before the second term. (Terms are made up of three months, for anybody who doesn't know.)

Contraceptives should always be allowed an available. People will have sex and they will have abortions, whether it is done legally or in some back alley. It is not worth the safety of our women to ban all abortions - and even worse to restrict contraceptives. Disease anyone?

My suggestion? Take out all of the other garbage, and just ban partial birth abortions. Add some links, too. That way they won't call fake.

I am very surprised that people haven't heard of partial birth abortion. As somebody who is Pro-Choice, I do not agree with this proposal (especially since it puts unknown limits on contraceptives) - but I do agree with the ban of partial birth abortions.

If you are Pro-Choice, please, please do some reading about the subject before jumping on the anti-"partial birth abortion" bandwagon. It is not that I have not heard of it. It is that "partial birth abortion" is a chimera created by pro-life groups as a wedge issue. The "problem" of "partial birth abortion" is nonexistent. The "solution" of banning "partial birth abortion" inevitably involves banning other medical options (something pro-life groups don't seem to mind, hmm).

I think that abortions should be limited to the first term, and perhaps the early second term. Or if any medical reasons should arise and a doctor recomends abortion after such time, up to the third term. We don't need partial birth abortions; there are plenty of other abortion methods out there, that yes; wouldn't work late into the pregnancy - but I think that women can make up their decision to keep or not to keep the baby before the second term. (Terms are made up of three months, for anybody who doesn't know.)
abortions. Add some links, too. That way they won't call fake.

Third-term abortions are almost always due to medical necessity. Few doctors will perform them and those that do will only do so in rare cases. About 1/2 of 1 percent of abortions are third-trimester.

My suggestion? Take out all of the other garbage, and just ban partial birth abortions. Add some links, too. That way they won't call fake.

But all of this is moot. You can't ban any type of abortion because it would interfere with the resolution already in place.

But all of this is moot. You can't ban any type of abortion because it would interfere with the resolution already in place.

Why?

We categorize different crimes, why can't we categorize abortion?

Why can't we specify legal abortion vs. illegal abortion?

Is abortion legal if just a regular guy who can't afford the procedure for his partner does some butcher job on the girl? No, it should be illegal - but he can claim it is still an abortion because of this resolution, which doesn't specify anything.

On this point, the origional resolution should be repealed anyway.

It would not interfere with the origional resolution if it worked *with* the origional to set a few basic guidlines.

Why?

We categorize different crimes, why can't we categorize abortion?

Why can't we specify legal abortion vs. illegal abortion?

Is abortion legal if just a regular guy who can't afford the procedure for his partner does some butcher job on the girl? No, it should be illegal - but he can claim it is still an abortion because of this resolution, which doesn't specify anything.

On this point, the origional resolution should be repealed anyway.

It would not interfere with the origional resolution if it worked *with* the origional to set a few basic guidlines.

Because


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


Any rules, any regulations, any mention of banning any type of abortion is lnterfering with a woman's right to chose. And thus illegal.

Because



Any rules, any regulations, any mention of banning any type of abortion is lnterfering with a woman's right to chose. And thus illegal.

Initially, that would appear to be the case, but upon further review, consider The Universal Bill of Rights, article 5:



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



Should a proposal simply define late-term abortion as an inhumane treatment of human beings, then late-term abortion could not be covered by "Abortion Rights" (which was passed 10 months after The Universal Bill of Rigths, by the way).

In fact, in my proposal to ban partial-birth abortion I do just that. Here's the text in question:



RECALLING the rights granted to women via "Abortion Rights", implemented June 5, 2004,

NOTING various practices employed to perform said abortions,

RECOGNIZING the UN’s precedent of disallowing cruel behaviors (“End Barbaric Punishments”, implemented December 11, 2003, and “The Universal Bill of Rights”, implemented August 8, 2003),

SADLY NOTING some UN member nation’s justification of inhumane practices via “Abortion Rights”,

1. DEFINES, as cruel and inhumane treatment, as abolished in “The Universal Bill of Rights”, “partial birth” abortion;

...




The proposal went through the proposal list at least twice, neither time being deleted. No mods found it illegal. It is a fully available tool for propsals to define lines between possibly contradictory or different-headed resolutions. All Voltairea would need to do to validate his perscriptions on late-term/partial birth abortions is reference both resolutions and lay out the argument similar to the way I did mine. It would be entirely legal.

Also consider the wording to "Abortion Rights": "no member nation will interfere..." If one worked a proposal to form an international group, gave it some jurisdiction in member nations, and allowed it to punish for late-term abortions this would seem legal.

But that would require nations to define the fetus as a child before it is actually born. Which sets up so many legal precedents as to murder and fetal murder and so forth, that I don't even want to think about it.

It would still be possible to get around this, by just declaring the fetus is not a human being until it is fully seperated from the mother. So any type of abortion performed before that would be legal.

If you are Pro-Choice, please, please do some reading about the subject before jumping on the anti-"partial birth abortion" bandwagon. It is not that I have not heard of it. It is that "partial birth abortion" is a chimera created by pro-life groups as a wedge issue. The "problem" of "partial birth abortion" is nonexistent. The "solution" of banning "partial birth abortion" inevitably involves banning other medical options (something pro-life groups don't seem to mind, hmm).

OOC:

I first heard of partial birth abortion when my Aunt, a midwife, started helping in the campaign to ban partial birth abortions in Canada (we're almost there! (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1332120/posts)). My family is active in pro-choice and feminist campaigns, and I also think that a trained nurse and midwife with her masters would know what she is talking about. Please please please listen to people and question the information you know all of the time before dismissing them with a generalized comment. Research!

They are real, and they do happen. They take up only 1% of all abortions performed, but to me 1%, or even 0.01% is too much for me.

Your opinion that pro-life people made up this abortion method is founded, and unfounded at the same time. I remember a presentation by the pro-lifers where they claimed that a fetus only a few weeks old tried to squirm away from the doctor, and I laughed - do you remember that? They even had fuzzy black and white photos that could have been anything. The Pro-life people do tell lies, and exagerate their claims, they bend science all of the time.

They use partial birth abortion to scare people onto their side, so many people who know that they have and will lie often brush off everything that they say - which is likely why you think it is a 'chimera'.

I have found a site that discusses partial birth abortion without exageration.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth.htm

Please read up on the other articles listed below this article which will tell you all about this procedure without all of the other garbage that Pro-Lifers throw at us. The U.S. has recently banned partial birth abortions, but they used that as a cover to also ban abortions after the first trimester. I hope people in the U.S. take notice of that.

It would still be possible to get around this, by just declaring the fetus is not a human being until it is fully seperated from the mother. So any type of abortion performed before that would be legal.

This would allow people to kill the child before the umbelical cord is cut, which would get rid of partial birth abortion I guess. *sigh*

The problem here is the whole big mess of When is a fetus a Child? We can say well a fetus is a child when it can be removed from the woman and survive on its own - but how would we test that?

I agree with giving women a choice - but should they really be allowed to carry a child almost to term and then decide 'Nope, time for an abortion' ?

I cannot even think of the circumstances where a woman can change her mind so suddenly, except for birth defects - that can be detected in the second trimester anyway.

Perhaps a partial ban of partial birth abortions. It should be restricted to only a Doctor's recomendation - that wouldn't step on any toes.

This would allow people to kill the child before the umbelical cord is cut, which would get rid of partial birth abortion I guess. *sigh*

The problem here is the whole big mess of When is a fetus a Child? We can say well a fetus is a child when it can be removed from the woman and survive on its own - but how would we test that?

I agree with giving women a choice - but should they really be allowed to carry a child almost to term and then decide 'Nope, time for an abortion' ?

I cannot even think of the circumstances where a woman can change her mind so suddenly, except for birth defects - that can be detected in the second trimester anyway.

Perhaps a partial ban of partial birth abortions. It should be restricted to only a Doctor's recomendation - that wouldn't step on any toes.

And of course no doctor is going to do something illegal :}

My problem with this is that once you accept that one type of abortion is illegal, for any reason, then you set up a multitude of legal precedents. If you can define the fetus as alive, then it can be the subject of a murder. So now you have fetus murdering laws (which is not the best way to describe it, but I am hungry and my brain is running on fumes). But if it is a crime for someone to kill a fetus on the street (so to speak) then why is it legal for doctors to do it? And thus more abortion bans come in, until someone gets up enough support to define that "life starts at conception" and so all abortion is murder.

I know - the slipperly slope arguement is generally a fallacy. But I don't want to take the chance that one single ban is all that will happen.


The U.S. has recently banned partial birth abortions, but they used that as a cover to also ban abortions after the first trimester. I hope people in the U.S. take notice of that.

Voltairea, I think this thread illustrates why you should leave "partial birth abortion" out of any attempt at quieting the abortion debate.

Jienga, even before I read your response, I realized I should apologize for the patronizing nature of my prior post. I am now further humbled.

Nonetheless, I still believe you are tragically misinformed about the issue of "partial birth abortion." I did read all of the sites you cited, including the related cites. The main one is simply not authoritative. The author has no expertise and makes numerous errors. Please consider consulting some of the more authoritative sources I cited earlier, which included an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court and the official positions of the American College of Obstreticians & Gynecologists and the American Nurses Association:
http://www.aclu.org/interactive/050...thAbortion.html
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_resea...berg_amicus.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...00&invol=99-830
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer200...ndherdoctor.asp
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm


I will not debate the facts (or lack of them) about "partial birth abortion" further. I think the authoritative evidence is clear. I will debate whether it should be banned.

My question, particularly to one who considers oneself pro-choice, is why do you think that women, in consultation with their health care providers, are not capable of making their own decisions about the fate of their own body and offspring?

To me - this is a ghastly procedure. I don't know why anybody would want to perform it, or go through it.

I agree with giving women a choice - but should they really be allowed to carry a child almost to term and then decide 'Nope, time for an abortion' ?

I cannot even think of the circumstances where a woman can change her mind so suddenly, except for birth defects - that can be detected in the second trimester anyway.

Given that you recognize neither a woman nor her doctor is likely to agree to a late-term abortion (let alone a "partial-birth abortion) lightly, why do you assume that they do? I put it to you that neither women nor doctors participate in late-term abortions merely on a whim.

One of the problems with talking about "partial birth abortion" is that you are ignoring the rights of the one undeniably living human being with inalienable rights. The mother and her doctor are capable of making moral decisions. The mother is the only one with a right to make a decision about what happens to her body.


The U.S. has recently banned partial birth abortions, but they used that as a cover to also ban abortions after the first trimester. I hope people in the U.S. take notice of that.

Close. The U.S. Supreme Court held that several states' attempt to ban "partial birth abortion" were unconstitutional because (a) the inability to define what "partial birth abortion" is made the ban applicable to first and second trimester abortions and (b) the laws did not allow for late-term abortions that were necessary for the life or health of the mother. Since then, various states and the federal government have passed bans on "partial birth abortion," but no such law has survived legal challenge.

Perhaps a partial ban of partial birth abortions. It should be restricted to only a Doctor's recomendation - that wouldn't step on any toes.

Um, all abortions require at least one doctor's agreement. In RL US, all late-term abortions require at least one doctor's recommendation. Apparently, you don't feel that is sufficient.

http://www.aclu.org/interactive/050...thAbortion.html
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_resea...berg_amicus.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...00&invol=99-830
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer200...ndherdoctor.asp
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publi.../nr02-13-02.cfm

OOC: Only the last site worked, and I read it. I understand where you are coming from now, because I used the general term partial birth abortion, which is only a descriptive term and doesn't really specify which abortion method I am talking about. From now on, to clear things up between us, I will call it by late term "D&X".

I also understand that banning late term D&X would open up the way to ban D&E, but I think if it were written correctly we could ward such future bans off.

My question, particularly to one who considers oneself pro-choice, is why do you think that women, in consultation with their health care providers, are not capable of making their own decisions about the fate of their own body and offspring?

We are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, but I think we should have a deadline with our decision. This is treading into the 'is the fetus a child' debate, which can never really be solved. My own beliefs tell me that if a fetus can be born/removed and live without help, than it is a child - which is why I don't think that D&X should be allowed.


I put it to you that neither women nor doctors participate in late-term abortions merely on a whim.

I am still unable to think of a reason why a woman would decide so late to have an abortion; so I'm going to explore:

Unwanted Pregnancy - usually, women notice that they are pregnant because they miss their period. In some cases, women continue to get their period - but by the second term, it is physically obvious that she is pregnant. The symptoms of pregnancy do not occur in every woman, such as morning sickness, but some symptoms will occur. Plus, by the third or forth month women start to show.

Birth Defects - many birth defects can be detected in the second term. Not all - I am aware of that - but many. This could be a reason to have an abortion in the third term, and I am currently looking into birth defects found in the third term and will get back to this one.

Abortionist not Available - some women live in remote areas, or maybe they don't have enough money. By the time they can see the doctor, they are in their third term. This seems like a long time to wait - half a year or more. I am not sure of the government funding in the U.S. for women (perhaps you can elaborate), but in Canada abortions are covered by OHIP so money isn't the issue. If they live in remote areas (which can be an issue in Canada), I am sure they can plan a trip if their pregnancy is unwanted - but perhaps Birth Defects added with their remote location is a factor as well.

Um, all abortions require at least one doctor's agreement. In RL US, all late-term abortions require at least one doctor's recommendation. Apparently, you don't feel that is sufficient.

Not so in RL Canada for first to middle of the second term abortions, and I find that acceptable.

Call a clinic, show up for the appointment and they will perform an abortion. They will perform these abortions till the middle of the second term, or the sixteenth week. After that, you have to see a doctor outside of a clinic. Doctor's have the right to refuse to do an abortion, and many do refuse to do them in the second term, unless there is a serious birth defect - but 'many' does not cover all.

IC: The individual nation's currently decide the specifics of the abortion resolution, but I think that for the protection of women it should be further regulated to ensure a safe environment. Right now, any body could perform an abortion under any conditions.

I know - the slipperly slope arguement is generally a fallacy. But I don't want to take the chance that one single ban is all that will happen.

I really believe that it all has to do with writing - perhaps I am niave.

For the protection of women, we should at least specify Who and under What conditions (not reasons for an abortion, but to make sure the intruments are clean, and the doctor is clean, etc) can perform abortions. I could even just forget my belief that D&X should be banned (and decide that in my own nation), as long as we protect women from butchers.

For all we know, the Pro-Life nations have made it so difficult for people to get abortions that the resolution to protect a women's choice is being savagly abused as punishment. (for instance, they could say that abortion can be performed by a liscenced pig farmer only - that still gives women the right to an abortion, but who would use that option?)

Perhaps my imagination has gone wild, but I am only trying to keep up with the pro lifers ;)

(and yes, I know that there are many pro lifers who argue their beliefs admirably, I just haven't met a whole lot of them and still remember the abortion clinic bombings.)

I really believe that it all has to do with writing - perhaps I am niave.

For the protection of women, we should at least specify Who and under What conditions (not reasons for an abortion, but to make sure the intruments are clean, and the doctor is clean, etc) can perform abortions. I could even just forget my belief that D&X should be banned (and decide that in my own nation), as long as we protect women from butchers.

For all we know, the Pro-Life nations have made it so difficult for people to get abortions that the resolution to protect a women's choice is being savagly abused as punishment. (for instance, they could say that abortion can be performed by a liscenced pig farmer only - that still gives women the right to an abortion, but who would use that option?)

Perhaps my imagination has gone wild, but I am only trying to keep up with the pro lifers ;)

(and yes, I know that there are many pro lifers who argue their beliefs admirably, I just haven't met a whole lot of them and still remember the abortion clinic bombings.)

Actually - they can't do that. They would be classed as interfering with the process :}

Ok, I'm going to stop debating RL "partial-birth abortion." And I will try to restrict my discussion here. I would love to discuss with you further by telegram, e-mail, etc, Jeianga.

Sorry in the original post earlier, the links worked but were paraphrased. When I copied the links from the earlier post, they no longer worked. Here are working replacements (with a few additions focused on why women seek late-term abortion):

http://www.aclu.org/interactive/0503a/acluMythAbortion.html
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/public_policy/stenberg_amicus.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2046/context/archive


I do agree that abortion should be subject to the same safety regulations as other surgical procedures. I see no obstacle in the current UN resolution to a nation adopting neutral regulations that ensure the safety of abortion procedures but do not impinge on the right to choose. So long as such regulations are applied to all (or almost all) surgical procedures, there should be little risk.

I still do not understand why you believe you (or the government) is in a better situation than a woman to decide if she needs a late-term abortion. A late-term abortion is not a frivilous decision for any woman. To the contrary, it is an agonizing decision - often ending a wanted pregnancy that only became unwanted/dangerous in the last term. Because few hospitals/clinics/doctors perform late-term abortions it is difficult to even obtain a late-term abortion.

There is little authoritative on why women seek late-term abortions. I have indicated that in RL US late-term abortions are only legal when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother (or under a few other narrow circumstances in some states). My research indicates similar limitations apply in Canada. Some data suggests the following are the most common reasons for the very, very few cases of late-term abortions:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger or greviously damage her health.
The fetus is so malformed that it will never gain consciouness and will die shortly after birth - this is most common due to a severe form of hydrocephalus
The pregnant woman is very young (much more rare)
The pregnancy resulted from rape or incest (much more rare).

Other real-life examples of women who sought late-term abortions:
The 12 year old incest survivor, trying desperately to deny the pregnancy, until someone finally recognizes what's been going on;
The 45 year old woman who thought that she was menopausal, not pregnant;
The mother of two on welfare who faces new welfare rules denying her support for another pregnancy, and the need to feed, house and clothe her children -- who is forced into a later abortion because, denied Medicaid funding for an abortion, she couldn't find the money for this vital medical care any sooner;
The rural woman -- from one of the 90% rural U.S. counties with no abortion provider -- who has to go through hell to even find an abortion provider and then organize the transportation, finances and support system to make the two state-mandated trips to the clinic before she can have an abortion;
The recovering alcoholic, newly sober, who recognizes that she needs to work on her own health before she can become a parent, particularly of a child that may have fetal alcohol syndrome;
The battered woman, who after months of abuse and struggle is finally free of her abuser, and who recognizes that her chance of freedom is short-lived if she continues her pregnancy;
The woman who discovered that the genetic testing she hoped would give her good news about her very-wanted pregnancy instead gave her news that if this same pregnancy continues, her baby is not only doomed, but likely to destroy her future chances for a successful pregnancy; and
The woman whose life is literally on the line from a pregnancy gone horribly wrong.[/list]

Vastiva supports abortions up til birth (defined by our three way test). We also support education for mothers, state-funded healthcare, a very lively adoption business, and a general acceptance that "people will do as they want".

We are still wondering who the "anti-abortion" crowd is protecting, and if they will ever get off their collective duffs and petition for someone to do something about the situation after birth. Strangely, that area of support is usually absent...

I do agree that abortion should be subject to the same safety regulations as other surgical procedures. I see no obstacle in the current UN resolution to a nation adopting neutral regulations that ensure the safety of abortion procedures but do not impinge on the right to choose. So long as such regulations are applied to all (or almost all) surgical procedures, there should be little risk.


Can you give me an example of some neutral regulations? Ones that could not be abused to stop people having abortions at all?

I'm not walking into that one, thank you. I see no need to waste my time coming up with a hypothetical regulation merely so you can suggest a hypothetical way to abuse it. I think your creative mind could answer the question.

I would suggest regulation would be neutral and legal if it has the following characteristics:

justified by a nation's interest in maternal health or safety
facially neutral as to the medical procedure regulated
does not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortion
generally applicable to all medical procedures or treatments


An example (not following my own advice above) might be requiring abortion providers to have the same licensing or qualifications required for providers of any medical procedure or treatment.

I'm think of drafting my own "abortion compromise" that starts from a pro-choice perspective but seeks to make abortions safe and rarer. I would welcome any constructive suggestions.

"Safe" we can work with.

We'd even support a phrasing of limiting third trimester abortions for avowed religious reasons, if supported by the State.

But "rarer" - we'll need more on how you plan to do this. A ban would make them "rarer" - and be utterly nonsensical.

I would yield to no one in my opposition to any ban or limitation on the availability of abortion. As someone wise said: "No touchie the right of the human to do as the human wishes to the human's own body." I hold that sacred.

My suggestions for rarer would be along the lines of:

universal access to contraceptives
sharing of contraceptive technology
investiment in contraceptive technology -- seek to make it more effective, safer, usable by both (all?) genders
universal access to family planning
universal access to pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal services
sharing of pre-natal, obstretic, and post-natal technology
investment in pre-natal, obstretic, post-natal technology
universal sex education (and sharing, investment, etc)
financial aid to remove economic reasons for abortion (i.e., remove economic barriers to childbirth)
education, awareness, prevention, and counseling programs to prevent rape and incest


These are some off-the-cuff ideas. I am sure they will cause mass hysteria. But if one truly wishes to stop abortions then one should work on removing unwanted pregancies and other causes of abortion.

As Vastiva already does all that, we're supportive.