NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Argument: Argument is simple: does the child awaiting birth have NO rights?

Resolution re-written to only allow abortion in the instance of rape cases.

Question: does the child awaiting birth have NO rights?

Answer: Correct.

Alternative Answer: The Mother has more rights then the potential person/current parasite, and the Mother's rights are to be respected first.

Your card, Sir? (http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg)

Next question?

proposals can be lodged numerous times before they are made into resolutions...so redundancy isnt necessarily a bad this

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

Argument: Argument is simple: does the child awaiting birth have NO rights?

None at all. Welcome to life.

Resolution re-written to only allow abortion in the instance of rape cases.

Wow. You're sentencing a lot of mothers to death with that idea. Hell, you might as well be walking into maternity wards and shooting them yourself. After all, it's still going to be them dying because of your decision.

Please, stand over there, by the fridge and just near the quarantine zone for the National Sovereignity group. We prefer sane mass murderers to be kept at a distance.

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

Argument: Argument is simple: does the child awaiting birth have NO rights?

Debatable


Resolution re-written to only allow abortion in the instance of rape cases.

Wow - you're missing the #1 instance where abortion is illegal around the world: where the mother's life is in jepoardy.

Any time you ask a question, you're giving the vast majority of people a chance to answer the question however they may choose - rather than choosing your answer.

There are good arguments that could be made against this resolution, but fetus' right to life is a VERY weak one. The original resolution passed because the majority of the UN (admittedly, at the time, but that hasn't necessarily changed) didn't entirely believe that a fetus is a living being - and thus aborting it is "killing" it. I would call trying to reverse the decision on the same argument a very BAD choice.

I don't even understand all fo this!

The only person entitled to make a decision on abortion is the one whose body it is

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

Argument: Argument is simple: does the child awaiting birth have NO rights?

Resolution re-written to only allow abortion in the instance of rape cases.

Until we can develop the technology to communicate with the child/zygote/embryo then we can't really place any value in what it wants, certainly not over the mother.

Many raped women, however, do not come forward with this information, for various reasons pertaining to the particular case. Also, as it was mentioned by another poster, there are valid medical reasons for abortion including terminating pregnancies that will ultimately take the life of both the infant and the mother.

For the record, I agree that this proposal should be repealled.

BUT not for any of the reasons outlined earlier.

If this resolution is to be repealled, it should be to make way for a far stronger and better written proposal.

For the record, I agree that this proposal should be repealled.

BUT not for any of the reasons outlined earlier.

If this resolution is to be repealled, it should be to make way for a far stronger and better written proposal.

Let's not go there again.

The Abortion issue has to do with simple basic human beliefs or even dogmas. As people can be converted from one set of beleifs to another it is only natural that this issue be brought up periodically. The UN must reflect the values and beliefs of it's nations and if the UN were to all of a suddon convert to christianity it would be highly likely that a resolution banning abortion, except for special circumstances, would be passed.

I think all laws should be revised from time to time and abortion is no exception. Now having said that... I am generally in favour of legalizing abortion up until the 12th week of pregnancy. After that it should only be legalized for special circumstances.

I actually agree with Canada6's answer. People are of course free to change their minds at will, and just because a proposal has failed to become a resolution numerous times doesn't mean that future attempts should be torn down before they even have a chance. Fatus Maximus would be against a repeal, however, because we believe the rights of the pregnant woman outweigh that of the fetus.

I'm in favor of this being repealed for the usual reason.
http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/UNCards/nationalsovereighty.jpg

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Sorry, we burned then nuked Canada6 and are not into performing seances.

We are also entirely against limits on womens rights.

Sorry, we burned then nuked Canada6 and are not into performing seances.

We are also entirely against limits on womens rights.Did you know that an abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy brings several serious health risks to the woman? In most countries where abortion is legal the 12 week limit is in effect for that very reason.

and about the burning and nuking... you've used that allready and I think it's used up it's charm the first time. :rolleyes: You having nuked me is just as likely as a boxing glove having popped out of your monitor and jabbed you in the face.

we believe the rights of the pregnant woman outweigh that of the fetus.
Well said, and Yelda agrees.

You having nuked me is just as likely as a boxing glove having popped out of your monitor and jabbed you in the face.

:p

Come on, come on, relax, guys. Settle these disputes the old fashioned way- in the Strangers Bar. :D

Until we can develop the technology to communicate with the child/zygote/embryo then we can't really place any value in what it wants, certainly not over the mother.

Why shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go the other way?

Why shouldn't the benefit of the doubt go the other way?
Greetings.

We believe it is quite straightforward. There is no doubt that the mother has full human rights. There is a doubt as to whether the zygote, foetus or other derivative body has full rights or not. Hence to avoid the fruitless multiplication of entities, the blessed shaving implement of Ockham should be invoked and there shall be no doubt of the benefits until the benefit of the doubt is clearly seen.

The supposed rights and personhood of the fetus are irrelevant when it comes to the real issue of abortion - that of bodily integrity.
Sorry, but nobody can be coerced into donating their body against their will.

Thanks. I'm not here to argue, it's just that I'm not too familiar with the moral defense of the pro-choice position, so I thought I'd inquire.

Christian Rome supports this resolution in Principle. If given the chance, Christian Rome would vote to approve it. We understand that some nations which might otherwise be predisposed to support the proposed resolution may not do so because of the lack of provision for incest, or threat to the life of the mother. Christian Rome would not make an exception in our internal laws for this, however, we are willing that these exeptions should be made in a UN resolution, in order that its passage may be assured.

Abortion is a great evil and a social scourge. As a world body, we cannot claim that we collectively defend the rights of those who cannot defend themselves if WE fail to defend the most defenseless, the unborn.

Christian Rome has not yet become a regional delegate. However, we urge regional delegates to support this resolution so that it may be brought to the whole of the United Nations for a vote.