NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

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

Argument: This resolution mandates the legalization of abortion and prohibits the government from interfering with this process. Unfortunately, the term "abortion" encompasses all forms of abortion, which includes partial-birth abortion, and this legislation effectually requires a government to allow such a disgusting procedure. Partial-birth abortion, for those that do not know, includes the partial delivery of a fully-developed baby, at which point the baby is killed in a variety of ways, including but not limited to the removal of a baby's brains by a vacuum and the destruction of a baby's brains by jamming a rod into it's skull and tearing them apart. Such a grotesque procedure cannot be forcefully legalized by UN mandate. This resolution must be repealed, with the hopes of replacing it in the future with a resolution that allows specific kinds of abortion, specifically excluding partial-birth.


There's the repeal, since people are saying that the Abortion Rights bill is somehow legal in the first place.

I point you towards my efforts to get it repealed a week or more ago.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=419856&

The resolution is not illegal, its just a bad one in my opinion. The fact that you can choose different option in issues and go against UN resolutions is just a quirk of the game, i think its a good quirk of the game.

Well, my point is that you are allowed by the mechanics of the game to go completely against this resolution without repercussion, which I would consider illegal due to game mechanics, but perhaps I don't fully understand the subject...

I'll probably tend to agree, but I want to see the bill. Post a link, would you? Thanks.

Yeah, here you go: Abortion Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60)

All UN resolutions can be contradicted by the issues you legislate, not just this one.

Well, since it seems to somehow be legal, I just put in for a repeal in character. It is the following, and I would ask the UN for support of this legislation.

....moved to top....

i believe that the youth of the world should be put to better uses. One such of these is harvesting their life like in the Matrix. Not only would we solve the energy crisis but we would all solve world hunger problems.

Hmm... Vastiva, how do you feel about such a program? :D

Rogue Newbie, you haven't really brought up anything new on this issue. Please check the past 200+ arguements over it. We've covered aspects of it that people outside of the game haven't even thought of yet.

Really, a repeal has been attempted that describes various methods of partial birth abortion in the argument itself? That would surprise me, if so. The way I see it, most people wouldn't see arguments like this unless they were actually in the argument, because most people don't come to the forums and read about each side.

Not "a" repeal. Fourteen repeals that I know of have mentioned it, with three going into detail.

Interesting... people read this detail and still think it should be legal... if only we could link pictures to our resolutions... :rolleyes: Oh, well, apologies if repeals almost exactly like this have been attempted, however, if it's not illegal, I would like to see for myself that the people on this site would actually reject this repeal by letting it go through to a vote. If that is illegal - which would also surprise me, seeing as this bill is not illegal and it is very closely tied to game mechanics - then I apologize for bringing it up all over again, and would ask you to delete it for me (I don't think I can, I'm just a player).

Ummm, but before anyone does that, I am searching forum history and haven't found one bill that describes various partial birth abortions in the argument. Can you link me to one so I can see why it was defeated?

Ummm, but before anyone does that, I am searching forum history and haven't found one bill that describes various partial birth abortions in the argument. Can you link me to one so I can see why it was defeated?

I believe most of the arguements centered around "you're arguing against a fiction".

I believe most of the arguements centered around "you're arguing against a fiction".

What do you mean I'm "arguing against a fiction." Partial birth abortion isn't fiction... the fact that it is one of the many types of abortion isn't fiction... the fact that abortion is legalized in resolution 61, and therefore so is partial birth abortion by being one type of abortion isn't fiction... the methods of partial birth listed above aren't fiction... so what was fiction about what I said?

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round...and the bus don't get nowhere.

OOC: In case you're wondering, the bus is a metaphor for abortion arguments. Have fun spinning those wheels. :)

What do you mean I'm "arguing against a fiction." Partial birth abortion isn't fiction... the fact that it is one of the many types of abortion isn't fiction... the fact that abortion is legalized in resolution 61, and therefore so is partial birth abortion by being one type of abortion isn't fiction... the methods of partial birth listed above aren't fiction... so what was fiction about what I said?

You'll have to prove it exists, and is commonly practiced. I believe - again, this is memory, you'll have to do your own digging - it's a fiction. Doesn't exist, not real.

As far as your repeal - you're in the masses. Whooptie.

Just keep tilting those windmills Rogue Newbie. (although you do have my support as I don't believe that abortion is an issue that the UN should be dealing with)

Just keep tilting those windmills Rogue Newbie. (although you do have my support as I don't believe that abortion is an issue that the UN should be dealing with)

*pastes a "WZ FORUMS" sticker on your chest*

*pastes a "WZ FORUMS" sticker on your chest*
And this is coming from a nation that approved the "Right to Breath" resolution.

Ummm, partial birth abortion isn't real? In game or out of game? Cause I can say it's real in game, and out of game, if you really want me to, I will look up some pictures for you of post-partial-birth babies, and I would point out that the U.S. passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Why would it ban something that isn't real?

And this is coming from a nation that approved the "Right to Breath" resolution.

So you believe we should not have a right to breathe?

In my defense, he's from my region. :rolleyes: Bylaws with be bylaws.

Ummm, partial birth abortion isn't real? In game or out of game? Cause I can say it's real in game, and out of game, if you really want me to, I will look up some pictures for you of post-partial-birth babies, and I would point out that the U.S. passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Why would it ban something that isn't real?

Why would they pass laws stating pi = 4?

As I said, that's memory. I really don't care as I find your repeal silly in extremis, and unlikely to pass.

Why would it ban something that isn't real?

OOC: I'm not going to address the issue of whether partial-birth abortions are real, but I will note that there are a lot of stupid laws in the U.S., and that it's certainly not beyond belief that banning something that isn't real would occur. You seem to be overestimating our politicians, RN. :)

So you believe we should not have a right to breathe?No, I think it's a silly proposal and not worth the UN's time.

In my defense, he's from my region. :rolleyes: Bylaws with be bylaws.So, TLA is from my region and once submitted a proposal and that didn't make me automatically approve it, in fact, if I remember correctly, I didn't approve it beacue I felt that it was something best left up to the individual nations to decide, just like how I feel about abortion.

\So, TLA is from my region and once submitted a proposal and that didn't make me automatically approve it, in fact, if I remember correctly, I didn't approve it beacue I felt that it was something best left up to the individual nations to decide, just like how I feel about abortion.

Yes, but how do the "Delegate Bylaws" read in your region?

Yes, but how do the "Delegate Bylaws" read in your region?
We're supposed to have bylaws? How come nobody ever tells me these things?

Okay, A: We never passed a law that said pi = 4, because it doesn't. And B: How is killing babies that are partially delivered "silly"? It would be much more likely to pass if people didn't argue points like that and just admitted that they forgot to take everything into account when passing that resolution. I support early-term abortions, and am pro-choice in that sense, but partial-birth is just disgusting. Here are some pictures of babies after they have been subject to intact dilation and extraction, as it is referred to medically:

Partial Birth Abortion Baby 1 (http://www.stoptheinsanity.org/home/abortion/facts/abortion_photos/Fetus-PartialBirth.jpg)

Partial Birth Abortion Baby 2 (http://www.mikeaustin.org/Partial%20Birth%20Abortion/DavidFront-1.jpg)

Partial Birth Abortion Baby 3 (http://www.mikeaustin.org/Partial%20Birth%20Abortion/partial20birth.jpg)

I'm sorry, but I don't think any sane person can believe that that should be supported by legislation. Even if this has only happened these three times in the history of abortion, which is not the case, it is far too many times.

How do I make this clear to you, Rogue Newbie? I don't care what they "look like". You're attempting to make some sort of emotional appeal, and I assure you I have none where this is concerned.

It remains our opinion - if someone wants to do something with their own body, so be it. It is not our place to judge, and frankly we don't care.

We pity anyone who gets caught up in emotional appeals such as this, for the simple reason they are simple minded - no facts, no purpose, just "ewww, looks bad, we should make it illegal". By your sort of 'icky' logic, autopsies should be illegal because they're "icky".

Crap logic along the lines of "they're cute, they must be harmless" does not sway us. Prove it is of some sort of danger or problem, and we'll consider what you have to say. Otherwise - who gives a damn?

How do I make this clear to you, Rogue Newbie? I don't care what they "look like". You're attempting to make some sort of emotional appeal, and I assure you I have none where this is concerned.

It remains our opinion - if someone wants to do something with their own body, so be it. It is not our place to judge, and frankly we don't care.

Okay, first of all, this form of abortion is murder, by real-life law, so unless you support murder, too, you have no factual or emotional excuse not to disagree with partial birth abortion. The fact is that at the time when a baby is so old that it must be aborted through intact distilation and extraction, it is completely developed, can live on its own outside the mother's womb, and is considered by all scientific definitions to be a living human being. Therefore killing it, even if half of it is still inside the mother, is murder according to the law.

We pity anyone who gets caught up in emotional appeals such as this, for the simple reason they are simple minded - no facts, no purpose, just "ewww, looks bad, we should make it illegal".

That's hardly the case. Babies receiving this procedure are completely developed, alive in all medical senses, and human in all scientific senses, therefore killing them is murder according to the law.

Crap logic along the lines of "they're cute, they must be harmless" does not sway us. Prove it is of some sort of danger or problem, and we'll consider what you have to say. Otherwise - who gives a damn?

It's a danger or a problem because, as I'm going to say for the third time, babies that are old enough to be aborted through this procedure are fully developed, to the point that they can survive outside of the mother's womb. Medically, they're alive, scientifically, they're alive and human, and legally, killing a living human being is murder.

When a baby is fully developed as is the case with partial birth abortion, it is considered its own person, and at that point it is no longer the choice of the mother under the argument that "it's her body," because it is officially, legally, medically, and scientifically the baby's body by that time. The baby, at that time, is just as much "alive" and is just as much its own person as any prepubescent child. Oh, I know, let's just allow mothers that get tired of toddlers to kill them! After all, they're on the same medical and legal level as a baby that requires a partial birth abortion.

How do I make this clear to you, Rogue Newbie? I don't care what they "look like". You're attempting to make some sort of emotional appeal, and I assure you I have none where this is concerned.

It remains our opinion - if someone wants to do something with their own body, so be it. It is not our place to judge, and frankly we don't care.

Okay, first of all, this form of abortion is murder, by real-life law,

Totally irrelevant. Prostitution is legal in the UN and Vastiva - deal with it. NSEarth is the only "reality" we deal with.


so unless you support murder, too, you have no factual or emotional excuse not to disagree with partial birth abortion.

That was a ridiculous arguement. Next time, try one with logic attached. Otherwise, I'll argue because you're alive, you're a mass murderer. (see also "Immune system").



The fact is that at the time when a baby is so old that it must be aborted through intact distilation and extraction, it is completely developed, can live on its own outside the mother's womb, and is considered by all scientific definitions to be a living human being. Therefore killing it, even if half of it is still inside the mother, is murder according to the law.

Not according to current UN Law, so still irrelevant.




We pity anyone who gets caught up in emotional appeals such as this, for the simple reason they are simple minded - no facts, no purpose, just "ewww, looks bad, we should make it illegal".

That's hardly the case. Babies receiving this procedure are completely developed, alive in all medical senses, and human in all scientific senses, therefore killing them is murder according to the law.

Not according to current UN Law, so still irrelevant. We of Vastiva do NOT accord them "human in all scientific senses", and you would be incredibly hard pressed to do so - so stop with the phrases you can't prove.

Your statement is inflammatory, emotional, and irrelevant.




Crap logic along the lines of "they're cute, they must be harmless" does not sway us. Prove it is of some sort of danger or problem, and we'll consider what you have to say. Otherwise - who gives a damn?

It's a danger or a problem because, as I'm going to say for the third time, babies that are old enough to be aborted through this procedure are fully developed, to the point that they can survive outside of the mother's womb. Medically, they're alive, scientifically, they're alive and human, and legally, killing a living human being is murder.

I repeat again for my deaf colleague - not according to current UN law. So you're still stating irrelevancies, unproven allegations, and general emotionalist crap.



When a baby is fully developed as is the case with partial birth abortion, it is considered its own person, and at that point it is no longer the choice of the mother under the argument that "it's her body," because it is officially, legally, medically, and scientifically the baby's body by that time.

Not under current UN law, and (see above, I'm finished with repeating myself).

So you're going to have to absolutely prove your jibberish about it being "scientificly, medically and legally" anything beyond any reasonable doubt - which I guarantee you will not be able to do. Your arguement fails, case closed, end debate. You lose.

Technically destroying entire planets isn't illegal under NSUN law, either. It's also not illegal to detonate nuclear missiles in outer space according to NSUN law. It's also not illegal to make attempts at causing the Sun to supernova prematurely. I guess, according to your arguments, none of these points matter, and they're perfectly okay, because UN law doesn't prohibit them. If you're going to completely ignore all logical arguments by saying that they don't apply in this game according to UN mandate, then no, I cannot convince you to use your head. If you are going to disregard a statement like "killing medically alive human beings is murder" as being emotional garbage, then I can't force you to not say stupid things, and I will stop wasting my time. My time would be much better spent explaining to intelligent people the difference between early-term abortion and partial birth abortion.

Aww.. Cute...

Newbie, obnoxious and thorougly upsetting emotional appeals aside, I mentioned earlier how the term "abortion" isn't specifically defined in this resolution. Again, lets look at how that applies here:

The Pojonian Puppet, as a U.N. member, must comply with all U.N. laws. Looking at this legal document, the nation discerns that "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".
Fine and dandy. The Puppet supports it completely, though it's a little off grammatically. But what, exactly, is an abortion? Pulling out its handy-dandy legal dictionary, it discovers several definitions, one of which is these:
medical termination of a pregnancy before the fetus has developed enough to survive outside the uterus.
That's also fine and dandy. The Puppet will use this definition from now on when interpreting said law.

Suddenly, Shocker! Dead babies! Nasty pictures! In comes your argument, although I like to think Pojonians are smart enough not to kill children at that age:

babies that are old enough to be aborted through this procedure are fully developed, to the point that they can survive outside of the mother's womb. Medically, they're alive, scientifically, they're alive and human, and legally, killing a living human being is murder.

All of this is true, except one word. Aborted. You see, according to the legal definition that the Puppet has chosen to adopt (which is a fully credible definition by legal standards), a child this old is no longer being aborted because he or she is developed enough to survive outside the uterus. So - yup, it's murder. We can try, we can convict, we can shake our finger, we can do whatever - this resolution does not hinder us from stopping the murder of a developed human being.

In other words, your argument is, as Vastiva so nicely put it, irrelevant. Just because your interpretation of the resolution says that it is a bad thing doesn't mean that other interpretations are any less correct. My suggestion? Take the logical, rather than knee-jerk emotional, course. Get yourself a new legal dictionary.

You offend my sensibilities by trying to sway the mob with ugly pictures. You enrage my nation as you apply labels and personal attacks to your opponents in place of arguments. You are trying to put the supporters of this resolution on a side they neither want nor need to be on, and I believe that this is sheer bunk. There is a strong difference between logical and moral legislation and I believe that in the end, logic wins out. I will not be approving this repeal and I urge others to consider a similar course.

Technically destroying entire planets isn't illegal under NSUN law, either.

True. It's also been done.



It's also not illegal to detonate nuclear missiles in outer space according to NSUN law.

True. We do this.



It's also not illegal to make attempts at causing the Sun to supernova prematurely.

True. It's been done twice that we know about.


I guess, according to your arguments, none of these points matter, and they're perfectly okay, because UN law doesn't prohibit them.

You have a point with this?



If you're going to completely ignore all logical arguments by saying that they don't apply in this game according to UN mandate, then no, I cannot convince you to use your head.

Ah - an insult and an illogical statement. You first assume your statements were logical - they were not. Then you assume *I said* "logical arguements do not apply" - also untrue.

The insult is merely flaming as you can't come up with a real arguement (when in doubt, attack the messenger), so I'll be nice and ignore that one.



If you are going to disregard a statement like "killing medically alive human beings is murder" as being emotional garbage,

Where to start?
"Kill" - nothing is being killed.
"Medically alive" - prove it.
"human beings" - not according to our legal definition, so false.
"murder" - again, not a human being, it's not murder.

"emotional garbage" - most of what you've said, as in "unsupported by logic, appealing to emotional reasoning".



then I can't force you to not say stupid things,

Flame #2.



and I will stop wasting my time. My time would be much better spent explaining to intelligent people the difference between early-term abortion and partial birth abortion.

Your time would be much better spent learning how to use logic to debate. So far, you have only appealed to emotion, and "well, somewhere else says its illegal so it should be here" fallacies.

Regardless, your arguements to date are no different then all the rest of the arguements we've seen on the topic - emotionalist, largely irrelevant, and meaningless in the long run.

This isn't the General forum. If you want to discuss the Repeal, start another thread. If you want to post pictures of partial-birth abortions, take it elsewhere.