NationStates Jolt Archive

In this thread I hope to conclude with a reasonable compromise between pro-life and pro-choice (at least in NS). I sincerely hope that this hot-button issue won't lead anyone to abandon civility and also that all sides will listen to each arguement without prejudgement. I'd like to begin with what actions I feel should be taken by the UN.

1. Repeal of Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"
2. Passing of a resolution guranteeing every nation the right to determine what constitutes life.
3. Passing of a resolution that affirms a nations right to legislate on this issue.

I realize that Point 3 may seem redundant with the repeal of Resolution 61, but i feel that precautions should be taken to safeguard national rights. These are not my absolute opinions that aren't open to discussion. I hope others will see fit to comment and debate. Without proper debate from both sides, compromise is never possible.

Without real scientific evidence as to what constitutes life in that stage of growth, I think the issue becomes inherently religious - at which point, it has no place in international law.

Without real scientific evidence as to what constitutes life in that stage of growth, I think the issue becomes inherently religious - at which point, it has no place in international law.

Under your arguement, Resolution 61 is improper, as it prevents a nation from making a moral/religous judgement on the issue. The three points i laid out would have the net effect of allowing every nation its own "freedom of choice" to allow abortion or not, or somewhere in between.

DLE has magical evidence of when a life separates from its mother, but magical evidence is inexact enough to not be considered as official. For the scientific, there are the Seven Signs of Life. Check the previous discussions of abortion for those signs.

Also, I'd rather leave abortion legal. It prevents people that are given the scientific classification of "loony nutjobs" (Sarkarasetans are not known for their religious views...) from banning it. The matter is not religious because we do have scientific standards to rely on, and science trumps religion in its ability to adapt, even if it almost takes a miracle for a scientist to admit their wrong.

I favor national sovereignty as a means to end this debate. Resolution 61 enforced its own moral code on every member, infringing on the right of the people (as represented by their government) to decide on this issue. Every peculiar nation will have its own peculiar views, and allowing for independent legislation will accomidate all of these.

I favor national sovereignty as a means to end this debate. Resolution 61 enforced its own moral code on every member, infringing on the right of the people (as represented by their government) to decide on this issue. Every peculiar nation will have its own peculiar views, and allowing for independent legislation will accomidate all of these.

Ah. So you're one of those.

Read the FAQ. You signed away your right to national sovereignity as soon as you clicked the link in the email. Your arguement doesn't hold water and is unacceptable.

Most of the UN resolutions violate national sovereignity in more ways than Japanese schoolgirls and tentacles have ever resulted in. The resolution you are complaining about is just one of many and is more the rule than the exception. If you wish national sovereignity, remember that UN membership is voluntary, not required.

I did read the FAQ, and I understand the restrictions placed upon nations by the UN. However, I fail to see any reason for the UN to abuse this power. I find regulations that are both related to religion/morality and are non-essential should not be eneacted by the UN. There is good reason to have economic and military solidarity, but having a few nations ban abortion in some form or fashion will not threaten the UN's primary goal of peace throughout alll nations.

Well, though I'm sure this probably completely throws over my whole 'no political junk' policy, I guess I'll put in my two cents. I think that abortions should be outlawed, except in certain instances, like rape and incest. Killing a child because of the couple's mistakes is wrong, and needs to be done away with. I think that, while we can't expect people in today's society to stay virgins until they are ready to accept the responsibility of a child, that they would get the message it there wasn't an 'easy way out' anymore. It needs to be done away with entirely, and while I know that there is no way this will ever be a law, it's still my opinion. When talking about laws, though, the least we can do is outlaw late-term abortions, and all nations should have to submit to that, whether they do early abortions or not. It is well known that by this time in the pregnancy, the child is almost fully developed, and children born prematurely have been known to survive, so it would be just the same as killing a child in the cradle. This law will probably never come to pass, either, though. I guess the best we can hope for is an act saying countries have the right to choose.

I did read the FAQ, and I understand the restrictions placed upon nations by the UN. However, I fail to see any reason for the UN to abuse this power. I find regulations that are both related to religion/morality and are non-essential should not be eneacted by the UN. There is good reason to have economic and military solidarity, but having a few nations ban abortion in some form or fashion will not threaten the UN's primary goal of peace throughout alll nations.

Where do you see it stated the UN's primary goal is peace in the world? The following quotes establish the UN's purpose:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

UN resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever.

Why should the UN abuse its power? Because it's supposed to. There's nothing stating the contrary and what is stated leaves the abuse of said power open to all and almost encouraged.

Now, the following resolutions all deal with morality or are issues of morality that the UN passed anyway:

Scientific Freedom
End slavery
Sexual freedom
Citizen Rule Required
Gay Rights
Child Labor
Religious Tolerance
Outlaw Pedophilia
The Universal Bill of Rights
Common Sense Act II
End Barbaric Punishments
Legalise Euthanasia
Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill
Universal Freedom of Choice
BioRights Declaration
Abortion Rights
Female Genital Mutilation
Freedom of Press
Ban Trafficking in Persons
The Sexes Rights Law
Rights of Minorities and Women
Definition of Marriage
Stem Cell Research Funding
NS HIV AIDS Act
Fairness and Equality
Rights of indigenous peoples
The Sex Industry Worker Act
Humanitarian Intervention

Of the above, maybe four are actually necessary. Maybe. But the rest are not. Yet, the UN has a history of passing what it pleases.

As it stands, you don't have a case.

I have decided to post rough drafts of each point, so that they can be discussed and debated. I hope you will help me come up with a passable series of resolutions.

Point #1 Repeal Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"

NOTING that the decision of a nation to allow or disallow abortion does not affect the international community,

RECOGNISING that in such instances it is not appropriate to force moral legislation on member nations, except in extreme cases (I.E. Slavery and Rape)

ASKS for UN members to repeal Resolution #61, and officially allow themselves the right to legislate on the matter following the moral code of the government and its people.

How does this sound?

As with most wishing to ban abortion or to "compromise" on the issue, you ignore the inalienable human rights of the one undeniably living, sentient entity involved in any pregnancy or abortion -- the mother. A women has a right to control her own body including the right to choose.

A women's right to choose is essential to the right of self-ownership, without which there is no freedom. A women's right to choose is also intextricably bound with a host of other fundamental rights including the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, to bodily integrity, to patient-client privilege. There is currently a majority of votes in favor of a resolution protecting the right to self-protection. Why would anyone say one has a right to use force to eject a trespasser from one's home, but one cannot protect one's uterus?

Even if you assume a embryo, zygote, fetus, fertilized egg, or whatever is a life, that does not end the equation. There is still another entity's rights at stake -- one with a superior claim to its own body. Perhaps more importantly, the mother is a moral agent with a superior claim to the state's as to who shall resolve any conflict between her rights and that of the fetus (zygote, etc).

As with other fundamental human rights, protecting a women's right to choose trumps vague concerns of "national sovereignty."

If it is not clear, your "compromise" is not acceptable. As I have suggested elsewhere, if you truly want to compromise on this issue, do not seek to deny a woman's fundamental rights. Instead, craft a resolution that uses other measures to make abortion less necessary and more rare.

P.S. I refer to a "woman's" right to choose as a shorthand. I recognize that NS nations may have other genders or entities that carry fetuses. Traditionally, however, this has been a fundamental issue of women's equality.

Now, the following resolutions all deal with morality or are issues of morality that the UN passed anyway:
You could even argue that even more of them legislate some aspect of morality, albeit in a much lesser sense.

I remember moral arguments against Habeas Corpus. They were mainly along the lines of "it's better for one to suffer than for many". Anything can be a moral issue, if you try hard enough to push it into that pigeonhole.
As such, I find the entire concept of the UN not legislating on 'moral issues' argument for the sake of argument.

I have decided to post rough drafts of each point, so that they can be discussed and debated. I hope you will help me come up with a passable series of resolutions.

Point #1 Repeal Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"

NOTING that the decision of a nation to allow or disallow abortion does not affect the international community,

RECOGNISING that in such instances it is not appropriate to force moral legislation on member nations, except in extreme cases (I.E. Slavery and Rape)

ASKS for UN members to repeal Resolution #61, and officially allow themselves the right to legislate on the matter following the moral code of the government and its people.

How does this sound?

The same objections already raised still stand.

Under your arguement, Resolution 61 is improper, as it prevents a nation from making a moral/religous judgement on the issue. The three points i laid out would have the net effect of allowing every nation its own "freedom of choice" to allow abortion or not, or somewhere in between.

No, it's because it prevents a nation from making a religious judgement that I support the resolution - instead, the judgement is made by the individual, who is the only rightful source of a religious decision.

This message brought to you by the Seperation of Church and State. It's a good thing.

I have decided to post rough drafts of each point, so that they can be discussed and debated. I hope you will help me come up with a passable series of resolutions.

Point #1 Repeal Resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"

NOTING that the decision of a nation to allow or disallow abortion does not affect the international community,


I disagree. An attack on one person's freedom - removing the right of one person to decide what happens with their body - is an attack on everyone, as we are all part of "humanity"


RECOGNISING that in such instances it is not appropriate to force moral legislation on member nations, except in extreme cases (I.E. Slavery and Rape)


As I have said previously, stopping people having an abortion can be tantamount to slavery. You are removing the right of a woman to chose what happens to her body.


ASKS for UN members to repeal Resolution #61, and officially allow themselves the right to legislate on the matter following the moral code of the government and its people.


I would prefer to leave the choice in the hands of the people, rather than the hands of the government. So the UN has to keep it legal.

How many times have we all discussed the abortion issue?

Always one less time than we need to.

I favor national sovereignty as a means to end this debate. Resolution 61 enforced its own moral code on every member, infringing on the right of the people (as represented by their government) to decide on this issue. Every peculiar nation will have its own peculiar views, and allowing for independent legislation will accomidate all of these.

All this shows is your ignorance.

There is no "moral code" being enforced here. There is a human right - the right to one's own body - being enforced.

As to your national soverignty arguement - you clicked join, you sold your soverignty for a blue armband. Deal with it.

*sends a delegation to your nation to party with some "loose women of questionable character"*

I have a few things to add to this debate now.....

1. It is true that by joining the UN a nation gives up a certain level of sovereignty, however, to say a nations independence is totally void is ludicrous. I for one entered the UN to attempt to change the laws on the books, to allow a greater level of sovereignty.

2. My own personal belief (as you may have already surmised) is that a fertilized egg constitutes life. I believe that because no further active action is required for this to grow into a body (IE leave it alone and itll become a baby), it should be considered a living being. However, these are my RELIGIOUS/MORAL beliefs and it would be improper to force others to adhere to them. While it is true that many Resolutions legislating morality exist, this does not make them proper. Shall the UN's next Resolution establish an international Religion? These things set a very dangerous precedent.

3. My own belief is that a womans right to control her body ends where her babies body begins. However, that is again my view.

I dont believe that there is sizable support for any compromise option, as the majority seem to be avowedly pro-choice. I would appreciate it if someone from this section of opinion would propose a compromise...to add to the debate and allow me to understand precisely what that section believes.

I have a few things to add to this debate now.....

1. It is true that by joining the UN a nation gives up a certain level of sovereignty, however, to say a nations independence is totally void is ludicrous. I for one entered the UN to attempt to change the laws on the books, to allow a greater level of sovereignty.

:p



2. My own personal belief (as you may have already surmised) is that a fertilized egg constitutes life. I believe that because no further active action is required for this to grow into a body (IE leave it alone and itll become a baby), it should be considered a living being. However, these are my RELIGIOUS/MORAL beliefs and it would be improper to force others to adhere to them. While it is true that many Resolutions legislating morality exist, this does not make them proper. Shall the UN's next Resolution establish an international Religion? These things set a very dangerous precedent.

Actually, we already have resolutions saying that can't happen.

And we'll gladly cut off all nutrients to a fertilized egg, as you apparently believe it spontaneously becomes a living being separate from the mother....

... nope, it died. Must not be separate.


3. My own belief is that a womans right to control her body ends where her babies body begins. However, that is again my view.

You are aware of the resolution about Abortions? Good.



I dont believe that there is sizable support for any compromise option,

Read as "NONE" unless it is a compromise, not a sneaky attempt at forcing things into law.



as the majority seem to be avowedly pro-choice. I would appreciate it if someone from this section of opinion would propose a compromise...to add to the debate and allow me to understand precisely what that section believes.

No touchie the right of the human to do as the human wishes to the humans own body. Clear enough?

Ah. So you're one of those.

Read the FAQ. You signed away your right to national sovereignity as soon as you clicked the link in the email. Your arguement doesn't hold water and is unacceptable.

Most of the UN resolutions violate national sovereignity in more ways than Japanese schoolgirls and tentacles have ever resulted in. The resolution you are complaining about is just one of many and is more the rule than the exception. If you wish national sovereignity, remember that UN membership is voluntary, not required.
I agree that he has no right to enforce an abortion law against the mandate of th UN when he volentarily joined the UN. But it would be nice if the UN would just repeal all its laws so anarchies like An Archy could join without compromising our values. I think the UN should simply serve to advise us as to what is best for our countries and all resolutions passed should merely constitute the UN's advice. Anarchists of the world unite!

I agree that he has no right to enforce an abortion law against the mandate of th UN when he volentarily joined the UN. But it would be nice if the UN would just repeal all its laws so anarchies like An Archy could join without compromising our values. I think the UN should simply serve to advise us as to what is best for our countries and all resolutions passed should merely constitute the UN's advice. Anarchists of the world unite!

Too bad for you - the UN Resolutions override national laws (or lacks thereof in several cases). If you don't like it, leave the UN.

I agree that he has no right to enforce an abortion law against the mandate of th UN when he volentarily joined the UN. But it would be nice if the UN would just repeal all its laws so anarchies like An Archy could join without compromising our values. I think the UN should simply serve to advise us as to what is best for our countries and all resolutions passed should merely constitute the UN's advice. Anarchists of the world unite!
:confused:
The UN would be basically useless if nobody could pass resolutions...

I agree that he has no right to enforce an abortion law against the mandate of th UN when he volentarily joined the UN. But it would be nice if the UN would just repeal all its laws so anarchies like An Archy could join without compromising our values. I think the UN should simply serve to advise us as to what is best for our countries and all resolutions passed should merely constitute the UN's advice. Anarchists of the world unite!

You can form an alliance to do that. Also, it goes against the UN's purpose, which is established in the FAQ. Quote:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

abortion should be illegal in the U.N.
removing life from a chance at making a real impact on life should be a felony of the highest order, a human being without a chance to make a real contribution to their country, you are holding yourselves back in this way,, you need all the workeres you can get.. work makes strength! :sniper:

soldiers, truckers, factory workers, collective farmers,
human hands are the ones who build a country, not aborted ones, why, when a woman carrying a child is at a desk, if she has another keyboard on her lap, then when baby within her kicks, she can or he can cause the womans to distort and punch a key, doubling her productivity..
with her typing, her baby kicking, she can work on two reports at once, because her baby inside her can hear what seh says, she dictates to her child what to type, seh can work on two reports at once.. :) :)

and with proper areas set up for them when they are born..
it creates jobs, keeping unemployement to a minimum...

it works both way,s with abortion abolished you have people on call to cover for her when she goes into labor, she can cut her cord later,not only does keep tabs on her child,she can nurse her child while she types, abolishing the need to be away from her child, this is possible because of new wireless technology,created by a now large engineering force due to pro life ruling, she can be in the child rest area, and contribute to her coutry in this way..

communism works..

<sigh> We're back on this issue again, 'eh?

As a woman, I can't imagine not being able to choose what to do with a pregnancy.

As a national leader, I can see where many nations based on religious values have a hard time with it. I think religion and/or morals is a horrible basis for legislation - but I also accept that others don't feel that way.

This is one of those resolutions we all wish could go away. But it isn't going to. If the left isn't promoting it, the right is seeking to ban it. Even if the NSC should grow into something that can alter the course of legislation here at the UN, I'm not certain this issue is one it should tackle, even if it is something I think better left to individual nations.

Very touchy subject. If only we didn't have to re-argue it every week or so.

And here we have proof communism does not work.

This representative does not understand that abortion is legal in their nation due to prior UN Resolution.

Obviously a lack of education at the root levels.


abortion should be illegal in the U.N.
removing life from a chance at making a real impact on life should be a felony of the highest order, a human being without a chance to make a real contribution to their country, you are holding yourselves back in this way,, you need all the workeres you can get.. work makes strength! :sniper:

soldiers, truckers, factory workers, collective farmers,
human hands are the ones who build a country, not aborted ones, why, when a woman carrying a child is at a desk, if she has another keyboard on her lap, then when baby within her kicks, she can or he can cause the womans to distort and punch a key, doubling her productivity..
with her typing, her baby kicking, she can work on two reports at once, because her baby inside her can hear what seh says, she dictates to her child what to type, seh can work on two reports at once.. :) :)

and with proper areas set up for them when they are born..
it creates jobs, keeping unemployement to a minimum...

it works both way,s with abortion abolished you have people on call to cover for her when she goes into labor, she can cut her cord later,not only does keep tabs on her child,she can nurse her child while she types, abolishing the need to be away from her child, this is possible because of new wireless technology,created by a now large engineering force due to pro life ruling, she can be in the child rest area, and contribute to her coutry in this way..

communism works..

removing life from a chance at making a real impact on life


At least he doesn't say whether it will be a good impact or a bad impact :}

Anarchists of the world unite!

You owe me a new shirt. I just ruined this one by spewing grape juice all over it.

How is having a baby in a womans body comparable to having an intruder in your house. A baby in a womans body would be more comparable to lets say...someone who is helpless and is invited, yes invited no matter what you say it is usually a womans choice to have sex. This person cannot enter unless you open the door for them and drag them in, is it alright to kill someone because they walk through a door you opened and they were forced to come through. I say thats more like kidnapping and murder...(a baby born to rape is a different story and a "possible" exception.) The baby could not choose weather or not they are in the mothers womb. On another point how can someone not be considered to be human becuase they need to be connected to something else to live, are people connected to breathing machines subhuman? are astronauts walking in space outside of humanity becuase a chord connects them to life?

I hearby refuse to join the UN until it is up to the nation to decide if it wants to be pro-life or anti-life.

...it is usually a womans choice to have sex

So it's all right to lay all the responsibility on the woman but it's not all right for her to choose what to do about the pregnancy? Talk about your typical double standard.

I hearby refuse to join the UN until it is up to the nation to decide if it wants to be pro-life or anti-life.

Or as some people call it pro-choice or anti-freedom

And why should it be for the nation to decide? Why not the mother? Surely she has a better idea of what is best for her? Or is the government of your nation now in the business of thinking it knows best for everyone, and thus taking away freedom of choice completely?

And that gets to the crux of the matter; a woman needs to be able to have a choice one way or the other.

And that gets to the crux of the matter; a woman needs to be able to have a choice one way or the other.

Which is what the current resolution gives her, which is why I am in total support of it.

Maybe a woman deserves the right to terminate the life of a parasite... maybe that parasite has a right to live, grow, and be (or become) human. This topic is useless to argue. None are going to be convinced by half-assed debate over cyberspace on this issue. Both sides are fighting with reason based on opposing assumptions. The true forms of both sides are sincerely logical--the only flaw lies in the assumptions--I don't mean presumptions--in their logic.

Admittedly, the number of abortions does seem a bit high either way. But even so, if these fundamentalist Christians are so worried about it, why must they concern themselves with petty tyrants thousands of miles away? By their simple logic, America has killed more children in one year alone than Saddam killed in a lifetime: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

It's rather hypocritical for this issue to be argued with such a lack of passion by the fundamentalist side. It makes one wonder if they really believe what they're preaching.

Which is what the current resolution gives her, which is why I am in total support of it.

Yep, I agree.

As with most wishing to ban abortion or to "compromise" on the issue, you ignore the inalienable human rights of the one undeniably living, sentient entity involved in any pregnancy or abortion -- the mother. A women has a right to control her own body including the right to choose.
Indeed, everyone has a right to control their own body. But an unborn child is not a part of the woman's body, as he has a different genetic code. Thus it is biologically proven that he is not a part of the woman's body.


A women's right to choose is essential to the right of self-ownership, without which there is no freedom. A women's right to choose is also intextricably bound with a host of other fundamental rights including the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, to bodily integrity, to patient-client privilege. There is currently a majority of votes in favor of a resolution protecting the right to self-protection. Why would anyone say one has a right to use force to eject a trespasser from one's home, but one cannot protect one's uterus?
First of all, the foetus is not a trespasser. As was mentioned above, the child is "forced" into the "home". To answer the retort to that post, men have just as great a responsibility for their child (and it is their child just as much as that of the woman - genes again). The fact that our society doesn't behave in this way is no excuse.
Second of all, in most sophisticated countries, killing a person, even if he is trespassing on your property, even if he is actually stealing your property, is strictly forbidden and punishable. If he is endangering your life, then you may, in self-defense, fight back. But only then.


Even if you assume a embryo, zygote, fetus, fertilized egg, or whatever is a life, that does not end the equation. There is still another entity's rights at stake -- one with a superior claim to its own body. Perhaps more importantly, the mother is a moral agent with a superior claim to the state's as to who shall resolve any conflict between her rights and that of the fetus (zygote, etc).
In which case you're saying "take the law into your own hands". That would be the same as saying that the state should not judge a murderer, but should let the deceaseds relatives to decide what to do with him. For the "own body" stuff see my comments above.


As with other fundamental human rights, protecting a women's right to choose trumps vague concerns of "national sovereignty."
I agree in that fundamental human rights such as the right to live should be internationally accepted. The problem is that people have a different view of "fundemental rights". In that case I lean to the "national sovereignety".


If it is not clear, your "compromise" is not acceptable. As I have suggested elsewhere, if you truly want to compromise on this issue, do not seek to deny a woman's fundamental rights. Instead, craft a resolution that uses other measures to make abortion less necessary and more rare.
Ironically, the way to r\make abortions less necessary is by banning it. Because a woman who does not want to become pregnant will think twice about having a sexual relationship. Now I understand that this is placing women in a disadvantage to men. But this is a fault of the society, which places most of the responsibility on the mother, leaving the father out almost completely. This is what must be changed. One way of doing is for instance marriage, as the man has a long-term commitment to both woman and baby.

<sigh> We're back on this issue again, 'eh?
Yeah, <sigh>


As a national leader, I can see where many nations based on religious values have a hard time with it. I think religion and/or morals is a horrible basis for legislation - but I also accept that others don't feel that way.
Actually, most every legislation is on a moral basis. For instance laws concerning human interaction (i.e. theft, homicide; freedom of speach, thought, action (when not conflicting with the rights of other humans); laws protecting animals and plants and so on and on). And without laws, we get anarchy, "the fittest survives" etc.

And we'll gladly cut off all nutrients to a fertilized egg, as you apparently believe it spontaneously becomes a living being separate from the mother....

... nope, it died. Must not be separate.

Although this was already answered, I feel I should add something too.
First of all, the person who you (Vastiva) retorted to did not say or mean to say "separate", but leave alone, as in let it develope without artificial interfernece of any sort. Of course, babies can naturally die in the womb, but then so can any other human being.
Secondly, saying "...cut off all nutrients...nope, it died. Must not be separate." is no argument. Try putting yourself as the subject of that sentence... do you survive? nope, you die. Alright, let's try "any human"... nope, they died. Your statement counts for any living being, so in fact you prove that an unborn baby is a living organism. You also add too the the already impeccable genetically proven argument of the unborn child not being "part of a womans body".

(entire post OOC)

I've a question to ask the pro lifers/anti choice people.

Do any of you have the faintest idea what its like growing up physically and mentally abused by one (or both) parents because you are an unwanted pregnacy?

I'm going to hazard a guess, and say that most, if not all, of you don't.

I do, because I was one.

One poster here advocates forcing couples to marry. Well that used to happen, in the bad old days before abortion was allowed. My father got my mother drunk and seduced her (he admitted this in one of his screaming sessions), the result was me. As this was the mid sixties in Australia, they were forced by their families to marry (no single mothers payments then either). As a result of this, I spent 16 years (until I could legally leave home, and not be dragged back by the police) constantly being told by my father that I ruined his life, and was the only reason he was "trapped" into marriage, of course that was inbetween the bashings, and him verbally abusing my mother for the same thing (he never hit her).

Maybe instead of just looking at what "rights" a fetus has, you should think about whats going to happen to that "child" after its born. It sounds very noble standing up and proclaiming a fetus's "right to life", but its life does'nt end at the birth canal.

I wish very much my mother had had the choice to abort, then she could have married a decent man, and I would'nt have gone through 16 years of utter hell.

if the dam woman gives a fcuk obout her life the she wont jump in2 bed wid any1 and if she does tuff fcuking luck :mp5: :gundge:
Well! Dorksville, you definitely have a solid and well-founded point there. I wish we could all make our arguments so profoundly. Look, you even have irrelevant smileys!

I hearby refuse to join the UN until it is up to the nation to decide if it wants to be pro-life or anti-life.

So what? Why should anyone care if you join or not?

I hearby refuse to join the UN until it is up to the nation to decide if it wants to be pro-life or anti-life.

So what? Why should anyone care if you join or not?

I hearby refuse to join the UN until it is up to the nation to decide if it wants to be pro-life or anti-life.

So what? Why should anyone care if you join or not?

How about posting that one more time for good measure Vastiva. :rolleyes:

Seriously - this constant threat of "I'll leave the UN if x doesn't change" or "I won't join the UN unless z doesn't change" or whatever other variation shows up - who cares? Why should the membership or non-membership of one nation have any impact on the rest?

Heck, if 10% of the UN left - so what? The UN doesn't have any need for these nations to be there, the only result would be the number of delegates necessary to get a proposal into queue would go down by 10%. This is a bad thing?

One poster here advocates forcing couples to marry.
If you are reffering to me, then I did not advocate forced marriages. I merely stated that marriage is a possibility of giving at least part of the responsibility for the child to the father.

Well that used to happen, in the bad old days before abortion was allowed. My father got my mother drunk and seduced her (he admitted this in one of his screaming sessions), the result was me. As this was the mid sixties in Australia, they were forced by their families to marry (no single mothers payments then either). As a result of this, I spent 16 years (until I could legally leave home, and not be dragged back by the police) constantly being told by my father that I ruined his life, and was the only reason he was "trapped" into marriage, of course that was inbetween the bashings, and him verbally abusing my mother for the same thing (he never hit her).
Sad and real. :( But not all marriages, even forced ones, end up this way. Many parents grow to love their child, even if he/she was unwanted. Though of course not all.


Maybe instead of just looking at what "rights" a fetus has, you should think about whats going to happen to that "child" after its born. It sounds very noble standing up and proclaiming a fetus's "right to life", but its life does'nt end at the birth canal.

I wish very much my mother had had the choice to abort, then she could have married a decent man, and I would'nt have gone through 16 years of utter hell.
Your wish is noble and selfless, which is good. But you cannot force noble acts, especially those ending in their own death, on people. Forcing an unborn baby into "letting itself get aborted" is not good, moral or noble. But otherwise I agree, that forced marriage is bad and would not make the world a happier or better place.

If you are reffering to me, then I did not advocate forced marriages. I merely stated that marriage is a possibility of giving at least part of the responsibility for the child to the father.

I apologize for reading that wrong. Its what it sounded like to me, and I saw red. I don't usually post in such a belligerent tone, and I'm sorry I did.


Sad and real. :( But not all marriages, even forced ones, end up this way. Many parents grow to love their child, even if he/she was unwanted. Though of course not all.

True, and I did'nt mean to imply that all forced marriages end up like that, but surely the fact some do, and the children born into these marriages suffer a childhood of torment as a result, must mean there is a place for abortion, no matter what a persons personal feelings are about it. Choice is just that. A woman can choose to have the child, and no-one will force her to have an abortion, but the anti abortion lobby want to force women to have a child they don't want, and never wanted. In a lot of cases, the "fathers" want the child even less than the mothers do.

Your wish is noble and selfless, which is good. But you cannot force noble acts, especially those ending in their own death, on people. Forcing an unborn baby into "letting itself get aborted" is not good, moral or noble. But otherwise I agree, that forced marriage is bad and would not make the world a happier or better place.

The only thing I wish is that more anti-abortion people gave a thought to what will happen to all the unwanted kids women will be forced to have, if abortion is banned. From what I've seen, a lot of them (but by no means all), are very rabid about a fetus's "right to life", but don't give a damm what happens to that baby after its born. If its abused, starved, neglected, lives a life of hell, they don't care as long as it "lives". Being an unwanted kid myself, I do know what thats like, and believe me its not fun.

I apologize for reading that wrong. Its what it sounded like to me, and I saw red. I don't usually post in such a belligerent tone, and I'm sorry I did.

True, and I did'nt mean to imply that all forced marriages end up like that, but surely the fact some do, and the children born into these marriages suffer a childhood of torment as a result, must mean there is a place for abortion, no matter what a persons personal feelings are about it. Choice is just that. A woman can choose to have the child, and no-one will force her to have an abortion, but the anti abortion lobby want to force women to have a child they don't want, and never wanted. In a lot of cases, the "fathers" want the child even less than the mothers do.

The only thing I wish is that more anti-abortion people gave a thought to what will happen to all the unwanted kids women will be forced to have, if abortion is banned. From what I've seen, a lot of them (but by no means all), are very rabid about a fetus's "right to life", but don't give a damm what happens to that baby after its born. If its abused, starved, neglected, lives a life of hell, they don't care as long as it "lives". Being an unwanted kid myself, I do know what thats like, and believe me its not fun.
I believe you. That's the problem with real life issues. They are never simple - by banning abortion you suddenly have tens of thousands of children on your hands. A possible solution to this could be adoption. There are quite a sizeable amount of couples in the world, who would want to have children, but cannot. However for that to work effectively, laws would have to be made to make adoption easier. But then one would have to watch out for possible child abuse and slavery. And the problem with that is that it is hard to distinguish abuse from discipline. And the logic goes on and on...

I in my turn am glad there are some pro-choice people out there who can and do act like reasonable people. There is a saying "Politeness gets you everywhere." In debates, this is more than true.
I know that whatever argument I would use in this forum, no matter how good and undeniable, would not persuade any pro-abortionists to rethink their opinion. And the same counts for pro-life activists. The problem is that neither side wants to see any reasons for proving them wrong. Now if the person has actually studied the subject, has read articles, books and so on; i.e. has an "educated opinion", then that person will be more likely to listen to the other side, more likely to laugh or cry at the crazy "reasoning" of some, even his own, will himself put forth logical and constructive criticism and will usually be politer and more ready to recognize anothers point of view. Of course, this is just my own personal theory, based on what experience I have of such discussions.
I myself believe that there are logical, scientific, moral, common sense, religious and even practical reasons against abortion.

Yeah, <sigh>
Actually, most every legislation is on a moral basis. For instance laws concerning human interaction (i.e. theft, homicide; freedom of speach, thought, action (when not conflicting with the rights of other humans); laws protecting animals and plants and so on and on). And without laws, we get anarchy, "the fittest survives" etc.

Perhaps, but clearly my post was talking about moral in a religious sense, which has to be the most utterly insipid basis for legislation that I can think of.

I myself believe that there are logical, scientific, moral, common sense, religious and even practical reasons against abortion.

This may be your experience through participation in discussions. What is your experience having children? There is a world of difference in those two situations.