NationStates Jolt Archive

The Kingdom of Wegason calls upon nations to approve this resolution so that a better one can be passed, our argument for repealing resolution 61 is as follows.

Argument:
HAVING CONSIDERED the full effects of this resolution

EMPHASISING that this resolution states that no member nation has the right to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion

NOTING WITH REGRET that the use of those words prohibits nations from legislating against women having abortions after any time period

RECOGNISING that under this resolution an abortion is legal right up until birth

NOTING WITH REGRET those unborn children that are both healthy and no threat to the mother’s life can be aborted right up until birth

CONVINCED that this is unacceptable to many nations, pro-life nations and pro-choice nations

DECLARING that this resolution must be repealed so that a better resolution may be passed that clearly defines when abortions are allowed and/or under what circumstances.

Wow. Took all of thirty seconds since the last one died to put a new one in again, huh?

Well i got a lot of positive feedback (and some negative) from nations who were pro choice but felt that i was highlighting a valid point, they promised to support it again and try and get others to.

Therefore i have resubmitted it to the UN as it didnt get enough approvals the last time around. I started a new thread as the resolution has been modified to make it more like a UN resolution. Also i added some more arguments. Hope that clears up why i did.

Well i got a lot of positive feedback (and some negative) from nations who were pro choice but felt that i was highlighting a valid point, they promised to support it again and try and get others to.

Therefore i have resubmitted it to the UN as it didnt get enough approvals the last time around. I started a new thread as the resolution has been modified to make it more like a UN resolution. Also i added some more arguments. Hope that clears up why i did.

It is very well written, and I can understand why you're putting it forward. If you think you can swing a vote for it based on the responses you've got, then fair enough, good luck to you. But at it's core, it's exactly the same proposal as the last one, and nobody likes to see the same proposals over and over again.

My first post in this thread was a little harsh. Sorry 'bout that...

The problem I can see is that pro-choice and anti-choice nations will both support the repeal, but only pro-choice will support the resubmitted proposal.

I think there are more pro choice nations out there. Plus i have been in talks with pro choice delegates of big regions, they think this is a good idea and would support a repeal and then a new proposal

Hmmm... I still think the resubmission will be harder to push through then the repeal...

Repealing it is still a bad idea. This whole "legality until birth" is not a real issue - such a detail is left out but does not necessarily mean that it makes it legal. For example, if you use this definition of abortion:

"Any pregnancy that ends before 20 weeks, though the term miscarriage is now used more to differentiate between a termination, and a pregnancy that ended by itself."

Then killing the child after 20 weeks is still illegal. Other definitions include the time when the child "is capable of surviving outside the womb", which could be interpreted to allow for a slightly higher legal limit. In other words, the fact that the law is simple means that it is simple enough to interpret it and keep it flexible within logical limits. There's no reason to go through all the trouble and risk losing the resolution.

Repealing it is still a bad idea. This whole "legality until birth" is not a real issue - such a detail is left out but does not necessarily mean that it makes it legal. For example, if you use this definition of abortion:

Then killing the child after 20 weeks is still illegal. Other definitions include the time when the child "is capable of surviving outside the womb", which could be interpreted to allow for a slightly higher legal limit. In other words, the fact that the law is simple means that it is simple enough to interpret it and keep it flexible within logical limits. There's no reason to go through all the trouble and risk losing the resolution.

Definitions from where?

Also,
The resolution says "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

It is not left out, under this resolution abortions are legal right up until birth, it forbids nations from interfering at any time even in the few weeks before the average conclusion of a pregnancy

I'd support this repeal, and the replacement. Nice job Wegason, Tonca.

:tips hat:

Why thank you very much fatus maximus, tonca did do excellent work with the proposed replacement resolution

Now the big question is, if this fails, will you stop?

I will give it a rest most certainly, may try again at a later stage.

Good.

*prepares for counter-telegram campaign*

I am sure there are any number of better proposals to pursue then one which attempts to legislate that women do not have power over their own bodies because of the presence of a parasite.

We'll have to discuss how you came to that sexist view of women as subhuman "walking uteri" later.

As was stated before...you have our support.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

As a card carring member of the NSC I fully support this repeal attempt as it will return to decision about whether or not to allow abortion in a nation to where it belongs, to the individual nations.

Definitions from where?

Specifically? Your nations legal definition of abortion. Where do you get that from? Anywhere. If it's a credible definition, it doesn't matter. Since abortion is not specifically defined in the resolution, nations are allowed to pick and choose their definitions within reasonable limits.


Also,
The resolution says "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

It is not left out, under this resolution abortions are legal right up until birth, it forbids nations from interfering at any time even in the few weeks before the average conclusion of a pregnancy
No, you misunderstand. For many nations, the common use of the word "abortion" simply means terminating a pregnancy up until a certain point in the fetuses development. After that certain period of time - 20 weeks being the usual - the term abortion no longer applies, and therefore member nations can mandate as they will.

This resolution is very simple and short, and therefore abstract in it's meaning. What you are doing is taking the worst interpretation and upholding it as the standard that everyone has to agree as true. It is not, however, as the word abortion does not always include within its definition the timeframe after 20 weeks. So, the base assumption behind this repeal is just that - an assumption.

We'll have to discuss how you came to that sexist view of women as subhuman "walking uteri" later.

:p Subhuman 'walking uteri'. I have to laugh at that, if you are actually being serious then no i do not believe they are subhuman, no i am not sexist and yes many women are themselves against the abortion of unborn children (not parasites) in the latest stages of pregnancy.

I think giving the right to choose up to a point, say halfway during the pregnancy, is a sensible one, it gives them time to consider it. After that, many people would argue that a unborn child starts to take on an ever increasing human resemblance.

As for parasite, so you were a parasite? You would of accepted your mother aborting you a week before you were born? You think your mum should of been allowed the option to get rid of you, the parasite, right up untill you were actually separated from her?

With the requisite genetic testing that goes on within my country, abortion is not an issue. Only the strong survive within our caste system. I see no point to change to an anti abortion stance.

:p Subhuman 'walking uteri'. I have to laugh at that, if you are actually being serious then no i do not believe they are subhuman, no i am not sexist and yes many women are themselves against the abortion of unborn children (not parasites) in the latest stages of pregnancy.

Irrelevant.



I think giving the right to choose up to a point, say halfway during the pregnancy, is a sensible one, it gives them time to consider it. After that, many people would argue that a unborn child starts to take on an ever increasing human resemblance.

Science, not fashion, is relevant. So this is also irrelevant.



As for parasite, so you were a parasite? You would of accepted your mother aborting you a week before you were born? You think your mum should of been allowed the option to get rid of you, the parasite, right up untill you were actually separated from her?

Still irrelevant. Anything which takes and gives back nothing is a parasite.

As to "do you believe" - how do I put this... "duh?". Do have some sort of attempt of appearing as if you are reading what I write - I stated what I believe, I did not state "except in the case of".