NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

Here we go, just getting the word out that this is being attempted yet again.

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 This resolution must be repealed, with the hopes of replacing it in the future with a resolution that allows specific kinds of abortion, specifically excluding partial-birth.

Medically speaking, abortion is consistant of the following operations: suction-aspiration, dilation and curettage, RU-486, methotrexate, dilation & evacuation, saline amniocentesis, urea abortion, intracardiac injections, hysterotomies, dilation and extraction, and live-birth abortions. Many of the latter methods involve aborting the baby after it has reached a point where it could survive completely separate from its mother just as well as a week-old newborn. As all of these are, by medical definition, types of abortion, these are forcibly legalized by the legislature in question. Because these babies are able to survive on their own, they cannot be considered a part of the mother's body, and therefore their survival should not be the mother's choice, as it is under this resolution.

Legally speaking, a newborn baby is just as alive as a six-year-old child.
Babies that are aborted in the latter manners mentioned above are fully capable of surviving just like any newborn does, as has been proved by the utterly successful premature delivery of countless babies. Therefore they must be considered just as alive as any other baby.

However, there is a way that you may consider partial-birth-requiring babies not to be alive, but I would advise against it - let me explain. Biologically, life requires three major things to be defined as such. They must be complex, defining such as having a more complicated structure, which babies that require abortion have; they must be able to adapt to their environment and evolve, which babies have demonstrated numerous times after they were developed enough to require the latter methods of abortion; and they must be able to reproduce, which is where these babies fall short. Babies cannot reproduce, inside or outside of the mother's womb. However, according to Biogenesis, living things cannot grow from inert, inorganic matter. Given, this cannot be entirely proven, although it is an almost globally accepted fact, but in ignoring Biogenesis, you must consider the problems. Technically speaking, a four-year-old, or any other prepubescent child, for that matter, also fails to meet the basic requirements for being alive. In saying that a child at the stage which would require one of the latter abortion methods is not yet alive, you must also yield that said prepubescent is also not alive. In saying that, it would technically be legal to destroy any child that had not reached puberty, because they are technically not living human beings and therefore you are not killing anything. If you would tend to ignore Biogenesis and believe that it is fine to terminate any child that had not yet reached puberty, then I fully comprehend why you would support all forms of abortion. However if you realize the implications of this, yield to Biogenesis with the vast majority of the world's scientists, then the reality of partial birth abortion is that it is the abortion of a living thing, the termination of a living thing - specifically a human - which, legally speaking, is murder. It has nothing to do with emotional garbage or being morally upright, it is simply the fact of the matter.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

We say "No!" to this repeal. Woman's body, woman's choice.

http://pics.livejournal.com/quelconque/pic/000026dg

We say "No!" to this repeal. Woman's body, woman's choice.

Did you even read the thing? Or are you just talking to be talking like you have an informed opinion on why this repeal is coming about?

Read the first paragraph right after the proposal itself before you even open your mouth about woman's body, woman's rights and read the entire thing after the proposal itself before you even open your mouth about the baby-to-be-aborted not being alive.

In the interest of banning partial-birth abortion only, Cwruland would vote to repeal in favor of a better-written resolution.

There simply is no argument for partial-birth abortion; the baby has been carried to term and is being/has been born, so the mother's body is no longer in the picture. If she wishes not to raise the child, the state will take over from there.

Read the first paragraph right after the proposal itself before you even open your mouth about woman's body, woman's rights and read the entire thing after the proposal itself before you even open your mouth about the baby-to-be-aborted not being alive.

You're under the impression that we care about the "baby". We don't. We care about the woman. Her body, her choice, your appeals to emotion and false logic and science notwithstanding.

You're under the impression that we care about the "baby". We don't. We care about the woman. Her body, her choice, your appeals to emotion notwithstanding.

Okay, the fact that you put the word baby in quotation marks shows that you have no idea what partial birth abortion is, and have neglected to read into the fact that the baby is an actual, living baby at that time. It has nothing to do with the mother's body when it can live completely separate from her body, and has nothing to do with emotion but with fact. If you want emotion, I'd refer you to the pictures I posted earlier.

You will get the support of those who do have emotion and feelings for unborn children, i support a woman's choice up until a certain point, but after that, i and many of my female friends feel that she has decided to take the baby to full term, therefore abortions really late in the pregnancy are unacceptable. No doubt i will be attacked by fass and vastiva for this view ;)

Okay, the fact that you put the word baby in quotation marks shows that you have no idea what partial birth abortion is, and have neglected to read into the fact that the baby is an actual, living baby at that time.

You still remain under the impression that we care about the "baby." We still don't.

It has nothing to do with the mother's body when it can live completely separate from her body, and has nothing to do with emotion but with fact.

That doesn't in any way make us willing to force the woman to be a living incubator. She and her rights to her own body are more important. If it can live without the mother's body, then there is even less reason to keep it in there.

If you want emotion, I'd refer you to the pictures I posted earlier.

OOC: Let me guess, pictures of "late term abortions" with little dolls covered in catchup? I've assisted at several abortions and whatever pictures you may have won't phase me in the least.

That doesn't in any way make us willing to force the woman to be a living incubator. She and her rights to her own body are more important. If it can live without the mother's body, then there is even less reason to keep it in there.
She is no longer an incubator in a partial-birth abortion; she is in the process of birthing/has physically birthed the baby. It is, at that point, a separate entity. All arguments of it being her body are also a bit silly at that point, because she has carried it to term and is being relieved of it at the moment.

However, all other forms of abortion must be allowed to remain legal.

You still remain under the impression that we care about the "baby." We still don't.

Well, if you support cutting a baby into pieces and removing the pieces via vacuum, or poisoning the baby with nitrogen solvents and saline, and don't care that in considering a baby not alive you must consider prepubescents on the same level, then I really can't convince you otherwise.

That doesn't in any way make us willing to force the woman to be a living incubator. She and her rights to her own body are more important. If it can live without the mother's body, then there is even less reason to keep it in there.

Again, you are demonstrating you obvious lack of understanding with regards to partial birth abortions. The babies are already removed in a manner similar to forced premature delivery, so there is really no point in killing them, except that then the mother doesn't have to deal with putting it up for adoption or raising it.

OOC: Let me guess, pictures of "late term abortions" with little dolls covered in catchup? I've assisted at several abortions and whatever pictures you may have won't phase me in the least.

Yea, they're definately dolls covered with catsup. That's a very intelligent argument: "People just make that stuff up, it isn't real... the pictures? Oh, they're fake. The bill the U.S. passed banning it? Oh, they just fell for the pictures because they're dumdum-heads." Obviously you have not assisted in these types of abortion. For instance, life-birth abortion consists of delivery followed by allowing the baby to die on its own. Yes, that is a type of abortion. Oh, I'm sorry, you knew that because you've "assisted at several abortions."

Well, if you support cutting a baby into pieces and removing the pieces via vacuum, or poisoning the baby with nitrogen solvents and saline, and don't care that in considering a baby not alive you must consider prepubescents on the same level, then I really can't convince you otherwise.

Appeals to emotion, and also applies flawed logic.

Again, you are demonstrating you obvious lack of understanding with regards to partial birth abortions.

"Partial birth" is an invented term. "Lack of understanding" is failure to fall for such silly propaganda.

The babies are already removed in a manner similar to forced premature delivery, so there is really no point in killing them, except that then the mother doesn't have to deal with putting it up for adoption or raising it.

Similar to != the same as. Her choice. Really, what's so hard to understand?

Yea, they're definately dolls covered with catsup. That's a very intelligent argument: "People just make that stuff up, it isn't real... the pictures? Oh, they're fake.

A lot of them are.

OOC: I'm a third year medical student and can see through those forgeries.

The bill the U.S. passed banning it? Oh, they just fell for the pictures because they're dumdum-heads."


Yes, yes they are. Now, what is this "U.S" you speak of and why should we care about what they did?

Obviously you have not assisted in these types of abortion. For instance, life-birth abortion consists of delivery followed by allowing the baby to die on its own. Yes, that is a type of abortion. Oh, I'm sorry, you knew that because you've "assisted at several abortions."

OOC: I have. And it doesn't phase me the least. Your silly little attempts at appealing to emotion are failures. Get over it.

(Thank you Fass for showing back up! And here I was dealing with RN in the locked thread by my lonesome because I couldn't remember who you were...)

And I get to chop apart another long paragraph by Rogue Newbie... what a way to start my weekend.


Medically speaking, abortion is consistant of the following operations: suction-aspiration, dilation and curettage, RU-486, methotrexate, dilation & evacuation, saline amniocentesis, urea abortion, intracardiac injections, hysterotomies, dilation and extraction, and live-birth abortions. Many of the latter methods involve aborting the baby after it has reached a point where it could survive completely separate from its mother just as well as a week-old newborn. As all of these are, by medical definition, types of abortion, these are forcibly legalized by the legislature in question.

:rolleyes: You have proof or you're making more unsupported rhetoric? Particularly about the "forcibly legalized" bit. Magnificent way to bullshit, really. I wasn't aware legality was forced.



Because these babies are able to survive on their own, they cannot be considered a part of the mother's body, and therefore their survival should not be the mother's choice, as it is under this resolution.

Didn't pass our three way test? They're a parasite legally. You have no leg to stand on.



Legally speaking, a newborn baby is just as alive as a six-year-old child.


True, assuming they have passed the three way test.



Babies that are aborted in the latter manners mentioned above are fully capable of surviving just like any newborn does, as has been proved by the utterly successful premature delivery of countless babies. Therefore they must be considered just as alive as any other baby.

Bullshit. Once the decision to abort has been made, there is no chance for the three-way test to be passed and it is merely "tissue being removed".



However, there is a way that you may consider partial-birth-requiring babies not to be alive, but I would advise against it - let me explain.

They have no rights, their "living" is irrelevant. Parasites live, we still commit biowarfare against them.



Biologically, life requires three major things to be defined as such. They must be complex, defining such as having a more complicated structure, which babies that require abortion have; they must be able to adapt to their environment and evolve, which babies have demonstrated numerous times after they were developed enough to require the latter methods of abortion; and they must be able to reproduce, which is where these babies fall short. Babies cannot reproduce, inside or outside of the mother's womb. However, according to Biogenesis, living things cannot grow from inert, inorganic matter. Given, this cannot be entirely proven, although it is an almost globally accepted fact, but in ignoring Biogenesis, you must consider the problems. Technically speaking, a four-year-old, or any other prepubescent child, for that matter, also fails to meet the basic requirements for being alive. In saying that a child at the stage which would require one of the latter abortion methods is not yet alive, you must also yield that said prepubescent is also not alive. In saying that, it would technically be legal to destroy any child that had not reached puberty, because they are technically not living human beings and therefore you are not killing anything. If you would tend to ignore Biogenesis and believe that it is fine to terminate any child that had not yet reached puberty, then I fully comprehend why you would support all forms of abortion. However if you realize the implications of this, yield to Biogenesis with the vast majority of the world's scientists, then the reality of partial birth abortion is that it is the abortion of a living thing, the termination of a living thing - specifically a human - which, legally speaking, is murder. It has nothing to do with emotional garbage or being morally upright, it is simply the fact of the matter.

To begin, our scientists say your proposal is horsepucky, so that arguement goes away - the "world's scientists" do not agree.

To the "a child of four is not alive" arguement, we also call "bullshit". Manipulative and silly language does not an arguement make. And this last paragraph is entirely manipulative, particularly this paragraph:


If you would tend to ignore Biogenesis and believe that it is fine to terminate any child that had not yet reached puberty, then I fully comprehend why you would support all forms of abortion. However if you realize the implications of this, yield to Biogenesis with the vast majority of the world's scientists,

In which you are saying "if you don't agree with me, I understand you're stupid in my opinion. If you do agree with me, join my cause!" Well, as you've alienated everyone - again - and proved yet again you don't know of what you speak, yet again this proposal will go down in flames...

And I'm sure we'll hear from you again about it as you seem to think this arrogant "women don't have rights!" crusade is justified.

However, all other forms of abortion must be allowed to remain legal.

Sorry, you're in the UN. A repeal means protection for abortion is completely removed - and we're rather certain an attempt to make a replacement will fail.

So take your choice - protect or not. Period.

She is no longer an incubator in a partial-birth abortion; she is in the process of birthing/has physically birthed the baby. It is, at that point, a separate entity. All arguments of it being her body are also a bit silly at that point, because she has carried it to term and is being relieved of it at the moment.

"Partial birth" is an exaggeration. And even if it were as these propagandists claim it is, it's still an induced "labour". The mother can choose to have done to things in her body in any way she sees fit. Her right to that is what we protect.

We also protect phycians rights not to perform such procedures and extensive councelling before it is done. That's why it still remains one of the rarest occurences in medicine in Fass. The odd such abortion here or there do not make us want to abridge the rights of the woman.

Greetings.

It seems clear to us that the genetic offspring of which are the subject of this piece of proposed legislation are being treated similarly to the robotic presumed-creations which are the subject of the 'robot proposal'.

To us the reasoning is clear. The majority here defines itself as human, male and female, and assigns rights as it sees fit to those who cannot in any other way obtain rights. That is, those which are mentally incompetent, socially incompetent, or possessed of any other form of incompetence which would make them less worthy of rights in the eyes of those who de facto control the right-voting apparatus (or perhaps, the right voting apparatus).

In amoral but perfectly ethical vein, any sentient or potentially sentient or other being which wishes (or might potentially wish) to have rights must either have a large cadre of potential or actual 'fairy godparents', or be able to seize those rights and hold them. Children therefore, and other creations, whether produced by natural or artificial processes, have no rights to begin with. Their rights must be assigned by this august assembly or any other body capable of distributing such rights.

The right to abortion is therefore a pre-existing right. Helpless genetic material which is potentially human is as much a chattel as a table or chair. By this argument, an hypothetical creator being would be equally justified in doing things to us that we would not consider fair, just, sporting, moral or... nice. Yet, they would be ethical, as such a being need not necessarily consider our potential or rights.

We are concerned, living as we do in a realm of arcane and hieratic powers as well as scientific and technological ones. Should any individual debating here be somehow rendered incapable of taking possession of rights to which some entitlement might be felt, other individuals would need not have any moral qualms therefore in keeping such rights in abeyance.

In other words, kratos, bia and dunamis shall make the rules. Each live-spawned being here never had an intrinsic right to life, and is merely fortunate to have ancestors who made some sort of calculation as to their worth. This is interesting to us.

Fortunately (or not), our immediate ancestor was a daemonic being. Realising that to destroy us, its legitimate offspring, would leave it one argument short of survival against its own creator, it chose to preserve us.

We are appropriately grateful in a distant kind of way. It was self-serving of our progenitor, but we are gratified to be alive. It is this particular sense of subdued elation (a mortal weakness, to be sure) which informs our specific stand on the question of abortion rights. That is: we recognise they exist, and are happy not to have been a victim of the exertion of those rights.

"Partial birth" is an invented term. "Lack of understanding" is failure to fall for such silly propaganda.

Dilation and extraction isn't, however, and partial birth abortion is a very accurate description of what it consists of.

Similar to != the same as. Her choice. Really, what's so hard to understand?

At that time, baby = alive, baby = human, baby's choice whether to live. Really, what's so hard to understand?

A lot of them are.

OOC: I'm a third year medical student and can see through those forgeries.

And other third-year medical students would say otherwise, and other third-year medical students have taken the photographs, and real doctors, not students, have detailed the methods in which they perform these procedures. Who are you to say that these are forgeries when so many disagree with you?

Yes, yes they are. Now, what is this "U.S" you speak of and why should we care about what they did?

I was making an OOC aside, I thought that was obvious. I forgot who I was speaking to.

"Partial birth" is an exaggeration. And even if it were as these propagandists claim it is, it's still an induced "labour". The mother can choose to have done to things in her body in any way she sees fit. Her right to that is what we protect.

It's hardly an exaggeration - the baby is delivered enough for the doctor to get to the head, then its brains are removed via vacuum. And supporting a mother's right to do whatever she wants to things in her body does not apply when the thing is partially outside her body... unless you think a woman that is willingly having sex with a man should gain the right to cut off his penis upon insertion.

We also protect phycians rights not to perform such procedures and extensive councelling before it is done. That's why it still remains one of the rarest occurences in medicine in Fass. The odd such abortion here or there do not make us want to abridge the rights of the woman.

According to this resolution, then, what you're doing is illegal. Requiring councelling before allowing the woman to have the procedure performed is getting in the way of her right to have an abortion, and is illegal according to the bill.

Vastiva, I'm not even replying to you. If you're going to irrationally dispute the real-life facts that are almost 100% applicable here with "my nation doesn't do it that way because we use definitions of abortion that don't include all types of abortion," then you're not worth my time.

OOC: Rogue Newbies, we accept that you have lost the ability to discern you are playing a game which contains many dozens of nations - and what you consider the "real world" has no relevance here whatsoever.

Further - your proposal is still emotionalist, revisionist, alarmist, and garbage.

We'll let Fass demonstrate how the rest of your statements are just so much felgercarb as we respect their ability in this field.

Sorry, you're in the UN. A repeal means protection for abortion is completely removed - and we're rather certain an attempt to make a replacement will fail.

So take your choice - protect or not. Period.OOC: I am still a bit unfamiliar with the nuances of the UN set up here, so a quick question. In simulations I've done, you can write resolutions that repeal previous ones as one of the action clauses after the preams; is that not the case here?

OOC: I am still a bit unfamiliar with the nuances of the UN set up here, so a quick question. In simulations I've done, you can write resolutions that repeal previous ones as one of the action clauses after the preams; is that not the case here?

OOC: Nope. A repeal is one action, and cannot present new legislation. You would have to repeal, then submit another bill as a substitute. And most likely, with abortion, that will not happen.

If you want a good reference, there are the stickies at the top of the page.

I have the following to offer to Rogue Newbie:

http://img137.echo.cx/img137/6695/thedebatestylecard9ya.jpg http://img77.echo.cx/img77/3207/theapathycard8hl.jpg

To round out the hand, I play the "Queen of Clue" - injects rationality into an argument and kills pointless crusades

So why don't we support this repeal and after it goes through, propose another bill that bans types of abortion that occur after the fetus has developed into a baby.

Because it won't happen. You're asking voters to state they made a mistake in passing the first - then telling them to pass a replacement.

The War over passing the new "prostitution" bill was bad enough, took thirty people working overtime to get done, and is still attacked daily.

Dilation and extraction isn't, however, and partial birth abortion is a very accurate description of what it consists of.

No, it isn't. The "baby" is never birthed, partially or otherwise, and thus "partial birth" is misleading. D&E can be done completely in utero.

OOC: D&E is a very outdated technique, and is deprecated in modern medicine.

At that time, baby = alive, baby = human, baby's choice whether to live. Really, what's so hard to understand?

They don't get to have a choice. Women do.

And other third-year medical students would say otherwise, and other third-year medical students have taken the photographs, and real doctors, not students, have detailed the methods in which they perform these procedures. Who are you to say that these are forgeries when so many disagree with you?

OOC: I doubt the veracity of the claims to authority by those who post those pictures, as posting of such pictures in such a manner is a clear violation of professional ethics. Not to mention that practically any time I've been confronted by pictures from an anti-abortionist the pictures have either been apparently false, or have detailed methods deprecated decades ago. Really, the appeal to emotion by such pictures is wasted on me, as I've already said. They bring nothing to the discussion apart from having gullible people let their emotions get the better of them.

I was making an OOC aside, I thought that was obvious. I forgot who I was speaking to.

OOC: Please start comforming to forum etiquette and label OOC statements "OOC."

It's hardly an exaggeration - the baby is delivered enough for the doctor to get to the head, then its brains are removed via vacuum.

Now who's the one who misunderstands? The "baby" needn't be "delivered" at all for anyone to be able to do what you claim they do.

Also, one is delivered or not. This whole "partial this", "a little bit of that" are just misleading terms meant to obfuscate and, yet again, appeal to emotion.

And supporting a mother's right to do whatever she wants to things in her body does not apply when the thing is partially outside her body...

Again, the "partiality" is nonsense.

unless you think a woman that is willingly having sex with a man should gain the right to cut off his penis upon insertion.

The man has rights. The "baby" doesn't.

According to this resolution, then, what you're doing is illegal. Requiring councelling before allowing the woman to have the procedure performed is getting in the way of her right to have an abortion, and is illegal according to the bill.

There are these wonderful things called "loopholes," which we use extensively. In this particular case "women" are given that protection. For us to be perfectly sure that the person wanting to have an abortion is a woman before the law, her competence has to be established. Councelling is just that, a way for us to see to it that only those mentally capable of making such a decision make it. Once it is established that the woman can be considered a woman before the law and she still wants to go through with the abortion, effectively declining other choices that are also presented during the evaluation and councelling, it is done. The overwhelming amount of women choose some other option. Those who don't have their rights respected.

Vastiva, I'm not even replying to you. If you're going to irrationally dispute the real-life facts that are almost 100% applicable here with "my nation doesn't do it that way because we use definitions of abortion that don't include all types of abortion," then you're not worth my time.

Neither is your constant appealing to emotion to us. We shall follow your lead and meet you with continued silence as long as you do so to Vastiva, one of the UN's most respected members. You do not get to pick who demolishes your proposals or not.

Neither is your constant appealing to emotion to us. We shall follow your lead and meet you with continued silence as long as you do so to Vastiva, one of the UN's most respected members. You do not get to pick who demolishes your proposals or not.

When did that happen exactly? Any nation which has to resort to using the profanity "bullshit" is not worthy of respect from myself or my government.

I certainly don't think nations which flame others are really worthy of respect. But that's just me, what do I know? I'm just a mere member of the UN. God forbid I pretend like what I say goes? :rolleyes:

Likewise, I don't really respect nations who have to resort to using generic jpegs to bring their point across, especially those which again are employing profanities.

It's not exactly welcoming, it's not big, and its certainly not clever. It's something I think the mods need to crack down on, and it's something I will be intending to lobby extensively towards acomplishing. Enough of this petty flaming.

Now, having put that to one side....

There are arguements that can be made in favour of this repeal.

For example, If the woman is dumb enough to wait till the embryo is mature enough to survive outside the womb, then firstly I dispair for the embryo to have inherited half of it's mothers genetic make-up. Secondly if it is capable of surviving outside the womb and not suffer significant health issues in the future, then it should be allowed to reach full term - mother has put up with 5, 6 or 7 months of discomfort, I think another 1 or 2 max will not make things difficult?Indeed, if it's viable to survive, then why induce labour/c-section and put the kid up for adoption?

There are others, but OOC constraints restrict me from going further right now.

I think perhaps we should wait and see what any replacement proposal will be before anyone makes any judgements. The UN has before repealled a poor resolution to make way for a slightly better one (although hardly perfect, with serious loopholes, assumptions and flaws), so perhaps people can hold fire on discrediting just yet and act with some civility? Or is that too much to ask from certain nations who presume too much and have an overinflated idea of their place in the grand scheme of things?

Oh and FYI: There is a United States of America (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=america) (which is often abvreviated to US as I understand these things). Clearly some governments need to brush up on their knowledge of global politics. But if you want to know what they did or did not do I suggest you ask them. They might not answer, but you can ask.

One of these has already been locked by The Most Glorious Hack for being all about abortion and not about the proposal under discussion.
Abortion Rights
Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.
Rogue Newbie, there is absolutely nothing in the above resolution that prevents you from defining "abortion" as "the termination of a pregnancy in the first trimester". You've got a national government. Pass a law.

Do I need to repost the proof that fetuses are not alive?

Edit: The evidence:

A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.

Are all seven of these essential characteristics? Some are debatable, such as item D. While it is definitely of adaptive value to have a stable internal environment, it is probably not absolutely essential. Small organisms tend to have a less stable internal environment than large organisms, yet they are definitely alive.

©1997 McGraw-Hill College Division

Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

B. Embryos do this.

C. Embryos do this.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

F. They barely do this at first.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

By virtue of the above, embryos do not fit in enough categories to count as life. You know what else fits in some of the categories but not enough to count as life? Viruses.

The number requirement for life is six of the seven met, due to children and mules. Viruses, which are not considered alive, meet five of the requirements. Fetuses meet four or five, depending on whether you agree with my assessment or not.

Do I need to repost the proof that fetuses are not alive?

Edit: The evidence:



A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.

Are all seven of these essential characteristics? Some are debatable, such as item D. While it is definitely of adaptive value to have a stable internal environment, it is probably not absolutely essential. Small organisms tend to have a less stable internal environment than large organisms, yet they are definitely alive.

©1997 McGraw-Hill College Division



Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

B. Embryos do this.

C. Embryos do this.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

F. They barely do this at first.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

By virtue of the above, embryos do not fit in enough categories to count as life. You know what else fits in some of the categories but not enough to count as life? Viruses.

The number requirement for life is six of the seven met, due to children and mules. Viruses, which are not considered alive, meet five of the requirements. Fetuses meet four or five, depending on whether you agree with my assessment or not.

This has been adapted by Vastiva.

Okay, the fact that you put the word baby in quotation marks shows that you have no idea what partial birth abortion is, and have neglected to read into the fact that the baby is an actual, living baby at that time. It has nothing to do with the mother's body when it can live completely separate from her body, and has nothing to do with emotion but with fact. If you want emotion, I'd refer you to the pictures I posted earlier.

The fact that you don't put "partial birth abortion" in quotes means that you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is a fiction. There is no such medical procedure.

Moreoever, your resolution would allow the outlawing of all abortion. So, focusing on "partial birth abortion" is rather deceptive.

Additionally, you are wrong in thinking the current resolution would prevent a nation from taking action to save the lives of viable fetuses.

If a fetus can be removed and live separately, so be it. So long as you don't prevent or unduly burden a woman from ending her pregnancy, do what you will.

OCC: If you want me to explain why your views re partial birth abortion are mistaken in detail with evidence, please create a thread in General.

When did that happen exactly? Any nation which has to resort to using the profanity "bullshit" is not worthy of respect from myself or my government.

I certainly don't think nations which flame others are really worthy of respect. But that's just me, what do I know? I'm just a mere member of the UN. God forbid I pretend like what I say goes? :rolleyes:

Likewise, I don't really respect nations who have to resort to using generic jpegs to bring their point across, especially those which again are employing profanities.

It's not exactly welcoming, it's not big, and its certainly not clever. It's something I think the mods need to crack down on, and it's something I will be intending to lobby extensively towards acomplishing. Enough of this petty flaming.

Oh and FYI: There is a United States of America (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=america) (which is often abvreviated to US as I understand these things). Clearly some governments need to brush up on their knowledge of global politics. But if you want to know what they did or did not do I suggest you ask them. They might not answer, but you can ask.

Some excellent points, i also am annoyed at the way some nations who have posted in this thread feel they are the law in this forum and they know all and you cannot try and argue against them.

When did that happen exactly? Any nation which has to resort to using the profanity "bullshit" is not worthy of respect from myself or my government.

I certainly don't think nations which flame others are really worthy of respect. But that's just me, what do I know? I'm just a mere member of the UN. God forbid I pretend like what I say goes? :rolleyes:

Likewise, I don't really respect nations who have to resort to using generic jpegs to bring their point across, especially those which again are employing profanities.

It's not exactly welcoming, it's not big, and its certainly not clever. It's something I think the mods need to crack down on, and it's something I will be intending to lobby extensively towards acomplishing. Enough of this petty flaming.

OCC: You appear not to understand the meaning of flaming.

Correcting erroneous arguments, being brusk, and identifying bullshit are not examples of flaming.

Now, having put that to one side....

There are arguements that can be made in favour of this repeal.

For example, If the woman is dumb enough to wait till the embryo is mature enough to survive outside the womb, then firstly I dispair for the embryo to have inherited half of it's mothers genetic make-up.

Nice way to insult women.

You assume that late-term abortions are necessitated by pure whim or stupidity. Beyond being insulting to both women and doctors, the assumption is ludicrous. Are the citizens of your nation that dumb and callous, mine are not.

Few, if any, women would simply wait through 6 months of pregnancy and then get an abortion for no reason.

Late-term abortions are necessitated by concerns for the life or health of the mother, fetal death or severe abnormalties, and by other extreme circumstances.

Secondly if it is capable of surviving outside the womb and not suffer significant health issues in the future, then it should be allowed to reach full term - mother has put up with 5, 6 or 7 months of discomfort, I think another 1 or 2 max will not make things difficult?Indeed, if it's viable to survive, then why induce labour/c-section and put the kid up for adoption?


Indeed, indeed. If a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb without significant health issues, why can't a woman have it removed from her womb?

Why couldn't any nation that wishes to preserve such fetuses allow removal of the fetus and then, if the mother does not want it, take over its care?

Why unnecessarily force a woman through the physical, emotional, and financial risks and costs of three more months of pregnancy and then childbirth?

Some excellent points, i also am annoyed at the way some nations who have posted in this thread feel they are the law in this forum and they know all and you cannot try and argue against them.

A few of those who qualify as such have stopped posting in my time here. As one of the ones who is that way, let me say this: I can be disproven. In the past, I have been proven outright wrong on several occasions and forced to back down a bit on others. Prove me wrong, I'll admit it. Force me to back down a bit, I will. I earned this ego.

Do I need to repost the proof that fetuses are not alive?

Edit: The evidence:



Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

B. Embryos do this.

C. Embryos do this.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

F. They barely do this at first.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

By virtue of the above, embryos do not fit in enough categories to count as life. You know what else fits in some of the categories but not enough to count as life? Viruses.

The number requirement for life is six of the seven met, due to children and mules. Viruses, which are not considered alive, meet five of the requirements. Fetuses meet four or five, depending on whether you agree with my assessment or not.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have to take issue with you on this. You are in one case being counterfactual to suit your own purpose.

Point D as you have stated is debateable, but that is beside the point - which is that regardless of stage, relative homoeostasis when one living thing (or parasite or growth) is inside another is a pointless comparison. Why? Because if it were a growth and NOT a live thing, it would have roughly (within acceptable variation e.g. a liver or a bone) the same level of stability as the enclosing organism. The fact that it does not is neither here nor there. This enclosure defines a special case for D.

Edit: actually, point E is possible for a fertilised ovum - it might split under trauma and form twins, thus in a sense reproducing by splitting - cf lower life forms.

Point F, barely or not, is met. The degree is not the issue; the accomplishment is.

Point G is moot. The environmental variation is minimal AND is largely dominant over the cellular aggregate in question. If we put you on life support and maintained all your vital signs at a fixed level, it would not be you adapting to the environment, but the environment controlling you. In a sense, the embryo also changes more in response to its internal and external environment than an autonomous external version.

Since, unlike in the case of virii, the embryo is sustained directly by, partakes of the same genetic heritage as, and will eventually develop identical phenotype to the enclosing/enfolding organism, it is a special case. How special? THAT is the point of the debate and not all this careless to-ing and fro-ing about chopped up babies, cancers, virii and what-not.

As stated in our earlier post, we regard the right to abort as presumptive and pre-existent, just as the right to exert terminal force is, until legislated against. The question of morals over ethics and ethics over physics is the main point. Do we as an assembly vote on purely moral grounds to sustain the parasite till it is autonomous or not? (And what are the subsidiary cases and possible exceptions?) That is one version of the question.

Actually, the question really is, shall we repeal a right which should never have been given (since pre-existent in a gross physical sense) except that some states enacted legislation repealing it in the first place? Should we repeal the right for ALL NSUN members to use terminal force in self-defence (special case)? Should we repeal the right to breathe, then repeal the repeal? &c.

REPLY TO DEMONLORDENIGMA

Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

True, but by the time it is old enough to require dilation and extraction, it does have a set size and shape, or at the very least it has as much of a set size and shape as a toddler or prepubescent child has.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

But it is true by the time the embryo has developed into a baby large enough to require dilation and extraction.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

Neither can four-year-olds. Should mothers be allowed to kill their children if they can't yet reproduce?

F. They barely do this at first.

Actually, they do it quite frequently by the time they've developed enough to require dilation and extraction.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

No, but fully-developed babies that are large enough to require dilation and extraction for removal are capable of said adaptation.

First of all, I don't know why you kept referring to embryos when we're talking about fully developed babies which require dilation and extraction.

Second of all, said fully developed babies meet six of the seven requirements, after your assessments are corrected, so they are, by definition, alive.

Third of all...

A few of those who qualify as such have stopped posting in my time here. As one of the ones who is that way, let me say this: I can be disproven. In the past, I have been proven outright wrong on several occasions and forced to back down a bit on others. Prove me wrong, I'll admit it. Force me to back down a bit, I will. I earned this ego.

... there; you're wrong.

REPLY TO FASS

No, it isn't. The "baby" is never birthed, partially or otherwise, and thus "partial birth" is misleading. D&E can be done completely in utero.

OOC You're obviously a pretty bad med student. IC The following is the procedure for dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion), which is generally performed during or after the fifth month of growth:

1: The woman's cervix is dilated (expanded).
2: The fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first.
3: The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head.
4: The object is removed.
5: A vacuum tube is inserted into the hole created by the sharp object.
6: The brains are extracted via the vacuum.
7: The head of the baby contracts, and the body is removed.

Yes, completely in utero... thank you for demonstrating your incompetence with regards to this procedure. Of course, there are other ways to do it, but this is the most commonly used procedure.

OOC: D&E is a very outdated technique, and is deprecated in modern medicine.

OOC D&E is dilation and evacuation, which many seem to confuse with what we're talking about, D&X. D&E is a second term procedure, D&X is a third term procedure. There are those that refer to D&X as D&E, but they do so incorrectly, for they are somewhat different procedures. Obviously this even confuses third year med students.

They don't get to have a choice. Women do.

Why not? They're on the same medical and biological level as young children, and young children get a choice.

Now who's the one who misunderstands? The "baby" needn't be "delivered" at all for anyone to be able to do what you claim they do.

You; I just cleared that up - whether it need be or not, it still is.

Also, one is delivered or not. This whole "partial this", "a little bit of that" are just misleading terms meant to obfuscate and, yet again, appeal to emotion.
Again, the "partiality" is nonsense.

Again, I cleared that up.

The man has rights. The "baby" doesn't.

Again, why not?

Greetings.

The issue of why children and adults may have rights while embryos may not is a simple one. The unseen and (for all practical political purposes) inactive are seldom accorded rights and are unable to campaign for them or cause enough inconvenience to get them. However, some for various reasons might take up their cause, and hence this debate.

Children and adults are more seen, less inactive, and able to campaign for rights or cause inconvenience until they get them de jure or de facto.

We realise in principle that man (generic term) and embryo are very close on the cosmic scale. However we see in practice that man defines rights and distributes them, hence being more likely to remain in possession; embryos never consciously and in specific detail defined anything (except by their example of what an embryo is) and so may never possess such rights.

It is of course rather odd that we might very well accord more respect to a rare marsupial than to a human embryo (possibly because there are so many of them). All we can say is that we are glad we sprouted fully-formed and capable of magical defence - and that our progenitor (who was vastly more accomplished) had decided that preserving us was a more logical and pragmatic decision than destroying us.

REPLY TO DEMONLORDENIGMA

True, but by the time it is old enough to require dilation and extraction, it does have a set size and shape, or at the very least it has as much of a set size and shape as a toddler or prepubescent child has.

They don't actually have a set size or shape, just a constant one, which I put down as counting. In any case, it's not until very late in the pregnancy that the shape of the embryo is even close to set. Before then, it can change very rapidly.

But it is true by the time the embryo has developed into a baby large enough to require dilation and extraction.

This is one of those items that shows up very late in the pregnancy as well. Note that DLE standards have an embryo stop being an embryo and start being a living being for the last trimester, around the time this and the one above show up. So, no, that arguement doesn't count.

Neither can four-year-olds. Should mothers be allowed to kill their children if they can't yet reproduce?

Some say yes. I'll note this is the one item of the seven that children don't qualify for. Which is why they qualify for life while fetuses don't.

Actually, they do it quite frequently by the time they've developed enough to require dilation and extraction.

What part of the words "at first" do you not understand?

No, but fully-developed babies that are large enough to require dilation and extraction for removal are capable of said adaptation.

No, a human child is not capable of adapting to the environment until it is born. That is part of the problem that premature babies suffer from if born before a certain point in their development cycle.

First of all, I don't know why you kept referring to embryos when we're talking about fully developed babies which require dilation and extraction.

This quote by you:

Technically speaking, a four-year-old, or any other prepubescent child, for that matter, also fails to meet the basic requirements for being alive.

Which is blatantly untrue. I made it a point to post this because some people use the word "baby" to signify both the virus-like embryo and an actual human child from the time of the third trimester to the time of learning to walk. You appear to be that type from what I have seen of you posts, though it may have been a misconception based on the wordings you have used. By posting what I did, I opened up the path of discussion into which I could disprove the statement.

Second of all, said fully developed babies meet six of the seven requirements, after your assessments are corrected, so they are, by definition, alive.

By the time you are talking about, they are no longer embryos. So, no, my points are not refuted by this.

Third of all...



... there; you're wrong.

Nope. All you have proven is that you did not know what I meant by embryos. Which I should have made clear. That is what happens when you copy and paste from old discussions. Now, on to the other.

Greetings.

We of Roathin have to take issue with you on this. You are in one case being counterfactual to suit your own purpose.

Nope. I define, as mentioned above, an embryo as being in the first two trimesters of pregnancy. A living human being is the third trimester until death. Other nations use other standards for the start of life.

Point D as you have stated is debateable, but that is beside the point - which is that regardless of stage, relative homoeostasis when one living thing (or parasite or growth) is inside another is a pointless comparison. Why? Because if it were a growth and NOT a live thing, it would have roughly (within acceptable variation e.g. a liver or a bone) the same level of stability as the enclosing organism. The fact that it does not is neither here nor there. This enclosure defines a special case for D.

Homeostasis is actually easy to test. Remove the fetus from the environment and test it. A fetus, like a blood cell, lacks homeostasis because they do not have the physical capacity for it. When inside the body, attached as they are and in the way they are, they do not count as a separate being until they count as alive. Your arguement can be changed to be used for arguing that blood cells are alive and that drawing blood is murder.

Edit: actually, point E is possible for a fertilised ovum - it might split under trauma and form twins, thus in a sense reproducing by splitting - cf lower life forms.

The cells of your body also split using a similar mechanism. Does that mean they are alive? Also, this would only be a viable point if the ovum could undergo mitosis multiple times through its life, producing dozens or even hundreds of embryos. They cannot. This is more like your hair splitting when under stress, only in this case with more permanent results.

Point F, barely or not, is met. The degree is not the issue; the accomplishment is.

Do you see an arguement from me? Some people consider the degree of meeting to also be important in determining, due in part to viruses.

Point G is moot. The environmental variation is minimal AND is largely dominant over the cellular aggregate in question. If we put you on life support and maintained all your vital signs at a fixed level, it would not be you adapting to the environment, but the environment controlling you. In a sense, the embryo also changes more in response to its internal and external environment than an autonomous external version.

Remove it from that environment. Does it grow and survive? Does it adapt and manage on its own? Those are the tests.

Since, unlike in the case of virii, the embryo is sustained directly by, partakes of the same genetic heritage as, and will eventually develop identical phenotype to the enclosing/enfolding organism, it is a special case. How special? THAT is the point of the debate and not all this careless to-ing and fro-ing about chopped up babies, cancers, virii and what-not.

Viruses often share the genetic heritage of the cells they infect, sometimes even taking parts of the cell's DNA with them. They are also directly sustained by them, as the viruses need the cells to exist. And, if you want to get technical, they develop into specific "organisms" before leaving the cell they infected. If you want, all of that can also be done by a blood cell through the miracle of cloning.

As stated in our earlier post, we regard the right to abort as presumptive and pre-existent, just as the right to exert terminal force is, until legislated against. The question of morals over ethics and ethics over physics is the main point. Do we as an assembly vote on purely moral grounds to sustain the parasite till it is autonomous or not? (And what are the subsidiary cases and possible exceptions?) That is one version of the question.

I vote to use scientific grounds. The time of which a fetus is no longer a fetus was chosen for DLE because, by that point, it can possibly survive outside of the body, though it is doubtful.

Actually, the question really is, shall we repeal a right which should never have been given (since pre-existent in a gross physical sense) except that some states enacted legislation repealing it in the first place? Should we repeal the right for ALL NSUN members to use terminal force in self-defence (special case)? Should we repeal the right to breathe, then repeal the repeal? &c.

Leave it alone as is. The nations that legislated against it, if UN states, have simply had their laws changed back by the UN Gnomes. And, no, I'm not making this up.

They don't actually have a set size or shape, just a constant one, which I put down as counting. In any case, it's not until very late in the pregnancy that the shape of the embryo is even close to set. Before then, it can change very rapidly.

You are completely missing my point, and you don't even realize that you're agreeing with me. The entire point of this repeal is that the previous bill allows all abortions, which includes third term abortions.

This is one of those items that shows up very late in the pregnancy as well. Note that DLE standards have an embryo stop being an embryo and start being a living being for the last trimester, around the time this and the one above show up. So, no, that arguement doesn't count.

Again, this bill and all arguments up to this point have nothing to do with embryos, but with fully developed babies in their third trimester.

What part of the words "at first" do you not understand?

What about dilation and extraction don't you understand? The fact is that it occurs later in pregnancy, during the third trimester, and therefore your arguments about things that are earlier in pregnancy and the biological status of embryos are irrelevant.

No, a human child is not capable of adapting to the environment until it is born. That is part of the problem that premature babies suffer from if born before a certain point in their development cycle.

Wrong; "environment" does not refer to that place outside your house. It refers to one's surroundings, and the fact is that human babies do adapt and react to the environment inside their mother's womb.

By the time you are talking about, they are no longer embryos. So, no, my points are not refuted by this.

Exactly, but your points are also meaningless, as this repeal and this debate have nothing to do with the points you made, so I replied to them under the assumption that you misunderstood the topic of debate. Apparently, I was right.

Nope. All you have proven is that you did not know what I meant by embryos. Which I should have made clear. That is what happens when you copy and paste from old discussions. Now, on to the other.

Again, I assumed you were confused on the subject of debate, which are third term babies that are aborted, and I was obviously correct in my assumption.

Nope. I define, as mentioned above, an embryo as being in the first two trimesters of pregnancy. A living human being is the third trimester until death. Other nations use other standards for the start of life.

OOC Now you're just adopting the same "my nation pretends those aren't covered by the word abortion" as Vastiva. If I wanted to be unrealistic, I could just define abortion as stepping on ants with a covered foot, but I would prefer to argue this matter intelligently and stick to the facts.

PS for Fass: Don't forget to try to come up with an illegitimate response to my points when you get around to it. Use your imagination, you seem to be good at that.

I vote to use scientific grounds. The time of which a fetus is no longer a fetus was chosen for DLE because, by that point, it can possibly survive outside of the body, though it is doubtful.

I was going to leave your responses to Roathin for Roathin to respond to, however I just couldn't let this one go. Mortality rate for premature babies is actually relatively low (OOC "...at least in my nation," he says dripping with sarcasm), so saying that survival outside of the body is doubtful is completely incorrect. OOC For instance I think it's something like 25% in the U.S. That's just coming from memory, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

You are completely missing my point, and you don't even realize that you're agreeing with me. The entire point of this repeal is that the previous bill allows all abortions, which includes third term abortions.

And you don't seem to realize my point, which I stated later in the thread: I'm not arguing about your outdated abortion technique. I'm arguing about a different illogical statement you made. Keep in mind the entirety of what was said is just as important as the individual replies.

Again, this bill and all arguments up to this point have nothing to do with embryos, but with fully developed babies in their third trimester.

I explained the purpose of the first post to mention embryos later on in the reply.

What about dilation and extraction don't you understand? The fact is that it occurs later in pregnancy, during the third trimester, and therefore your arguments about things that are earlier in pregnancy and the biological status of embryos are irrelevant.

Then why are you bothering to argue about them? Try bothering to read the entire post before you reply. It'll save you the embarassment of wasting my time.

Wrong; "environment" does not refer to that place outside your house. It refers to one's surroundings, and the fact is that human babies do adapt and react to the environment inside their mother's womb.

I want to know what post you got this idea from, as it's definitely not any of mine. You might want to check the name of who you are replying to when replying, and make sure the screen is right.

Exactly, but your points are also meaningless, as this repeal and this debate have nothing to do with the points you made, so I replied to them under the assumption that you misunderstood the topic of debate. Apparently, I was right.

Actually, my points themselves were part of simple strategy: To draw you into a debate through which I could deal with a false statement you made, by having you bring it up. Take what was said on here about children, look at the quote I mentioned in my previous post as why I am replying, and then look at the post that mentions the seven signs of life. Compare and think.

Again, I assumed you were confused on the subject of debate, which are third term babies that are aborted, and I was obviously correct in my assumption.

No, you were incorrect. I knew what it was about and that's why I've mostly let Fass handle it. Or did you not notice me editting out part of your post?

OOC Now you're just adopting the same "my nation pretends those aren't covered by the word abortion" as Vastiva.

Once again, I want to know where you got this idea from. You see anything in my previous posts that deals with types of abortion? Maybe in some fantasy land or alternate dimension, but we're not there. And, I noticed you cnventiently editted out the portion of my post where I revealed why I was discussing this so you could go along with this illogical attempt to prove me as not knowing what the topic is, when I clearly posted a quote from your post on the first page and explained it. Now, either deal with what I was really up to or stop wasting my time, as trying to dodge the main reason why this arguement was started is really not that respectable and will only help to further keep you from winning this arguement.

Edit:

I was going to leave your responses to Roathin for Roathin to respond to, however I just couldn't let this one go. Mortality rate for premature babies is actually relatively low (OOC "...at least in my nation," he says dripping with sarcasm), so saying that survival outside of the body is doubtful is completely incorrect. OOC For instance I think it's something like 25% in the U.S. That's just coming from memory, though, so correct me if I'm wrong.

What's the survival rate for children born two or three months premature? Keep in mind that I am including those as well.

And you don't seem to realize my point, which I stated later in the thread: I'm not arguing about your outdated abortion technique. I'm arguing about a different illogical statement you made. Keep in mind the entirety of what was said is just as important as the individual replies.
I explained the purpose of the first post to mention embryos later on in the reply.
Then why are you bothering to argue about them? Try bothering to read the entire post before you reply. It'll save you the embarassment of wasting my time.
I want to know what post you got this idea from, as it's definitely not any of mine. You might want to check the name of who you are replying to when replying, and make sure the screen is right.
Actually, my points themselves were part of simple strategy: To draw you into a debate through which I could deal with a false statement you made, by having you bring it up. Take what was said on here about children, look at the quote I mentioned in my previous post as why I am replying, and then look at the post that mentions the seven signs of life. Compare and think.
No, you were incorrect. I knew what it was about and that's why I've mostly let Fass handle it. Or did you not notice me editting out part of your post?

Okay, here's what you seem to be missing: you are somehow implying that somewhere along the line I have hinted or stated that an embryo is alive, which I have not. So there was no point in mentioning those seven signs of life with respect to embryos, because I never even started to dispute the fact that they are not medically defined as alive.



Once again, I want to know where you got this idea from. You see anything in my previous posts that deals with types of abortion? Maybe in some fantasy land or alternate dimension, but we're not there. And, I noticed you cnventiently editted out the portion of my post where I revealed why I was discussing this so you could go along with this illogical attempt to prove me as not knowing what the topic is, when I clearly posted a quote from your post on the first page and explained it. Now, either deal with what I was really up to or stop wasting my time, as trying to dodge the main reason why this arguement was started is really not that respectable and will only help to further keep you from winning this arguement.

A: The main reason you posted here was to prove that embryotic fetuses are not alive. I never disputed that, so arguing it was pointless.
B: Yes, you said that your nation defines abortion as the termination of a fetus in the first two trimesters, where, in fact, it encompasses certain third trimester procedures that you are trying to completely ignore by redefining the word. That's a ridiculous way to dodge a problem with a resolution.

What's the survival rate for children born two or three months premature? Keep in mind that I am including those as well.

Okay, I've looked up four things in this entire debate, and three were pictures of babies aborted via dilation and extraction. What makes you think I'm going to look up your arguments for you? The only thing that I will look up is something that I don't simply already know, and that is supportive of my point. And mortality rate is not survival rate... they're the opposite of one another.

Okay, here's what you seem to be missing: you are somehow implying that somewhere along the line I have hinted or stated that an embryo is alive, which I have not. So there was no point in mentioning those seven signs of life with respect to embryos, because I never even started to dispute the fact that they are not medically defined as alive.

You didn't even bother to read the entirety of my posts, did you? This is what you did say:

Technically speaking, a four-year-old, or any other prepubescent child, for that matter, also fails to meet the basic requirements for being alive.

This is what I said about it:

Which is blatantly untrue. I made it a point to post this because some people use the word "baby" to signify both the virus-like embryo and an actual human child from the time of the third trimester to the time of learning to walk. You appear to be that type from what I have seen of you posts, though it may have been a misconception based on the wordings you have used. By posting what I did, I opened up the path of discussion into which I could disprove the statement.

The statement I was talking about was the one I quoted before saying that.

A: The main reason you posted here was to prove that embryotic fetuses are not alive. I never disputed that, so arguing it was pointless.
B: Yes, you said that your nation defines abortion as the termination of a fetus in the first two trimesters, where, in fact, it encompasses certain third trimester procedures that you are trying to completely ignore by redefining the word. That's a ridiculous way to dodge a problem with a resolution.

1. A isn't true. Check above.

2. I never said I was redefining abortion. I did say that I count people as alive when they reach the third trimester. If you are going to make an accusation, prove it.

Okay, I've looked up four things in this entire debate, and three were pictures of babies aborted via dilation and extraction. What makes you think I'm going to look up your arguments for you? The only thing that I will look up is something that I don't simply already know, and that is supportive of my point. And mortality rate is not survival rate... they're the opposite of one another.

I wasn't asking you to look it up. I was letting you know I included it when I made the statement of doubting survival at a certain point. And it takes a bit of math skills and common sense to know that those who didn't die are included in the survival rate.

Greetings.

We are amused by certain replies to some of our statements.

In particular, we are most amused by suggestions that our cells are not alive. They most certainly are; it is merely that their lives are dependent on ours, and hence, should we deny them this sustenance, they should surely die. Since we de facto must murder them due to their fragility at each and every moment of our dioxygen radical inspired life, we do not classify their deaths as murder and hence relieve ourselves of a terrible burden of conscience. We escape by not granting any of our subordinate and individually fragile cells rights of their own - up to the organic, and even systemic, level.

This is the case with so-called spontaneous abortion. It happens, and we do not call it murder through negligence. It might happen because of trauma caused by a physical attack from another person, and we do not call it manslaughter (although if it were carried out specifically to abort the foetus, some might say so).

However, what we debate is the right or repeal of the right to deliberate and purposeful abortifacient activity.

In your presumably science-dominated milieu, you seem to classify 'live' as 'able to survive without external aid'. This is very difficult as a definition. The extent of aid is always debateable. The extent of vulnerability, almost equally so. You refer to cloning. Ah well, muddying the waters does not help others make decisions.

We do contemplate the circularity of definition which allows for life to be defined as that which continues to live. That is almost like defining survival of the fittest to survive. We note that if your assumptions hold, cooking mushrooms would be a greater crime than cooking certain sexually-produced cellular aggregates. (Those damned - we speak in a non-theological sense - mushrooms thrive in the most awkward conditions.) It is no wonder the illithids look at all of us and wish to eat our brains as a sub-functional but very tasty truffle variant.

Or perhaps, being a half-daemon immortal makes our perspectives so alien that our arguments seem inappropriate or irrelevant to you. Or not. We merely seek clarity. And where clarity does not present itself, we sleep, as hinted at in the wise sayings of Saint Ursula.

Did we mention the third reason a repeal will never work?

Because people are so tired of hearing about this one, they'd rather pluck their eyes out with a spork then hear about it again.

Fortunately, this is being seen to here, very effectively.

Greetings.

We are amused by certain replies to some of our statements.

And we are amused that you continue this game.

In particular, we are most amused by suggestions that our cells are not alive. They most certainly are; it is merely that their lives are dependent on ours, and hence, should we deny them this sustenance, they should surely die. Since we de facto must murder them due to their fragility at each and every moment of our dioxygen radical inspired life, we do not classify their deaths as murder and hence relieve ourselves of a terrible burden of conscience. We escape by not granting any of our subordinate and individually fragile cells rights of their own - up to the organic, and even systemic, level.

They are no more separate living beings than nerve cells are separate brains. They are merely parts of the whole.

This is the case with so-called spontaneous abortion. It happens, and we do not call it murder through negligence. It might happen because of trauma caused by a physical attack from another person, and we do not call it manslaughter (although if it were carried out specifically to abort the foetus, some might say so).

That is your nation. Some are different in those regards.

However, what we debate is the right or repeal of the right to deliberate and purposeful abortifacient activity.

What debate is there? You can set abortion laws as you like, and even effectively make it illegal without contradicting the resolution. It's not difficult.

In your presumably science-dominated milieu, you seem to classify 'live' as 'able to survive without external aid'. This is very difficult as a definition. The extent of aid is always debateable. The extent of vulnerability, almost equally so. You refer to cloning. Ah well, muddying the waters does not help others make decisions.

No, but it does help to have all of the facts when making the decisions. Cloning is one of those items that must be considered.

We do contemplate the circularity of definition which allows for life to be defined as that which continues to live. That is almost like defining survival of the fittest to survive. We note that if your assumptions hold, cooking mushrooms would be a greater crime than cooking certain sexually-produced cellular aggregates. (Those damned - we speak in a non-theological sense - mushrooms thrive in the most awkward conditions.) It is no wonder the illithids look at all of us and wish to eat our brains as a sub-functional but very tasty truffle variant.

Common sense would tell you that you can make laws that differentiate between mushrooms and humans. Try them sometime.

Or perhaps, being a half-daemon immortal makes our perspectives so alien that our arguments seem inappropriate or irrelevant to you. Or not. We merely seek clarity. And where clarity does not present itself, we sleep, as hinted at in the wise sayings of Saint Ursula.

OOC: DLE is a joke name. It was meant to inspire laughter. You know how Athiests are always told they are going to Hell by certain groups? Well, it makes a perfect name for an atheistic nation. Now, it's more of a nation with an unusual religion, which would get the same responses as the atheists.

Did we mention the third reason a repeal will never work?

Because people are so tired of hearing about this one, they'd rather pluck their eyes out with a spork then hear about it again.
Oh, dear Lord in heaven, yes. You are correct, my brother. I've been here only a little over a month and I am already wretchedly sick of abortion repeals/debates and homosexual rights repeals/debates.

I'd suggest to Rogue, that he ignore the diatribe of DLE, Vastiva and Fass.... Since the iniital creation and voting of the Abortion Resolution, they have demonstrated an inability to think rationally on this topic.... I would encourage them to keep attempting repeals, and possibly work to a better, more logical replacement resolution for the Abortion Rights Res.

Or merely accept the classical definition of "abortion" as that of "the premature expulsion of a non-viable fetus from the uterus"... If you accept this, then "late-term abortions" simply aren't abortions in the first place (but actual murders). [Which is how the Constitutional Republic handled it].... If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, it's not an abortion in the first place, by the very definition of the word, and therefore the ARR (Abortion Rights Resolution) is non applicable. The child can be removed and implanted or raised in other manners, in conjunction with the state....

If your state is advanced enough, there could reach a point where there is no such thing as "non-viable", which means "abortion" simply does not exist anymore (as a word). Procedures are done to "remove" unwanted embryos, and re-implant them elsewhere for those who want them.

Arguement can be made that this is a violation of the ARR, however, someone wishing to make such, can take their foaming mouthes elsewhere. Their arguments are worthless... The ARR, by principles only dictates that females be given the power to make determinations resultant in the termination of their own pregnancy. As soon as agreement and waiver is reached regarding this procedure, the fetus in her is no longer considered "her" property, but is now the property, and in the disposal of the practitioner. What the practitioner or state chooses to do with the fetus after removal, is no longer within the realm of the ARR.

The alleged repeal and the arguments for it are inherently wrong and disingenuous.

1. Rogue Newbie may say the purpose of the repeal is to allow for the ban of “partial-birth abortion,” but the actual effect of the repeal would allow the complete banning of all abortion.

2. The purposed repeal is completely unnecessary to prevent the alleged ills of "partial birth abortion" or late-term abortions.

Let us look again at the language of the current resolution:

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.

A. A nation may comply with the current resolution and still regulate abortion and/or prohibit certain types of procedures, so long as you do not interfere with woman’s right to abortion.

B. A nation could legitimately ban abortions performed beyond the point of viability -- i.e., ban abortions of viable fetuses. As documented in the links below, it is perfectly legitimate to define abortion as only performed prior to viability. Thus, the current UN resolution may be said to only protect a women's right to destruction of her unborn child prior to its ability to survive outside the womb and does not necessarily prohibit laws that ban procedures that would destroy a viable fetus.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/A0020700.html
(abortion: "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.")
http://216.251.232.159/semdweb/internetsomd/ASP/1485612.asp (abortion: "Expulsion from the uterus of an embryo or fetus prior to the stage of viability.")
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2283&bold=||||
(abortion: "the termination of pregnancy by various means, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life.")
http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommonzSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_a_02zPzhtm#912015
(abortion: "the premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception—of the embryo, or of a nonviable fetus.")
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a137.htm
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion

C. A nation could also allow for the removal and protection, rather than destruction, of viable fetuses. Nothing in the current resolution requires that fetuses die – merely that women be allowed to have fetuses removed. Again, as documented in the links below, it is perfectly legitimate to define abortion as the ending of pregnancy or removal of the fetus without causing the death of the fetus. Thus, the current UN resolution does not prohibit laws that do not interfere with a woman's right to end her pregnancy, but that require fetuses to be saved if possible.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/abortion?view=uk
(abortion: " the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy")
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm ("An abortion is a procedure, either surgical or medical, to end a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the uterus.")
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861583045 (abortion: "operation to end pregnancy: an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb.")
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2091
("In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.")
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=abort*2+0&dict=A

3. Rogue Newbies’s lecturing regarding about what a "partial birth abortion" is and the "obvious" distinctions between a D&E procedure and a D&X procedure should be taken with a grain of salt.

A. As Rogue Newbie apparently knows, there is no such medical term as a “partial birth abortion." Only after this point was pressed, did Rogue Newbie state that what was meant was dialation and extraction (D&X).

B. D&X is not quite as Rogue Newbie describes it, but that is a separate point.

C. Rogue Newbie's scolding of Fass on the "obvious" distinctions between these terms and procedures is laughable. OCC/RL info: The American Medical Association has used the term dialation and evacuation -- D&E -- to "refer[] generically to transcervical procedures performed at 13 weeks gestation or later." What Rogue Newbie and some refers to as dialation and extraction (D&X) is also described by medical authorities as a variation of D&E, "intact D&E," and other terms. In fact, the ambiguity of the term "partial birth abortion" and the overlap in these terms and definitions were part of why US courts have ruled that attempts to ban "partial birth abortion" and/or D&X were unconstitutional -- because such bans also banned D&E procedures performed in the second trimester. See, e.g., Stenberg v. Carhart (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-830.html ), 530 US 914 (2000).

3. D&X procedures are not evil. They are perfectly justifiable. D&X procedure is primarily used in circumstances involving nonviable fetuses, such as fetuses with abnormal fluid accumulation in the brain (hydrocephaly). D&X can be especially useful in the presence of fetal anomalies, such as hydrocephalus, because its reduction of the cranium allows a smaller diameter to pass through the cervix, thus reducing risk of cervical injury.

4. The sole reason that doctors use the D&X procedure is that it is, in the circumstances it is used, safer for the woman than other procedures. It can be safer for women with prior uterine scars, or for women for whom induction of labor would be particularly dangerous. It can be safer for other women because: (1) it reduces the dangers from sharp bone fragments passing through the cervix, (2) minimizes the number of instrument passes needed for extraction and lessens the likelihood of uterine perforations caused by those instruments, (3) reduces the likelihood of leaving infection-causing fetal and placental tissue in the uterus, and (4) could help to prevent potentially fatal absorption of fetal tissue into the maternal circulation. D&X procedure is used when it superior to, and safer than, other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period.

5. Intrafetal potassium chloride or digoxin can be and often is used to induce fetal demise prior to D&X to facilitate evacuation.

6. Unless your nation is extremely unusual medically, D&X is a very rarely used procedure – as are any form of late-term abortions.

7. OCC/RL info: According to the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm), about 90% of all abortions performed in the United States take place during the first trimester of pregnancy, before 12 weeks of gestational age. In fact, 59% of abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks' gestation. Overall, 25% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 16% at 8 weeks. Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.2% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks. About 0.04 – 0.08% occur at > 24 weeks.

8. OCC/RL info: Again, according to the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm), 95% of abortions in the United States were known to have been performed by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation [D&E]) and 0.5% by intrauterine instillation. Medicinal (nonsurgical, aka medical) abortions made up approximately 3% of abortions. Other forms of abortion were known to have been used in <0.01% of all abortions – and that includes hysterectomy and hysterotomy. The exact number of D&X procedures is unknown, but the most reliable estimates are that they account for < 0.05% of abortions in the U.S.

I repeat: the suggested repeal and the arguments for it are wrong and disingenuous.

You didn't even bother to read the entirety of my posts, did you?

My point is that you did not disprove my point, which was that a four-year-old and an almost-born baby meet the same requirements for life, thus the almost-born baby should be on the same level as the child and should not be allowed to be killed.

This is what I said about it:

Which is blatantly untrue. I made it a point to post this because some people use the word "baby" to signify both the virus-like embryo and an actual human child from the time of the third trimester to the time of learning to walk. You appear to be that type from what I have seen of you posts, though it may have been a misconception based on the wordings you have used. By posting what I did, I opened up the path of discussion into which I could disprove the statement.

The statement I was talking about was the one I quoted before saying that.

Again, my point is that your statement was unnecessary and irrelevant... no one here has compared an under-developed embryo to a small child, only a fully-developed baby.

I never said I was redefining abortion. I did say that I count people as alive when they reach the third trimester. If you are going to make an accusation, prove it.

You have said that your nation defines abortion as the termination of a fetus, and defines a fetus as the state of the baby during the first two trimesters. In doing so, you have redefined abortion because that excludes all third trimester abortion types from your nation's definition.

Sigh. I'm so glad everyone's sick of things. Let me show what I'm sick of:
Refusal to creatively legislate the Resolution by the one side
The other side claiming that a Repeal somehow bans abortion world-wide
One side using Appeal to Emotion
The other side using Appeal to Authority
Both sides using Appeal to Popularity
Both sides dancing the line of flaming
Both sides dancing the line of flamebaiting
Both sides ignoring Moderators when they're told to keep within forum rules

Locked. Again. That's about enough of being at each other's throats. If you can't debate within the rules of the forum, don't debate this topic. My patience is wearing thin.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator