NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Argument:

Convinced that every human being has the indisputable right to live and that no other human being shall stripe another of their right to live.

Noting with regret how the legalization of Abortion as proposed by Resolution #61 has violated the rights of those unborn human beings to live.

Also noting the inmeasurable suffering, pain, and deaths of those unborn infants.

Keeping in mind that those unborn infants are in fact very alive and therefore must be protected.

Believing the processes by which Abortion is carried out are inhumane and relieve us as human beings of our dignity.

For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations and encourages a proposal to further address this issue.

So... what do you think? Suggestions, critism, pointing out spelling errors, etc. all welcomed.

Under Crydonian law, a fetus is'nt a human being until after its head is out of the birth canal (or stomach in the case of a ceserian). Until then, in our nation, it has no rights. For that reason, and our very firm belief in a woman's right to control her own fertility without government interference, we are very strongly opposed to this repeal.

One thing though, even if the above was'nt true, and we did have sympathy for the repeal, you have'nt given any leeway to rape or incest victims, severe deformities in the child, or cases where continuing the pregnacy would endanger the mothers life.

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Convinced that every human being has the indisputable right to live and that no other human being shall stripe another of their right to live.
We support abortion in the earlier stages before there is any "being" to strip of the right to live. What about that?
Noting with regret how the legalization of Abortion as proposed by Resolution #61 has violated the rights of those unborn human beings to live.
They only have rights once they are actually conscious.
Also noting the inmeasurable suffering, pain, and deaths of those unborn infants.
Can't suffer if they can't think.
Keeping in mind that those unborn infants are in fact very alive and therefore must be protected.
Define "alive".
Believing the processes by which Abortion is carried out are inhumane and relieve us as human beings of our dignity.
You can believe that, but many disagree greatly.
For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations and encourages a proposal to further address this issue.
I don't really like it, myself.

One thing though, even if the above was'nt true, and we did have sympathy for the repeal, you have'nt given any leeway to rape or incest victims, severe deformities in the child, or cases where continuing the pregnacy would endanger the mothers life.

It is not my position to give leeway to rape or incest victims because this is not a resolution it is a repeal. Although if I was to pass such a resolution I would say that those infants conceived from rape or incest that were deemed unwanted would be adopted. Also on the issue of endangerment of the mother's life abortion would be legal if there is a significant chance that the mother and/or the infant would die from conception. This would be determined by a docotor or other specialist and it would be the right of the women to chose. A deformed child should still be allowed the right to live and therefore would also be adopted as with the children conceived through rape and incest.

Actually, now that I think of it, this doesn't actually illegalize abortions, as it'sonly a repeal.

I am now a bit more neutral on this proposal, now that I've considered it.

We support abortion in the earlier stages before there is any "being" to strip of the right to live. What about that?

They only have rights once they are actually conscious.

Can't suffer if they can't think.

Define "alive".


The child is still alive for many reasons. It is made up of cells which are the basic structure of living in function within a living creature. It has a heart beat and brain waves. Even if you further believe it is not alive because it will be alive in the later stages (2nd and 3rd trimestors (forgive my mispellings)) therefore because it will become life it therefore in essence is life and we must protect it. They can suffer because they have brain waves (thus are thinking) & it's been proven that they suffer immensely from the processes by which abortion is carried out. The scientific reason for this is the extreme low pain tolerance of which the baby has so the procedure is VERY painful. Well since it has a heartbeat, brain waves, and cells I believe it is alive. And as I pointed out earlier even if you still don't believe this it will become life.

Actually, now that I think of it, this doesn't actually illegalize abortions, as it'sonly a repeal.

I am now a bit more neutral on this proposal, now that I've considered it.

Correct. Thank you for considering this.

It is not my position to give leeway to rape or incest victims because this is not a resolution it is a repeal. Although if I was to pass such a resolution I would say that those infants conceived from rape or incest that were deemed unwanted would be adopted. Also on the issue of endangerment of the mother's life abortion would be legal if there is a significant chance that the mother and/or the infant would die from conception. This would be determined by a docotor or other specialist and it would be the right of the women to chose. A deformed child should still be allowed the right to live and therefore would also be adopted as with the children conceived through rape and incest.

Yes, your quite right, this is only a repeal and I got carried away, sorry :).

But still, as Crydonia supports the resolution thats in place now, and is the subject of your repeal attempt, we can't and won't support the repeal in any way.

Alive- The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Just got that from an online dictionary. Still also believe it is alive because as I mentioned brain waves, heartbeat, & cells. I'm very certain of all this things and could look them up if you want me too. Also I had an article on how infants aborted in the first trimestor (spelling... sorry) do feel pain. I could go look that up as well if you like. (how do you quote people)

One thing though, even if the above was'nt true, and we did have sympathy for the repeal, you have'nt given any leeway to rape or incest victims, severe deformities in the child, or cases where continuing the pregnacy would endanger the mothers life.
I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been addressed by anyone else, but under NationStates rules, he can't give leeway to rape or incest victims. A repeal proposal may ONLY repeal a resolution, it may not simultaneously introduce new legislation.

If you want to limit abortion rights to cases of rape or incest, then you must repeal the entire Abortion Rights resolution and replace it completely. There are no line-item repeals.

Ah, so this point was already addressed. Good.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I believe the main issue on this is are the unborn infants actually alive in the first trimestor. Well thats for you to decide. I personally believe yes.
Facts: Unborn babies within the first trimestor have brain waves, a heartbeat, cells, and experience pain when aborted.
For those reasons I believe the babies are alive and therefore have the right to live. Now it is not my position to say that all forms of abortion should be illegalized which I do not believe all forms should. I'm simplying passing this bill so we can make a better decision on this issue considering these things. Please help me pass this repeal. Whether by making suggestions, pointing out flaws, spelling errors, telling others about it, voting for it once I make it a proposal, etc.

A couple thoughts ...

It is not my position to give leeway to rape or incest victims because this is not a resolution it is a repeal. Although if I was to pass such a resolution I would say that those infants conceived from rape or incest that were deemed unwanted would be adopted.
Raising the child isn't the only issue here. Carrying a baby for 9 months, dealing with morning sickness, odd cravings, having to use the bathroom *all the damn time*, going through a very painful labor, etc. are all other issues that need to be considered. Not all women have abortions because they don't want the baby. Yes, that is a reason for some, most certainly, but many women realize that adoption is an option. However, they feel that a pregnancy is not something that they want to deal with at this point in their life.

Typical responses to that are that they should have thought of that before they had sex. It's a valid argument, but when it comes to rape victims, it's not really relevant. It's difficult to deal with an unplanned pregnancy when you knew what you were getting into by choosing to have sex. I can't imagine wanting to deal with all that stuff if the sex (and therefore child) were forced on me against my will.

Along that same line, I know you don't make arguments for/against specific cases for abortion in such a repeal, but perhaps adding in a line about how Plan B is available as an abortion alternative would make your case a little stronger. And if you're going to try to tell me that Plan B *is* abortion, I will point you to a few very nice OOC articles that should disavow you of that notion. (I know that referencing such articles is not valid within UN proposals, but that doesn't change the facts)

I wouldn't mind having this resolution repealed, if only so that individual member nations can make that decision for themselves. However, I prefer to have abortion legalized, than to have it outlawed completely.

Depending on wording and how well it's written, I could be persuaded to support it eventually. At the moment no, but you never know ...

Depending on wording and how well it's written, I could be persuaded to support it eventually. At the moment no, but you never know ...
Yeah, I'm beginning to reconsider a bit. With a bit of a touch-up, I might be persuaded as well, but I'm not quite sure what it needs...
I'm really not much help with writing proposals. Sorry...
:(

A couple thoughts ...


Raising the child isn't the only issue here. Carrying a baby for 9 months, dealing with morning sickness, odd cravings, having to use the bathroom *all the damn time*, going through a very painful labor, etc. are all other issues that need to be considered. Not all women have abortions because they don't want the baby. Yes, that is a reason for some, most certainly, but many women realize that adoption is an option. However, they feel that a pregnancy is not something that they want to deal with at this point in their life.

Typical responses to that are that they should have thought of that before they had sex. It's a valid argument, but when it comes to rape victims, it's not really relevant. It's difficult to deal with an unplanned pregnancy when you knew what you were getting into by choosing to have sex. I can't imagine wanting to deal with all that stuff if the sex (and therefore child) were forced on me against my will.

Along that same line, I know you don't make arguments for/against specific cases for abortion in such a repeal, but perhaps adding in a line about how Plan B is available as an abortion alternative would make your case a little stronger. And if you're going to try to tell me that Plan B *is* abortion, I will point you to a few very nice OOC articles that should disavow you of that notion. (I know that referencing such articles is not valid within UN proposals, but that doesn't change the facts)

I wouldn't mind having this resolution repealed, if only so that individual member nations can make that decision for themselves. However, I prefer to have abortion legalized, than to have it outlawed completely.

Depending on wording and how well it's written, I could be persuaded to support it eventually. At the moment no, but you never know ...

I understand the issues that come with pregancy but still support the adoption choice as a better alternative to killing the child. Thank you for the input on that Plan B thing I will include that. I would like to leave the abortion issue (as it is a highly controversial subject) up to the member nations. I myself don't believe in abortion, but hey if you want to legalize it thats fine, just don't force me too. How would you suggest wording it better for better persuasion? I can't really repeal it without supporting anti-abortion status', at least I haven't seen how yet.

How's this version compared to the other one?

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Argument:

Convinced that every human being has the indisputable right to live and that no other human being shall stripe another of their right to live.

Noting with regret how the legalization of Abortion as proposed by Resolution #61 has violated the rights of those unborn human beings to live.

Also noting the inmeasurable suffering, pain, and deaths of those unborn infants.

Keeping in mind that those unborn infants are in fact very alive (for reasons of having a heartbeat, brain waves, cells, and experience pain) and therefore must be protected.

Believing the processes by which Abortion is carried out are inhumane and relieve us as human beings of our dignity.

Observing that mother’s can put unwanted children up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Deeply disturbed that with Resolution #61 in effect those nations, which wish to have abortion illegalized, are not considered and are only given the option to have legalized abortion.

For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations.

Definitions:

Alive- The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

better, but I wouldn't support it (If I win the regional election) unless there was a new resolution ready which legalized abortions BEFORE the aggregate of cells that we call a blastocyst (just after zygote, a little before fetus, from around weeks .5-2) develops a brain with which to feel pain and suffering, and that gives leeway to rape victims and mothers who can't go through with the birth without serious injury to themselves or the child. I'll write it if you'd like.

Oh, Great. Another one. Just what we needed to finish out the week.


Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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


Boilerplate.



Argument:

Convinced that every human being has the indisputable right to live and that no other human being shall stripe another of their right to live.

You might be convinced of an "indisputable right to live", we are not. We like our death penalty. We also appreciate war. We see no evidence anywhere of a "right to life". Ergo, this is felgercarb.



Noting with regret how the legalization of Abortion as proposed by Resolution #61 has violated the rights of those unborn human beings to live.

Parasites have no rights.



Also noting the inmeasurable suffering, pain, and deaths of those unborn infants.

You would have to prove all these. Otherwise, we claim you're just making up emotional crap.



Keeping in mind that those unborn infants are in fact very alive and therefore must be protected.

Supposition, move to strike.



Believing the processes by which Abortion is carried out are inhumane and relieve us as human beings of our dignity.

Wow, are you full of it. Haven't done any research, have you?



For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations and encourages a proposal to further address this issue.

So... what do you think? Suggestions, critism, pointing out spelling errors, etc. all welcomed.

We think you should give it up while you're behind.

Oooh, a double.

How's this version compared to the other one?

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Argument:


Boilerplate.



Convinced that every human being has the indisputable right to live and that no other human being shall stripe another of their right to live.

Still bullshit.



Noting with regret how the legalization of Abortion as proposed by Resolution #61 has violated the rights of those unborn human beings to live.

No such right exists. Lie.



Also noting the inmeasurable suffering, pain, and deaths of those unborn infants.

No proof. More bull.



Keeping in mind that those unborn infants are in fact very alive (for reasons of having a heartbeat, brain waves, cells, and experience pain) and therefore must be protected.

Show me a zygote with a heartbeat. You can't. More lies.



Believing the processes by which Abortion is carried out are inhumane and relieve us as human beings of our dignity.

It was bull before, it's bull now.



Observing that mother’s can put unwanted children up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

:rolleyes:



Deeply disturbed that with Resolution #61 in effect those nations, which wish to have abortion illegalized, are not considered and are only given the option to have legalized abortion.

We're not disturbed in the least.



For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations.

With no good reasons presented, we say you have an empty case, suitable only as fertilizer.



Definitions:

Alive- The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

So, virus, dead or alive? If alive, Should we protect viruses? If dead, explain in detail how it does what it does.

Quit while you're behind.

viruses: dead. no metabolism, can't reproduce on its own (mitosis), etc. Viruses fail nearly every test of life imaginable. Very few people would argue that point. Viruses do what they do by attaching to receptor points on cells. said receptor points are for hormones, other cells, etc. The protein capsid then contracts (since it's bound to the cell membrane) and injects the nucleic acid into the cell, where it becomes part of the DNA that goes through mitosis... and if you know basic biology you should know virus cycles (lytic and lysogenic). If not, go look it up, because it's 1 AM where I'm at and I'm TIRED.

If this resolution is submitted and gains any traction, I call on other nations (particularly those with more experience in taking such action) to join me in convincing delegates not to approve it.

I don't see the need to engage in yet another debate over personhood and when life begins.

The key issue is this: As with most wishing to ban abortion, 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.

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).

Krioval is opposed to this repeal for several reasons. First, and most self-serving, is that Krioval endeavors to make UN resolutions reflect the will of our nation. This resolution would go against that. Strike one.

Second, and less self-serving though still very much so, is that Krioval defines the beginning of life meriting citizenship and rights as the rise of sentience. And even then, there are exceptions to safeguarding each of those lives - a traitor was recently (after a full and fair trial) executed in a religious rite in which telekinesis was used to drain the life from his body. Krioval is no stranger to war, either. So abortion really doesn't register on our list of things to worry about. Some will and some won't, and while we'd prefer that no abortions take place due to everybody's perfect planning and absolute safeguards against unwanted pregnancy, things happen.

Third, I see no reason to make them illegal even in places where abortion is looked down upon. Discourage them if you'd like. But the second the resolution is lifted by repeal, Krioval is well aware that bans will crop up in various UN members within the hour, if they're not passed beforehand and timed to coincide with the repeal. Krioval is for civil rights, including a woman's right to protect her body from others' uses, either biological or political. This would be the non-self-serving point Krioval wishes to make.

Lord Jevo Telovar
Ambassador from Krioval
Regional Delegate of Chaotica

better, but I wouldn't support it (If I win the regional election) unless there was a new resolution ready which legalized abortions BEFORE the aggregate of cells that we call a blastocyst (just after zygote, a little before fetus, from around weeks .5-2) develops a brain with which to feel pain and suffering, and that gives leeway to rape victims and mothers who can't go through with the birth without serious injury to themselves or the child. I'll write it if you'd like.

That is NOT my position to put a resolution into place. I feel that it should be up to the Nation to decide whether to legalize abortion or not (therefore I do not support a new resolution on this). I would not pass a resolution on this if it was up to me. But if you want to make a new resolution on it I'm not going to stop you.

You might be convinced of an "indisputable right to live", we are not. We like our death penalty. We also appreciate war. We see no evidence anywhere of a "right to life". Ergo, this is felgercarb.

Does your country allow murder then (that is the right to live)? If so I would like to go to your country kill every single person within it and laugh at you for your sillyness. At the point where the embryo is alive or will soon become life it has the right to live, unless you believe murder should be legal.

Parasites have no rights.

Do born infants have no rights then since they rely heavily on their parents for food, water, shelter, etc. and therefore could be considered parisites. Also last time I checked a parasite is a living organism.

You would have to prove all these. Otherwise, we claim you're just making up emotional crap.

Alright I could get the sources on those.

Wow, are you full of it. Haven't done any research, have you?

Actually I have.

We think you should give it up while you're behind.

Oh well. I'm still going to keep trying, if hopelessly than so be it.

A lot of people have been making a lot of good points *against* banning abortion - and I completely agree with most of them. However, a repeal will not ban abortion, but will rather only allow for each member nation to make their own choice on the subject, rather than having the subject forced upon them.

You might want to include something about how each nation should have the right to choose what is best for their people? I have to run off to work, but I might give it another look later ...

Because I like playing devil's advocate ...

At the point where the embryo is alive or will soon become life it has the right to live, unless you believe murder should be legal.
If the fetus could survive outside the body, I think you'd have a point. However, when it's only a small collection of cells, the right to live is more negotiable and often has a religious base. Do you prosecute mothers who have miscarriages for child neglect? (I know that not all miscarriages are caused by the mother, but it's a valid question all the same ... A "person" died unwillfully, likely, so who will be held accountable?)

Also last time I checked a parasite is a living organism.
So now parasites have a right to life? This isn't sounding good. When I can't kill the ringworm growing in my dog's stomach ... that's just too much!

I'm leaving for work now - seriously. I mean it.

http://www.ucmpage.org/sword/m_sword08282000.html

Shows how the unborn infants do feel pain even as soon as 13 weeks into the pregnancy.

http://www.calvarychapel.com/riorancho/Library/1Cor_21st/1co3v18.htm

This is a long article so just use Ctrl F and search for embryo. Read that paragraph on abortion and it will explain.

http://home.columbus.rr.com/cgrady/Landing-Rump/v0000006.htm

Read 1st paragraph.

There are just a couple of articles on how the embryo's are alive because they feel pain, respond to stimuli, have a set of DNA, blood circulation, a notable cringe upon the proccesses that are used to the kill the embryo, etc. Also I had an article on how the embryoes experience VERY severe pain because they have such a low pain tolerance. As for brain waves, a heartbeat, and cells I'll look have that in couple more minutes.

Because I like playing devil's advocate ...

If the fetus could survive outside the body, I think you'd have a point. However, when it's only a small collection of cells, the right to live is more negotiable and often has a religious base. Do you prosecute mothers who have miscarriages for child neglect? (I know that not all miscarriages are caused by the mother, but it's a valid question all the same ... A "person" died unwillfully, likely, so who will be held accountable?)

Parasites cannot survie without a host yet they are considered living organisms. Considering I believe it would be very difficult to determine if the embryo was killed through child neglect I would say no I would not prosecute those mothers.



So now parasites have a right to life? This isn't sounding good. When I can't kill the ringworm growing in my dog's stomach ... that's just too much!

I'm leaving for work now - seriously. I mean it.

Well considering those parasites aren't human beings, no. This was just pointing out how if human embryoes are in fact 'parasites' then they would be considered alive because parasites are considered living organisms.

A lot of people have been making a lot of good points *against* banning abortion - and I completely agree with most of them. However, a repeal will not ban abortion, but will rather only allow for each member nation to make their own choice on the subject, rather than having the subject forced upon them.

You might want to include something about how each nation should have the right to choose what is best for their people? I have to run off to work, but I might give it another look later ...

Oh yes thank you. Sorry, I'm getting to carried away on this I should focus on why it should be the right of the member nations to choose not about the for/against abortion arguments.

A lot of people have been making a lot of good points *against* banning abortion - and I completely agree with most of them. However, a repeal will not ban abortion, but will rather only allow for each member nation to make their own choice on the subject, rather than having the subject forced upon them.

You might want to include something about how each nation should have the right to choose what is best for their people? I have to run off to work, but I might give it another look later ...

This will not make abortion illegal, but given the statements by the person who is proposing this repeal, that is clearly his intention. He is talking about banning abortions except when there is a significant chance the mother will die from the procedure. This would mean any woman who is raped would have to bear the child of the rapist. Any child who is impregnated by her father would have to carry that child to term. If this is what the proposer intends to happen, then I say keep the resolution and prevent him from ever having a chance to draft a proposal, let alone risk it becoming a resolution.

The resolution, as it stands, puts the choice in the hands of the people. Not the government, and not the UN. As long as this resolution stands it will be the hands of the woman who is pregnant. Which is the way it should be.

And if the government really wants what is best for it's people, it will let them keep control of their own body for the whole of their life.

Oh yes thank you. Sorry, I'm getting to carried away on this I should focus on why it should be the right of the member nations to choose not about the for/against abortion arguments.

Would it not be better to let the pregnant women in the member nations make the decision about what is best for them? That's how it is now.

viruses: dead. no metabolism, can't reproduce on its own (mitosis), etc. Viruses fail nearly every test of life imaginable. Very few people would argue that point. Viruses do what they do by attaching to receptor points on cells. said receptor points are for hormones, other cells, etc. The protein capsid then contracts (since it's bound to the cell membrane) and injects the nucleic acid into the cell, where it becomes part of the DNA that goes through mitosis... and if you know basic biology you should know virus cycles (lytic and lysogenic). If not, go look it up, because it's 1 AM where I'm at and I'm TIRED.

Are you saying a human embryo is a virus?

Are you saying a human embryo is a virus?

I contains all the properties of one :}

If this resolution is submitted and gains any traction, I call on other nations (particularly those with more experience in taking such action) to join me in convincing delegates not to approve it.

I don't see the need to engage in yet another debate over personhood and when life begins.

The key issue is this: As with most wishing to ban abortion, 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.

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).

Not illegalizing abortion here. I need to rewrite this repeal as one that is more up to the nations to decide. Human beings have the right to choose but not when that choice violates another's rights (the right of the embryo to live). This is more commonly called murder or homicide. I would also like to point out that it was ruled by the supreme court that if a pregnant mother was killed it was considered a double homicide (one count for the mother and one for the embryo). Edit: The Peterson case.

I contains all the properties of one :}

Which are? It also contains those properties of a parasite, a living organism, etc.

Which are? It also contains those properties of a parasite, a living organism, etc.

A virus, a parasite, a living being, a tree, a computer program - these all contain the same properties of life (from a certain point of view). So why should a fetus get more protection than a tree does?

Not illegalizing abortion here. I need to rewrite this repeal as one that is more up to the nations to decide. Human beings have the right to choose but not when that choice violates another's rights (the right of the embryo to live). This is more commonly called murder or homicide. I would also like to point out that it was ruled by the supreme court that if a pregnant mother was killed it was considered a double homicide (one count for the mother and one for the embryo). Edit: The Peterson case.

That case was the most god-awful piece of legislation in the history of mankind.

A virus, a parasite, a living being, a tree, a computer program - these all contain the same properties of life (from a certain point of view). So why should a fetus get more protection than a tree does?

Because it is a human being...

We think you should give it up while you're behind.
Quit while you're behind.
Does your country allow murder then (that is the right to live)? If so I would like to go to your country kill every single person within it....
I don't know if these comments were meant as In-Character roleplay or as Out-Of-Character comments. If they're meant as Out-Of-Character comments, then I remind the both of you to keep this civil.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

I don't know if these comments were meant as In-Character roleplay or as Out-Of-Character comments. If they're meant as Out-Of-Character comments, then I remind the both of you to keep this civil.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Please everyone forgive me for my comments that were uncivil. I believe I have a new start and a I better approach on this issue.

Edit: Futher updated the proposal.

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Argument:

Noting the reasons for which Nations’ would be opposed to Legalizing Abortion to be widespread and justified.

Also noting the reasons for which Nations’ would be in favor of Legalizing Abortion to be wipespread and justified.

Observing that mother’s can put unwanted children up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Convinced the debate on Abortion to be a never-ending battle.

Believing that under Resolution #61 Nations’ rights to choose on this issue is violated, their laws are violated, and their morals disregarded.

Noting with regret that with the wording proposed by Resolution #61 those nations which believe Abortion to be murder, immoral, wrong by law, etc. under their Nations’ standards are not considered.

For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations and for those Nations’ to decide the standards for Abortion.

The key issue is this: As with most wishing to ban abortion, 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.

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).

I realize the unalienable right of the mother to choose to abort her child or not. I also realize the unalienable rights of the embryo to life. Therefore seeing as both the actions of legalizing Abortion and illegalizing Abortion are justified. I call for the member states to hereby decide on this issue and not the United Nations.

Because it is a human being...

Why? At the exact moment of conception it is a single cell. Why is that any more worty of protection than an a cold germ?

Until it is born it is nothing more than a collection of cells with certain characteristics, like a tree, a plant, a virus, a germ.

Why? At the exact moment of conception it is a single cell. Why is that any more worty of protection than an a cold germ?

Until it is born it is nothing more than a collection of cells with certain characteristics, like a tree, a plant, a virus, a germ.

Why then should I or you be protected? We also are then nothing more than a collection of cells with certain characteristics. A human embryo within 14 weeks of conception has the same characteristics of me or you. Even after it is born it still is nothing more than a collection of cells with certain characteristics. So why is it any more worthy of protection than a cold germ? My answer stands again, because it is a human being.

Why then should I or you be protected? We also are then nothing more than a collection of cells with certain characteristics. A human embryo within 14 weeks of conception has the same characteristics of me or you. Even after it is born it still is nothing more than a collection of cells with certain characteristics. So why is it any more worthy of protection than a cold germ? My answer stands again, because it is a human being.

Good question.

I will vote FOR this proposal - it lets the nations decide what they want to do on abortion. That way everybody can be happy.

I will vote FOR this proposal - it lets the nations decide what they want to do on abortion. That way everybody can be happy.

Except the woman who is raped in a back alley and is then told she must have the child.

Except the thirteen year old girl who is impregnated by her father and then told she must have the child.

Except the woman who has a genetic condition she can pass on to her children,and who uses a condom whenever she has sex with her husband, but then she finds out she is pregnant and realises she is going to doom her children to a life of pain and suffering because she can't have an abortion.

But I don't suppose they really count, as clearly they deserve everything they get what with getting pregnant and all.

God creates human life! At the moment of conception there is a beating heart. Since this is in a human female it deems that this is the beating heart of a human being. It is not the fetus of a mouse, pig, horse, or any other animal or mammal. It is Human. God gave women the unbelievable gift of His Godliness, the womb. Only a women can create a human life, henceforth, that life is precious. It is human.... The only way a women can create life is by sexual activity with a male of the same species. The couple should be married in the church of their religion. Then the male and female, in love with each other, create a human being. Love is not sex. Love is respect, dignity, honor. Sex is sex. Animals have sex. Animals do not love each other. Animals will often kill their offspring. If a women is in danger of death, or the fetus is going to be stillborn, then the parents should consult their religious director and be able to get the abortion at a hospital. In cases of rape or incest the female can give up the child for adoption. Remember, the baby, no matter how it was conceived, will be beautiful. Definitely, repeal the abortion rights.

God creates human life! At the moment of conception there is a beating heart.

No. There really isn't. A sperm doesn't have a heart, and neither does an egg. And when they meet, a heart doesn't just miraculously appear. Like everything else about a foetus, it has to develop. And the God argument is irrelevant since many nations do not believe in a God. Some may believe that God didn't create human life, and who then are you to say they are wrong?

[/QUOTE] The couple should be married in the church of their religion. [/quote]
Why? And what if they don't have a religion? Are you trying to force it on people?

Then the male and female, in love with each other, create a human being.

Even you must accept that this is not always the case.

If a women is in danger of death, or the fetus is going to be stillborn, then the parents should consult their religious director and be able to get the abortion at a hospital.

And why must they consult "their" religious director, especially if they are not religious. Isn't a doctor's opinion enough? Or their own for that matter?

Your whole argument is sickening- forcing your particular religious eccentricities on everyone else, most of whom will be of different religious persuasions than yourself.

Except the woman who is raped in a back alley and is then told she must have the child.

Except the thirteen year old girl who is impregnated by her father and then told she must have the child.

Except the woman who has a genetic condition she can pass on to her children,and who uses a condom whenever she has sex with her husband, but then she finds out she is pregnant and realises she is going to doom her children to a life of pain and suffering because she can't have an abortion.

But I don't suppose they really count, as clearly they deserve everything they get what with getting pregnant and all.

THIS IS NOT ILLEGALIZING ABORTION FOR THE I THINK 6TH TIME NOW! This is leaving it up to the United Nations Member States to decide on the issue. You also fail to take into consideration those Millions of human embryos that are inhumanely killed.

I will vote FOR this proposal - it lets the nations decide what they want to do on abortion. That way everybody can be happy.

Thank you. Although I haven't sent this in as a proposal yet because about 90% of the people oppose it... :(

Edit: Futher updated the proposal.

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Argument:

Noting the reasons for which Nations’ would be opposed to Legalizing Abortion to be widespread and justified.

Also noting the reasons for which Nations’ would be in favor of Legalizing Abortion to be wipespread and justified.

Observing that mother’s can put unwanted children up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Convinced the debate on Abortion to be a never-ending battle.

Believing that under Resolution #61 Nations’ rights to choose on this issue is violated, their laws are violated, and their morals disregarded.

Noting with regret that with the wording proposed by Resolution #61 those nations which believe Abortion to be murder, immoral, wrong by law, etc. under their Nations’ standards are not considered.

For all these reasons the nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations and for those Nations’ to decide the standards for Abortion.
i have a problem with two of the clauses in this. First, its seems redundant to say that the debate on abortion is a never-ending battle after also saying that both sides in the debate are justified. I think that either the aforementioned clause should be removed, or the two clauses stating that both sides are justified should be removed, because they really serve the same purpose.

Also, and this is my main problem with this proposal, I take issue with the clause stating that mothers can put unwanted children up for adoption. This clause will do nothing but cause unneeded controversy. This is a repeal, and thus, does nothing other than repeal an act. It takes no steps to defend or outlaw abortion, and thus, i feel that this clause should be removed because it presents an alternative to abortion. It will paint this proposal as anti-abortion, possibly causing nations to see it as a first step to a UN ban on abortion, rather than seeing it for what it really is: a simple repeal, allowing greater freedom for individual nations on a controversial issue.

The Holy Empire of Crispy Fried Chicken's position on this proposal is as follows: with the 'adoption' clause, we are vehemently opposed to it. If that clause is removed, we would vote in favor of it.

i have a problem with two of the clauses in this. First, its seems redundant to say that the debate on abortion is a never-ending battle after also saying that both sides in the debate are justified. I think that either the aforementioned clause should be removed, or the two clauses stating that both sides are justified should be removed, because they really serve the same purpose.

Also, and this is my main problem with this proposal, I take issue with the clause stating that mothers can put unwanted children up for adoption. This clause will do nothing but cause unneeded controversy. This is a repeal, and thus, does nothing other than repeal an act. It takes no steps to defend or outlaw abortion, and thus, i feel that this clause should be removed because it presents an alternative to abortion. It will paint this proposal as anti-abortion, possibly causing nations to see it as a first step to a UN ban on abortion, rather than seeing it for what it really is: a simple repeal, allowing greater freedom for individual nations on a controversial issue.

The Holy Empire of Crispy Fried Chicken's position on this proposal is as follows: with the 'adoption' clause, we are vehemently opposed to it. If that clause is removed, we would vote in favor of it.

Ah I see. I agree and it shall be changed. Thank you very much for your help & imput. Here's the update:

Repeal “Abortion Rights”
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal Resolution: #61 Proposed by: Vistadin

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

Argument:

Noting the reasons for which Nations’ would be opposed to Legalizing Abortion to be widespread and justified.

Also noting the reasons for which Nations’ would be in favor of Legalizing Abortion to be wipespread and justified.

Believing that under Resolution #61 Nations’ rights to choose on this issue is violated, their laws are violated, and their morals disregarded.

Noting with regret that with the wording proposed by Resolution #61 those nations which believe Abortion to be murder, immoral, wrong by law, etc. under their Nations’ standards are not considered.

For all these reasons the Nation of Kosco calls for Resolution #61 to be repealed by the United Nations and for those Nations’ to decide the standards for Abortion.

The Nation of Kosco further discourages further resolutions referring to the ban or legalization of Abortion.

THIS IS NOT ILLEGALIZING ABORTION FOR THE I THINK 6TH TIME NOW! This is leaving it up to the United Nations Member States to decide on the issue. You also fail to take into consideration those Millions of human embryos that are inhumanely killed.

Leaving it up to the UN Member states to decide to legalise it, thus leaving the women that TilEnca described in terrible circumstances. We believe that that shouldn't happen. In any state. Just like genocide shouldn't. Just like racism shouldn't. Just like any human rights abuses shouldn't.

And we do take the human embryos into account. We just grant human embryos ('human not-yet-beings') less right rights than human beings.

well done, Kosco. I think you'll find that the amount of support for this proposed repeal will be much higher than it was with the original draft.

and hopefully this version of it will eliminate most of the arguments about abortion, seeing as how this proposal really has nothing to do with that debate.

God

Who?

The couple should be married in the church of their religion. Then the male and female, in love with each other, create a human being.


And all the married couples who beat their children, who abuse their children, who rape their children - they also do this in the name of your god?


Love is not sex. Love is respect, dignity, honor.


Love is abusive, love is power, love is manipulation and love is degredation. Love is sometimes not a choice. Love is not sex, but love is not perfect either. Love can be a sickening thing that makes you want to vomit.


Sex is sex.


Sex can be wonderful, the ultimate expression of love. Sex can be a quick burst of pleasure for two people. Sex can be an experiment that is worthwhile.


Animals have sex. Animals do not love each other.


That has not been proven yet. Some animals mate for life. If that is not love, what is?


If a women is in danger of death, or the fetus is going to be stillborn, then the parents should consult their religious director and be able to get the abortion at a hospital.


So you put the life of one "being" above another? You feel comfortable doing that? Making that sort of judgement?

And if you feel comfortable, why can the mother not feel comfortable? Put her life and future above the the life and future of the two cells inside her.


In cases of rape or incest the female can give up the child for adoption.


You are twelve years old. Your father has been raping you since you were six. You find out you are pregnant. You don't want to tell your mother because it will destroy the family, and you still love your father, even though he needs help. So you plan to get an abortion without telling anyone in the family.
But wait!! Your government just made it illegal, so you have to have the kid, tear your family apart, get your father put in jail and your mother blaming you for having sex with your father.

Clearly that is the best way to go with incest related rapes.

Meanwhile ten years later you are raped in an alley. The rapist goes to jail, and you have to have the child. Ten years later, the father finds the kid - now living with the adopted parents - and demands to see the child because he is the biological father. He proceeds to make the life of the adoptive couple a living hell, and the life of the child a living hell, and your life a living hell. All of this could have been solved if you - being the pregnant mother - had had the choice not to be forced to have a child against your will, but your government, who cares for you and your welfare, banned it, leading you in to a life of misery and pain because they are looking out for your welfare.


Remember, the baby, no matter how it was conceived, will be beautiful.


Hitler. Ghengis Kahn. Fred West. Charles Manson. The Unabomer. Dr Mengler. Myra Hindley.

Not all children are beautiful, and not all kids grow up to be full of virtue and wonder. I know - for ever Hitler you get a Dr Schwitzer. For ever Unabomber you get an Alfred Nobel. But to argue that every child will be wonderful is just bollocks.


Definitely, repeal the abortion rights.

Seems unlikely.

God creates human life! At the moment of conception there is a beating heart. Since this is in a human female it deems that this is the beating heart of a human being. It is not the fetus of a mouse, pig, horse, or any other animal or mammal. It is Human. God gave women the unbelievable gift of His Godliness, the womb. Only a women can create a human life, henceforth, that life is precious. It is human.... The only way a women can create life is by sexual activity with a male of the same species. The couple should be married in the church of their religion. Then the male and female, in love with each other, create a human being. Love is not sex. Love is respect, dignity, honor. Sex is sex. Animals have sex. Animals do not love each other. Animals will often kill their offspring. If a women is in danger of death, or the fetus is going to be stillborn, then the parents should consult their religious director and be able to get the abortion at a hospital. In cases of rape or incest the female can give up the child for adoption. Remember, the baby, no matter how it was conceived, will be beautiful. Definitely, repeal the abortion rights.

Although I'm glad you give support of this repeal I must say give support of it for the right reasons. I think that is great that you believe in God, but many people do not. Therefore we must decide what is best for the people not based on religious statements. You would be able to practice these things under you Nation if this Repeal was to pass, now that is the reason you should be voting in favor of this Repeal.

well done, Kosco. I think you'll find that the amount of support for this proposed repeal will be much higher than it was with the original draft.

and hopefully this version of it will eliminate most of the arguments about abortion, seeing as how this proposal really has nothing to do with that debate.

I think I will find more support as well. Again thank you very much for your suggestion I shall always give you credit for this. Hopefully with more support and clarification this repeal shall see a chance.

You are twelve years old. Your father has been raping you since you were six. You find out you are pregnant. You don't want to tell your mother because it will destroy the family, and you still love your father, even though he needs help. So you plan to get an abortion without telling anyone in the family.
But wait!! Your government just made it illegal, so you have to have the kid, tear your family apart, get your father put in jail and your mother blaming you for having sex with your father.

Clearly that is the best way to go with incest related rapes.

Meanwhile ten years later you are raped in an alley. The rapist goes to jail, and you have to have the child. Ten years later, the father finds the kid - now living with the adopted parents - and demands to see the child because he is the biological father. He proceeds to make the life of the adoptive couple a living hell, and the life of the child a living hell, and your life a living hell. All of this could have been solved if you - being the pregnant mother - had had the choice not to be forced to have a child against your will, but your government, who cares for you and your welfare, banned it, leading you in to a life of misery and pain because they are looking out for your welfare.

Disregarding the fact that this situation is very unlikely (considering there is a very low percentage of getting pregnant when your raped (I believe around 2% if that.) That the Father (if he's smart) would take precautions to make sure you didn't become pregnant (condom or other form of birth control)) this argument is flawed. The Father got the punishment he deserved under law, even if the daughter feels he shouldn't have. Mother wrongfully blamed you and you shouldn't be condemned for that. The biological father could be restricted by law not to come into contact with you or the adopted family (restraining order). Or if he did anything illegal also sentenced for that crime. Also the unlikely hood of the rapist actually finding the child and again the slight 2% that the victim would become pregnant. Finally even after all that you fail to take the lives those children have got to rightfully live into account.


Hitler. Ghengis Kahn. Fred West. Charles Manson. The Unabomer. Dr Mengler. Myra Hindley.

Not all children are beautiful, and not all kids grow up to be full of virtue and wonder. I know - for ever Hitler you get a Dr Schwitzer. For ever Unabomber you get an Alfred Nobel. But to argue that every child will be wonderful is just bollocks.

Not all children grow up to be horrible people such as Hitler, Ghengis Kahn, Fred West, etc etc. Even if the child does become one of these such horrible people we still must grant it life. It is not our position to saw they're going to become a horrible person. Or even worse say they shouldn't be allowed to life because they would just go to a foster home anyways.

Seems unlikely.

We shall see in due time.

Are you saying a human embryo is a virus?

No. A human embryo HAS a metabolism, the cells that make it up DO reproduce through mitosis, and, lastly, IT IS MADE OF CELLS. A VIRUS IS NOT. Viruses don't pass any test of life. Human embryos pass all of them.

Anyway, back on the subject, should this repeal be passed, and I don't think it will, I will write a new abortion rights resolution that prevents abortions once the child develops a brain EXCEPT in cases where the mother or child would be seriously injured by birth, so long as the abortion is not a partial-birth abortion. Those are inhumane and should be stopped permanently.

No. A human embryo HAS a metabolism, the cells that make it up DO reproduce through mitosis, and, lastly, IT IS MADE OF CELLS. A VIRUS IS NOT. Viruses don't pass any test of life. Human embryos pass all of them.

OH! Haha. I totally misunderstood your post. Sorry, I thought you were saying a human embryo was a virus therefore it is not life. I'm an idiot. :) In that case I totally agree.

In my country every fetus has the right to live and the only way it would be allowed is under strict reason. But if a women decides to have an abortion just to have one because of her one night stand in their back seat will not be allowed! I also that the fetus has the right to live because I don't believe and fetus would what to be killed.

Disregarding the fact that this situation is very unlikely (considering there is a very low percentage of getting pregnant when your raped (I believe around 2% if that.)


So screw the 2% that do get pregnant? Again - way to care for your people.


That the Father (if he's smart) would take precautions to make sure you didn't become pregnant (condom or other form of birth control)) this argument is flawed.


You have a very rosey view of the world. But if a father is forcing his eight year old daughter to have sex, something most people would not consider reasonable, what makes you think he will be reasonable enough to wear a condom? What makes you think he will believe an eight/nine/thirteen year old will be capable of actually having a kid?


The Father got the punishment he deserved under law, even if the daughter feels he shouldn't have. Mother wrongfully blamed you and you shouldn't be condemned for that.


Do you actually live in the real world? Or some fantasy version where your god sorts out everything for you?

Kids are beaten and KILLED because their mother blames them for seducing the father and getting him arrested. Whether the mother is right or wrong in blaming them, she will take out the frustration on the kid and the kid will suffer for it. Unless now you plan to punish the child for being raped by taking away the mother as well as the father, leaving them an orphan for nothing else they have done.

I am not saying a kid having an abortion in secret is a good thing - it's not. But if the child wants to keep the family together by not getting the father thrown in jail or executed, then why can the child not make that decsision? Why do your morals have to impose on someone elses life and make it a living hell just so you can feel self-satisfied that you have stopped a terrible thing happening? Why do you feel the urge to play god with people's lives?


The biological father could be restricted by law not to come into contact with you or the adopted family (restraining order).


This is a guy who raped a woman and got her pregnant. I think it's been pretty much demonstrated his regard for the law is not that great.


Or if he did anything illegal also sentenced for that crime. Also the unlikely hood of the rapist actually finding the child and again the slight 2% that the victim would become pregnant. Finally even after all that you fail to take the lives those children have got to rightfully live into account.


Why? Why do they have a right to live? Under your arguement, love produces a child, and a child should be a product of a loving mother and father. So how do you rectify that with a child being brought in to existance TOTALLY against the will of the mother?

And if you can rectify that, you realise that you have defined women as nothing more than baby making machines for any man who wants a child. Which is a totally abhorrent and sickening suggestion.


Not all children grow up to be horrible people such as Hitler, Ghengis Kahn, Fred West, etc etc.


I did actually mention that fact - Alfred Nobel and Dr Schwitzer if you recall?


Even if the child does become one of these such horrible people we still must grant it life. It is not our position to saw they're going to become a horrible person. Or even worse say they shouldn't be allowed to life because they would just go to a foster home anyways.


It's not our position to say they are going to be "beautiful" as you put it. If you can say every life should be protected because it will be wonderful, why can't I say that not every life should be protected because it might be evil? You can't have it both ways.


We shall see in due time.

That we will.

First of all I'd like to point out that I believe you mistakened me for Falconari.

So screw the 2% that do get pregnant? Again - way to care for your people.

I'd must rather "screw" the 2% then the millions of human babies that don't have the chance at life. Actually it wouldn't even be the 2%, it would be much less considering that most rapists would not seek out and attempt to make the lives of those peoples a "living hell". Then factor in how many people are actually raped...

You have a very rosey view of the world. But if a father is forcing his eight year old daughter to have sex, something most people would not consider reasonable, what makes you think he will be reasonable enough to wear a condom? What makes you think he will believe an eight/nine/thirteen year old will be capable of actually having a kid?

Thank you I'm rather fond of roses. Good point. Except for the fact that most 12 year olds won't become pregnant, making the situation more unlikely. See above comment.

Kids are beaten and KILLED because their mother blames them for seducing the father and getting him arrested. Whether the mother is right or wrong in blaming them, she will take out the frustration on the kid and the kid will suffer for it. Unless now you plan to punish the child for being raped by taking away the mother as well as the father, leaving them an orphan for nothing else they have done.

If it is in the best interest of the child and child services (or the organization responsible) determine so. Then the child would be sent to live with a close relative not become an orphan.

I am not saying a kid having an abortion in secret is a good thing - it's not. But if the child wants to keep the family together by not getting the father thrown in jail or executed, then why can the child not make that decsision? Why do your morals have to impose on someone elses life and make it a living hell just so you can feel self-satisfied that you have stopped a terrible thing happening? Why do you feel the urge to play god with people's lives?

Well go ahead and have that discussion be available under your country, I'm not condemning that by passing my Repeal. The reason that child cannot make that decision is because it violates the LEGAL rights of that embryo under law. I don't feel the urge to play god with people's lives. The United Nations does that plenty often.

This is a guy who raped a woman and got her pregnant. I think it's been pretty much demonstrated his regard for the law is not that great.

That is irrelevant. If he disregards the law again he is sent to jail again, no more problem.

Why? Why do they have a right to live? Under your arguement, love produces a child, and a child should be a product of a loving mother and father. So how do you rectify that with a child being brought in to existance TOTALLY against the will of the mother?

Since you addressed Falconari with this argument it doesn't apply to me.

And if you can rectify that, you realise that you have defined women as nothing more than baby making machines for any man who wants a child. Which is a totally abhorrent and sickening suggestion.

Once again should be directed towards Falconari.

I did actually mention that fact - Alfred Nobel and Dr Schwitzer if you recall?

Ah yes. Forgive me.

It's not our position to say they are going to be "beautiful" as you put it. If you can say every life should be protected because it will be wonderful, why can't I say that not every life should be protected because it might be evil? You can't have it both ways.

Once again directed at Falconari.

That we will.

Agreed.

Now I would like to paint a similar scenario. One more possible and one the other side of this debate. A teenager decides to have active sex with her boyfriend without any protection. She figures hey if I get pregnant I can simply abort the child, doesn't affect me. So she continues to have unprotected sex with her boyfriend. Consequently she becomes pregnant and aborts the child after 15 weeks. Latter in her life she finds that she has contracted HIV/AIDS and will soon die. She lives in regret of her decision and eventually dies from the disease. Now this is not only affects the life of the mother but the aborted child as well. What if the child had been born? Well that baby could have become a Doctor who would later someone's life in the ER. Or a shrink who gave a helping hand to a hopeless teenager contimplating succide. A fireman or woman that saved someone from a burning building. Or just a friend to someone in need.

But this isn't really about the arguments for and against abortion. It's recognizing that we need to give that choice to the nation's government, not the United Nations.

You have every right to try to repeal the legalised abortion resolution, even though I do'nt think it has much of a chance of getting to the floor, let alone being passed. In my time in the UN (only six months or so), I've seen countless repeal attempts against this, and none of them have succeeded, but having said that, if you feel yours has a chance, go for it :).

I won't support it in any way though (as I've already said), and you have to be prepared for the fact that if the resolution in place is repealed, I have no doubt that new, well written replacements will be submitted in next to no time, and it won't be long before we are voting on a new resolution to legalise abortion again. In fact I may start drafting something myself, just in case. Its about time I started earning my keep around here :D.

And I say it is about leaving the choice in the hands of the people, not the government who seek to control them.

Well that baby could have become a Doctor who would later someone's life in the ER. Or a shrink who gave a helping hand to a hopeless teenager contimplating succide. A fireman or woman that saved someone from a burning building. Or just a friend to someone in need.


Or a mass murderer. Or a serial rapist. Or someone who commits genocide. Or someone who develops a virus that infects 90% of the world and kills them. Or someone who actually likes rap music :}

And - finally - some of my anger was misdirected at you. Sorry!

And - finally - some of my anger was misdirected at you. Sorry!

It's alright.

Or a mass murderer. Or a serial rapist. Or someone who commits genocide. Or someone who develops a virus that infects 90% of the world and kills them. Or someone who actually likes rap music :}

True... haha. Yeah rap music. Uh... no comment. Anywho I'm going to go back to my lair and come up with a different proposal. Since this one isn't going to pass... *sigh*

Nor is any other one.

Give it up. Save us all some time.

Nor is any other one.

Give it up. Save us all some time.

Uh... thanks for the encouragement. :rolleyes:

Here's encouragement:

"Put your time, effort, and skills towards something that will work. If you haven't looked at the wars that have been fought on this forum and in II over the topic, you don't know what you're up against. Until you do that research, you're not aware - so yet again, you're being warned - give it up while you're behind".

Here's encouragement:

"Put your time, effort, and skills towards something that will work. If you haven't looked at the wars that have been fought on this forum and in II over the topic, you don't know what you're up against. Until you do that research, you're not aware - so yet again, you're being warned - give it up while you're behind".

I've done the research. I realize this is a very controversial topic. Realize that many people think Abortion should be legal and therefore don't support this. So now why don't you realize that I've given up and stop being an a**hole!?