NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Argument: NOTING 25.5% of abortions are because the mother/ parents want to postpone childbearing. (This figure does not include underage pregnancy)

NOTING the mental and physical affect abortions have on the mother.

REALIZING that abortion is NOT a form of contraception, and should not be seen as such.

RECOGNIZING that UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #61 does not reflect the complex nature of the issue it attempts to resolve, partly due to its large tar brush effect and lack of information.

CALLING UPON pro-choice and pro-life to repeal UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #61 to make way for a fairer, more humane resolution.

FURTHER REMINDS that with sexual intercourse comes responsibility, and I URGE people to take this into account.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/71558/page=UN_proposal/start=56

Your thoughts would be greatly welcomed.

You call for a more humane resolution, but you don't show how the resolution is inhumane.

You call for a more humane resolution, but you don't show how the resolution is inhumane.

Very true, although i am not repealing because it is or isn't inhumane, but asking for a more humane resolution to be installed after - it isn't really my main argument, and is a bit of a throw away comment, however, i will attempt to clarify.

Resolution #61 has no content, 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. i.e. how old the foetus can be before termination? It just doesn't say, and that is one of the major, if not main, arguments within the abortion 'arena'. What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy 2 weeks before you give birth (where unless it is amazingly premature a baby can survive), and killing a baby 2 weeks after it is born? Difference is under the current 'law' of the UN only one of the above would you be breaking the law. Does common sense always prevail? No, that’s why we need to clarify this.

old the foetus can be .


Setting an age of this foetus is in violation of a law reguired by part of resolution #12.. that reads
.... must pass laws protecting 'people' from discrimination in all parts of 'life'... As setting the how old is age and this is a part of life then you are now trying to violate a law established in your own region as requided by resolution #12.....

If you argue the foetus is not actualy 'people' then you defeat the arguement it is.. from conception 'living' human..
It would be best not to argue age at all.. focus on other reasons..
IE: Healt of mother questioned would having harm her...then and only then will abortion considered.. --
also focus on options of adoption over abortion as the demand for children for adoption is high.. thus this must be considered unless healt of mother comes to question..

To off set any use of abortion include something that 'cleans it up'
IE: Abortions only when mothers health is in question.... and Abort...... would be last resort to preserve her life not an after conception birth control.
This cover status of foetus as from conception... and will passify those concerns for mothers healt.. also those who feel abortion is another birth control..

You will not get abortions fully banned... thus provide alternates and limit when and where, and how it will be done.. One concern is that to ban it will take it back to those back rooms with a shady quack or some medical reject doing it. The old 'coat hanger' rumor of how it was done in those back rooms by might have been doctors or wanna be docs..

Alternate in ROLE play.. If healt of mother will not allow foetus to be carried by her to term then a surrogate (think this spell) mother shall be found that can carry it to term and is able, willing, and wanting a child. Or Test Tube the foetus..(explain TT success higher than current natural Birth success wiht the advances in TT Science) ...take it from the mother... who does not want it or can't carry it to term..and TT.. thus adoption is a solution to it..

Hope I have not intruded just some thoughts on the issue.. you are talking over...

Resolution #61 has no content, 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. i.e. how old the foetus can be before termination? It just doesn't say
It just doesn't say because it just doesn't matter. We know that the mother is fully human and therefore she has rights. We cannot make that same statement about the foetus.

Very true, although i am not repealing because it is or isn't inhumane, but asking for a more humane resolution to be installed after - it isn't really my main argument, and is a bit of a throw away comment, however, i will attempt to clarify.

Resolution #61 has no content, 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. i.e. how old the foetus can be before termination? It just doesn't say, and that is one of the major, if not main, arguments within the abortion 'arena'. What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy 2 weeks before you give birth (where unless it is amazingly premature a baby can survive), and killing a baby 2 weeks after it is born? Difference is under the current 'law' of the UN only one of the above would you be breaking the law. Does common sense always prevail? No, that’s why we need to clarify this.

*ahem* Foetuses are parasites under law - they have no rights, they are not human, they have no legal standing.

A baby, having been born and existing as a separate being, has rights.

Common sense.

Giving rights to tissue is against common sense - so you defeat your own arguement.

TTFN.

It just doesn't say because it just doesn't matter. We know that the mother is fully human and therefore she has rights. We cannot make that same statement about the foetus.

I think you'll find we can, after a certain period of pregnancy. If a baby can be born prematurely, surely you understand that a mother over a certain amount of weeks into pregnancy now has a 'human' inside them, that could in fact survive outside the womb?

I think you'll find we can, after a certain period of pregnancy. If a baby can be born prematurely, surely you understand that a mother over a certain amount of weeks into pregnancy now has a 'human' inside them, that could in fact survive outside the womb?

Until it's a separate human being, it's a parasite.

*ahem* Foetuses are parasites under law - they have no rights, they are not human, they have no legal standing. (1)

A baby, having been born and existing as a separate being, has rights. (2)

Common sense.

Giving rights to tissue is against common sense - so you defeat your own arguement. (3)

TTFN.

(1) Tell that to people who have been charged of second-degree murder for killing pregnant women, on top of the charge for killing the mother.

(2) It appears to me, from above, they already do.

(3) Tissue? Can you please expand on that, as a foetus is a bit more complex than that.

Common sense, eh.

Until it's a separate human being, it's a parasite.

It is still quite 'parasite' like after birth, apart from being detached it still absorbing nutrients from the host's body fluids, i.e. the mother. Now a premature baby could survive like this, so instead of abortions after a certain period of pregnancy, should they just be born and orphaned?

The only difference between and baby with rights (the right not to be killed by its mother, that is) and one without is that, even though it can survive, the fact it is attached to its mother gives the right for it to be killed.

I think you'll find we can, after a certain period of pregnancy.
Prove it.
If a baby can be born prematurely, surely you understand that a mother over a certain amount of weeks into pregnancy now has a 'human' inside them, that could in fact survive outside the womb?
If an error is to be made about which is human and which has rights, then I will always choose to "err" in favor of the rights, and the humanity, of the mother.

I would assume that very few, if any mothers who go through the pregnacy to almost the end would suddenly want an abortion just because they've changed their minds about wanting the child. In almost all cases an abortion at this stage is because continuing the pregnacy would endanger the mothers life or because of fetal deformeties. I imagine most, if not all doctors would do what they could to preserve the life of a viable, almost at term child, whether the mother wants it or not, if it can survive outside the womb. I think its a fallacy to believe doctors are more than happy to rip an almost at term viable child out of the mother and kill it just on the womans whim.

I'm afraid one of the arguements I hate most when used against abortion is the "she had sex, so its her own fault she's pregnant and she should be forced to have the child as punishment". Women aren't baby factories and the ultimate decision of whether to continue a preganacy, no matter what the circumstances of conception, is hers and hers alone.

I like the existing resolution as is because it says all it needs to say. An abortion at any stage of pregnacy is a decision made by the woman, in consultation with her doctor, not the government or any other entity. It gives the woman the right to make desicions about her body and keeps others noses out of her reproductive business.

(1) Tell that to people who have been charged of second-degree murder for killing pregnant women, on top of the charge for killing the mother.

Change your laws. We don't declare anyone guilty of anything for removing a parasite.



(2) It appears to me, from above, they already do.

Non sequitur. Irrelevant.


(3) Tissue? Can you please expand on that, as a foetus is a bit more complex than that.

Complexity is irrelevant. Removing a pint of blood is removing tissue, removing a kidney is removing tissue, removing a parasite is removing tissue. No difference under law.

It is still quite 'parasite' like after birth, apart from being detached it still absorbing nutrients from the host's body fluids, i.e. the mother. Now a premature baby could survive like this, so instead of abortions after a certain period of pregnancy, should they just be born and orphaned?

The only difference between and baby with rights (the right not to be killed by its mother, that is) and one without is that, even though it can survive, the fact it is attached to its mother gives the right for it to be killed.

*sigh*

If it's a "person with rights", it's a person with rights.
If it's a parasite, it has no rights.

Simple test:
1) Separate.
2) Unconnected.
3) Took a breath.

Passed? Human with rights. Failed? Parasite. Next?

We have no interest in the potential humanity of a pile of flesh. Cloning could potentially make a goiter into a human - but we're not even going to conceptualize giving a goiter the status of "human with rights".

Change your laws. We don't declare anyone guilty of anything for removing a parasite.

I know this is not really related to the resolution that much but, you dont declare anyone to be guilty of anything if they remove a 'parasite'.

So you are saying, that if a female who has successfully got pregnant after years of trying and fully intends to carry the baby to full term is attacked and stabbed in the stomach, killing the 'parasite', you would not find that person guilty of anything apart from grievous bodily harm against the female mother?

Thats shocking

But what if the featus is mentally handicap and the familly cannot take care of it and it cannot be put up for adoption.what will the familly do then




Victor Sorino
U.N. Minister

I see it this way: The current resolution needs touch up, woamn should have the right to choose abortion, but I guess limits will have to be in place, eg age of fetus, and others mentioned above. Woman wanting an abortion should aslo be made aware of ALL the facts before finaly choosing wether or not to have an abortion.

*ahem* Foetuses are parasites under law - they have no rights, they are not human, they have no legal standing.

A baby, having been born and existing as a separate being, has rights.

Common sense.

Giving rights to tissue is against common sense - so you defeat your own arguement.

TTFN.

Scientific Degrees issued by Vastivan Universities will no longer be honored by the Republic, because of the low-quality of education such universities provide to their students...

You can argue the "personhood" of a foetus; however, you cannot argue whether or not it is human... "Human" (Homo Sapien) is determined by biology, NOT LAW... "Personhood" is determined by law. A Human foetus; is a HUMAN foetus; it's a Human; that aspect is not arguable..... Unless you want to try to convince me; with your scientific illiteracy; that between conception and birth; the creature resultant from the copulation of two Humans; is somehow not the same species....

the creature resultant from the copulation of two Humans;

*giggles furtively*

(He said "copulation"!)

*giggles some more*

A Human foetus; is a HUMAN foetus; it's a Human; that aspect is not arguable..... Unless you want to try to convince me; with your scientific illiteracy; that between conception and birth; the creature resultant from the copulation of two Humans; is somehow not the same species....
Greetings.

We are unsure as to the strength of your logical chain. A human foetus is indeed human and foetus. A human tooth is indeed human and tooth. But neither is necessarily a human. There is no atomic definition of human. This is a problem, and it has to be solved somehow. That is where your energies should be directed.

Greetings.

We are unsure as to the strength of your logical chain. A human foetus is indeed human and foetus. A human tooth is indeed human and tooth. But neither is necessarily a human. There is no atomic definition of human. This is a problem, and it has to be solved somehow. That is where your energies should be directed.

Except "foetus" / "fetus" is "The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal."

Saying "Human Fetus" is classifying an already established creature/animal within its own biological classification. "Human" Tooth" is in refference to a component of the being/animal. a "Fetus" is not a "component" but the vertibrate animal itself; only being gestationally housed within the mother animal.

A "Human Fetus" is a "Human" in early stages of development and in possession of the basic structure of the adult animal (Human). The same is not applied to a tooth.

Once again, I do not argue upon "personhood" which is a legal term ascribing a state of possession of self-determination and rights.... But it is still a biological human being / human animal. While I support the ascertion that a foetus/fetus, human or otherwise of any intelligent vertibrate animal; does not ascribe to (at lest amongst the Tekaniou) the definition and criteria of being "persons"; it is still of the species Homo Sapien Sapien; and is a
"Human" or "Tekaniou" or any developing Hominid type creature of its own species...

A "Human Fetus" is a "Human" in early stages of development and in possession of the basic structure of the adult animal (Human). The same is not applied to a tooth.
Greetings.

We of Roathin are much more satisified with this reasoning. We apologize for our thought process, which prefers 'foetal human' to 'human foetus' for obvious syntactical reasons - which are somewhat related to your main argument.

*ahem* Foetuses are parasites under law - they have no rights, they are not human, they have no legal standing.

A baby, having been born and existing as a separate being, has rights.

Common sense.

Giving rights to tissue is against common sense - so you defeat your own arguement.

TTFN.
That’s a most fallacious assertion.
Common sense, no more like complete irrationality.

This is definitely a human rights issue, but not in the ludicrous way it is now.

Quoted from another debate about this.

8 weeks - the first response to an external stimulus, such as touch.

By about 14 weeks, sensory receptors are present over all the body surface.

16-18 weeks - Reaction to sounds like their mother's voice (over that of another woman's), musical themes (TV, radio), the voice of close family members etc.

18 weeks - vision, opening its eyes and blinking, reaction to light.

At about 24 weeks the first nerve fibers going from the thalamus to the cortex could be seen, from about 26 weeks the whole nerve system is there from the skin receptors to the spinal cord. By 27 weeks the first recordable electrical activity in the brain is visible.

“By at least 26 weeks the full pain (nerve) system is there, so it seems extremely likely that if you do something that is painful to us it will be painful to the fetus.”

26 weeks - Feel pain. And exhibit a whole range of typical baby behavior and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccupping, and sucking.

Abortion as a practice after around 4 to 5 months (16-20 weeks on) at the very least is nothing short of mass murder. Abortion’s wrong in any case, though I should note (and set the record strait) that the loss of a child through a medical procedure to save the mothers life is NOT considered an abortion. Especially in early pregnancy.

As a standard practice in the Republic (and beyond the mere classification of abortion) but extendable to other lifeforms. "Personhood" is a state which is classified by the possession of particular "attributes". None of which are classified directly "physical".

Such was handled under Amendment 15 of the Republic's Constitution:

The Criteria are:
Intelligence
Self-Awareness
Consciousness

Intelligence exists primarily in the realm of information storage, and the ability of recall. And is closely related to "memory" storage and processing.

Self-Awareness is defined primarily as the creatures ability to not only react; but demonstrate a working knowledge of its own self and surroundings.

Consciousness is interconnected with intelligence and self-awareness; but is a sense beyond mere understanding of itself or surroundings; but a demonstrable capability to understand its own progression as a creature; and a definitive "future" form and plan for its own development. In a way; a sense of "individuality".

Full Personhood is defined upon the point at which the processing capability of the being is on par and of similtude to the capability of that of the adult creature which is a person. At that; Homo Sapiens in Tekaniou society are not graduated into Personhood till age 15.... Which is classified within the realm of our age of Accountability (while members of the Tekaniou do not reach such stages till 17). It is a far more difficult for Constructs (AI's) to be assertained; but most are graduated at or around their 3-4th year of operation; and the Celestian Silicate's are from the point they leave their hatchery; though are not classified as "fully" persons unless upon grant from the Celestian Hive Mind which governs their particular dominion. Prior to that all offspring exist under grant, and in protection of their Parents or Guardians in a "Minor" status (Except amongst Celestians, where the "Hive" is considered the "Person")

Those in minor status have rights under Grant, via their parents and guardians; Those in pre-born status enjoy no rights, even in Grant; neither being definitive "Persons" in the realm of Law of the Republic.

Scientific Degrees issued by Vastivan Universities will no longer be honored by the Republic, because of the low-quality of education such universities provide to their students...

You can argue the "personhood" of a foetus; however, you cannot argue whether or not it is human... "Human" (Homo Sapien) is determined by biology, NOT LAW... "Personhood" is determined by law. A Human foetus; is a HUMAN foetus; it's a Human; that aspect is not arguable..... Unless you want to try to convince me; with your scientific illiteracy; that between conception and birth; the creature resultant from the copulation of two Humans; is somehow not the same species....
IC: I find I must ask questions about the timing of this announcement. The Vastivan position is well-known in these halls, this is nothing new. Yet Tekania waits until now to make this announcement. Why wait this long?

OOC: Well, you may not have to worry about what Vastivan scientists do - it's up to Vastiva's appeal re his DEATion.

IC: I find I must ask questions about the timing of this announcement. The Vastivan position is well-known in these halls, this is nothing new. Yet Tekania waits until now to make this announcement. Why wait this long?

OOC: Well, you may not have to worry about what Vastivan scientists do - it's up to Vastiva's appeal re his DEATion.

IC: This is the first time this Republic has seen another state question the another state question the classification of species of the resultant creature procreation of a particular species....

If such has occred before; we appologize for not having noticed it; But at the same time, we cannot accept accountability for not being present when such ascertions have been made; and expect to be able to refute claims which we were not party to, or in presence, at the time...

OOC: Vastiva's been DEAT'ed? WTF! That's not right.... I hope the appeal makes it...

Abortion as a practice after around 4 to 5 months (16-20 weeks on) at the very least is nothing short of mass murder. Abortion’s wrong in any case, though I should note (and set the record strait) that the loss of a child through a medical procedure to save the mothers life is NOT considered an abortion. Especially in early pregnancy.
I must respectfully disagree. Abortion in Ecopoeia is at no stage regarded as mass murder, even if more than one foetus is aborted. In addition, we do not ascribe 'right' or 'wrong' labels to the act. We feel that condemnation is a poor, blunt tool that should be avoided wherever possible.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I think we need to use common sense on this issue. I agree with abortion. But there should be limits on it, such as not allowing it once the brain is fully developed. At the very least, we do need to make partial birth abortions illegal.

Urcea has to totally agree with Tekania. Abortion is horrible all around. And this is to be settled BY SCIENCE, NOT LAW, as stated earlier.

John Carter
Urcea's Minister of the Interior and UN Representative

Urcea has to totally agree with Tekania. Abortion is horrible all around. And this is to be settled BY SCIENCE, NOT LAW, as stated earlier.

John Carter
Urcea's Minister of the Interior and UN Representative

Then you do not actually "agree" with me.

I merely assert the "fetus" resultant of a Human copulation is a Human....

I in no way assert they are persons... In fact, a fetus of a Hominid vertibrate, such as humans; do not meet the criteria of full "persons" as recognized in our laws. While at the same time we recognize the "Personhood" of a being, is not merely limited to their species; we recognize AI's, and Silicate life as persons, who meet such criteria....

Life does not equate to Personhood.... In our law.... Otherwise ANY termination of life is murder (including killing ants and germs).... The classification must exist beyond mere status as biologically "alive"...

Even acting towards simple stimuli is not enought....

Does a human fetus react to sound? Yes.... So does an oyster...
Does a human fetus react to light? Yes.... As does an oyster...
Does a human fetus react to touch? Yes... So does an oyster...

So mere simply "reactivity" to stimuli is not applicable to the debate on their possession of rights as "Persons"....

Now, you could argue one is a "Human" and the other an oyster.... And Humans are persons, but oysters are not....

This limits "Personhood" to species classification. So, if some creature is not member of the Human species; it's not a "person"....

Now, does this mean an AI possessing the same capability of a Human is not a "person" and therefore has no rights? That's real xenophobic racism there...

Certainly, an AI as capable and functional as a Human must be afforded, ethically, the same rights and recognition as a "person"...

Therefore the determination of personhood is based upon the demonstratable development and understanding of the creature in question.

This, however, can mean that members of even a stage of the "species" in question, may not, indeed be persons. And thus, we assert a human fetus, is not a person... Mainly because they cannot demonstrate any "attribute" which we have determined to be classifications (universally) as "persons".

Personhood is far more "philosophical" and must exist by all objective criteria in the definition of such, within reason... Not merely subject to either individual morality; nor operations of physical biology...

I must respectfully disagree. Abortion in Ecopoeia is at no stage regarded as mass murder, even if more than one foetus is aborted. In addition, we do not ascribe 'right' or 'wrong' labels to the act. We feel that condemnation is a poor, blunt tool that should be avoided wherever possible.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN
That comment represents the personal opinion of the people of James_xenoland about abortion as a whole and was only meant to provide context to our argument in this debate.

Scientific Degrees issued by Vastivan Universities will no longer be honored by the Republic, because of the low-quality of education such universities provide to their students...

You can argue the "personhood" of a foetus; however, you cannot argue whether or not it is human... "Human" (Homo Sapien) is determined by biology, NOT LAW... "Personhood" is determined by law. A Human foetus; is a HUMAN foetus; it's a Human; that aspect is not arguable..... Unless you want to try to convince me; with your scientific illiteracy; that between conception and birth; the creature resultant from the copulation of two Humans; is somehow not the same species....

(off topic)

On behalf of the Scientists of Vastiva, I would like to repeal this decision as I do not feel that the statements of a politician on an issue should be expected to represent the Education of those that major in scientific fields.

The only way I’d ever consider supporting a repeal of this proposal is if the repeal was intended to remove this existing resolution in favour of a resolution which would implement a time limit after which an abortion could not be performed.

(off topic)

On behalf of the Scientists of Vastiva, I would like to repeal this decision as I do not feel that the statements of a politician on an issue should be expected to represent the Education of those that major in scientific fields.

The we will repeal our previous decision....

OOC: WTF happend with this DEAT?

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/71558/page=UN_proposal/start=56

Your thoughts would be greatly welcomed.

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

No. Hell, no.

Argument: NOTING 25.5% of abortions are because the mother/ parents want to postpone childbearing. (This figure does not include underage pregnancy)

Perhaps in your nation. Perhaps not.

Regardless, you should look to improve family planning, sex education, and contraception instead of looking to deprive women of rights.

NOTING the mental and physical affect abortions have on the mother.

Abortion is mentally and physically safer and healthier for women than childbirth.

REALIZING that abortion is NOT a form of contraception, and should not be seen as such.

Goody. Feel free to proselytize that view. Teach the people of your nation not to abuse the right to abortion.

Don't take away the rights of all to punish the alleged abuse of said rights by a few.

RECOGNIZING that UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #61 does not reflect the complex nature of the issue it attempts to resolve, partly due to its large tar brush effect and lack of information.

Meh.

The resolution is correct.

You appear to misunderstand it.

CALLING UPON pro-choice and pro-life to repeal UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #61 to make way for a fairer, more humane resolution.

The current resolution is fair and humane.

I'm getting a psychic premonition that any alternative you favor will be less fair and less humane.

FURTHER REMINDS that with sexual intercourse comes responsibility, and I URGE people to take this into account.

With personhood comes responsibility AND RIGHTS. Women are persons. Zygotes, embryos, and early-term fetuses are not.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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 fethttp://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

3. 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

OCC/RL info: (highlight to view) 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.

Then you do not actually "agree" with me.

I merely assert the "fetus" resultant of a Human copulation is a Human....

I in no way assert they are persons... In fact, a fetus of a Hominid vertibrate, such as humans; do not meet the criteria of full "persons" as recognized in our laws. While at the same time we recognize the "Personhood" of a being, is not merely limited to their species; we recognize AI's, and Silicate life as persons, who meet such criteria....

Life does not equate to Personhood.... In our law.... Otherwise ANY termination of life is murder (including killing ants and germs).... The classification must exist beyond mere status as biologically "alive"...

Even acting towards simple stimuli is not enought....

Does a human fetus react to sound? Yes.... So does an oyster...
Does a human fetus react to light? Yes.... As does an oyster...
Does a human fetus react to touch? Yes... So does an oyster...

So mere simply "reactivity" to stimuli is not applicable to the debate on their possession of rights as "Persons"....

Now, you could argue one is a "Human" and the other an oyster.... And Humans are persons, but oysters are not....

This limits "Personhood" to species classification. So, if some creature is not member of the Human species; it's not a "person"....

Now, does this mean an AI possessing the same capability of a Human is not a "person" and therefore has no rights? That's real xenophobic racism there...

Certainly, an AI as capable and functional as a Human must be afforded, ethically, the same rights and recognition as a "person"...

Therefore the determination of personhood is based upon the demonstratable development and understanding of the creature in question.

This, however, can mean that members of even a stage of the "species" in question, may not, indeed be persons. And thus, we assert a human fetus, is not a person... Mainly because they cannot demonstrate any "attribute" which we have determined to be classifications (universally) as "persons".

Personhood is far more "philosophical" and must exist by all objective criteria in the definition of such, within reason... Not merely subject to either individual morality; nor operations of physical biology...


I agree completely. On another subject, has anyone considered a proposal protecting the rights of sentient non-humans? Under the current laws, I don't think the UN ensures the rights of non-humans.

I agree completely. On another subject, has anyone considered a proposal protecting the rights of sentient non-humans? Under the current laws, I don't think the UN ensures the rights of non-humans.

Actually yes; and it has been rejected those times.... Mostly because we (Far)Future Tech, and Fantasy Tech (both which consider this a more important issue) have been overruled by the xenophobic Modernites in the UN.

They can't seem to understand the difference between granting rights to AI's, and other intelligent life, and that of animals....

No. Hell, no.

Perhaps in your nation. Perhaps not.

Regardless, you should look to improve family planning, sex education, and contraception instead of looking to deprive women of rights.
What about the rights of human children?


Abortion is mentally and physically safer and healthier for women than childbirth.
Ah yes, the old “evil pregnancy” argument.

Sorry but I think you might be confusing your numbers.
Physically abortion is safer then childbirth in certain cases of complication. Such as the mother having a unknown pre existing medical condition or the mother being too young to safely carry a child full term and in a few other situations.

It’s a common mistake resulting from misinterpreted and misconstrued facts that feminists and abortion supporters seem to “accidentally” quote a lot.

As for the ridiculous notion that abortion is mentally safer and healthier then normal childbirth. Well that’s one of the stupidest arguments I hear people use, I mean please explain exactly what makes pregnancy and childbirth so psychologically detrimental? Especially when comparing it to abortion! P.A.S anyone? (POST ABORTION SYNDROME)


Goody. Feel free to proselytize that view. Teach the people of your nation not to abuse the right to abortion.

Don't take away the rights of all to punish the alleged abuse of said rights by a few.
Again I ask you, what about a persons right to live? And of all people a human child, the most innocent of us.


With personhood comes responsibility AND RIGHTS. Women are persons. Zygotes, embryos, and early-term fetuses are not.
Personhood has NO scientific, psychological or legal validity/meaning/definition.

So that must mean that you mean the scientifically incorrect philosophical definition of "personhood"! Which is just that, philosophical theory, NOT scientific fact!

The whole philosophical definition of personhood is based on incorrect scientific claims and invalid scientific analogies! Along with all the "potential" arguments!

And anyway using the personhood argument, the mental handicapped, retarded, elderly and children under a few years of age don’t have any rights either.

Actually - the interesting thing I find in his argument is that he makes a distinction about early-term fetuses - but one of the major considerations is what to do with latter term fetuses and whether or not they are legal to abort or not (I note one person has argued that we are still allowed to make late-term fetuses illegal).

abortion is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again I ask you, what about a persons right to live? And of all people a human child, the most innocent of us.
No. We're talking about a foetus, not a child.

Well, adding in my two cents, normally a touchy subject such as this should be left up to the individual nations. So, even though I (and my nation Jahov, to stay vaguely IC like) support abortion on a pro-choice type issue, we also support this bill, because it should be the nations place to say not the UN's.

What about the rights of human children?

Ah yes, as with most anti-choice zealots, you ignore the inalienable human rights of the one undeniably living, sentient entity involved in any pregnancy or abortion -- the mother. A women has a right to control her own body including the right to choose.

A women's right to choose is essential to the right of self-ownership, without which there is no freedom. A women's right to choose is also intextricably bound with a host of other fundamental rights including the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, to bodily integrity, to patient-client privilege.

But, even if we beg the question and assume an embryo, zygote, fetus, fertilized egg, or whatever is a life, that does not end the equation. There is still another entity's rights at stake -- one with a superior claim to its own body.

Perhaps more importantly, the mother is a moral agent with a superior claim to the state's as to who shall resolve any conflict between her rights and that of the fetus (zygote, etc). If you trust women to have children, then you must trust them to make decisions about their pregancies. It is an unbelievably arrogant to assume you know better. To deprive women of choice is simple tyranny.

Ah yes, the old “evil pregnancy” argument.

Sorry but I think you might be confusing your numbers.
Physically abortion is safer then childbirth in certain cases of complication. Such as the mother having a unknown pre existing medical condition or the mother being too young to safely carry a child full term and in a few other situations.

It’s a common mistake resulting from misinterpreted and misconstrued facts that feminists and abortion supporters seem to “accidentally” quote a lot.

Who said pregnancy is "evil"?

Not I. It and childbirth do have certain risks and effects, however.

It is a simply a fact -- a medical, scientific, and statistical fact -- that abortion is safer than childbirth.

But in our nation, we have striven to make abortion safe and rare and pregnancy and childbirth as safe as possible.

Perhaps your medical technology is lacking ...

OCC: Are the Centers for Disease Control a pack of feminists and abortion supporters? How about the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association? Clicky (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm), clicky (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html), clicky (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html), clicky (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000054E4.htm). I can post much more if necessary.

As for the ridiculous notion that abortion is mentally safer and healthier then normal childbirth. Well that’s one of the stupidest arguments I hear people use, I mean please explain exactly what makes pregnancy and childbirth so psychologically detrimental? Especially when comparing it to abortion! P.A.S anyone? (POST ABORTION SYNDROME)

Again, hopefully nations invest as much money and effort into making all medical treatment -- particularly childbirth -- as safe and healthy as possible.

But, haven't you ever heard of post-partum depression? It is rather common in wanted pregnancies. And you think forcing women to have babies against their will would be good for them? :rolleyes:

Post-abortion syndrome is a myth. With abortion being legal, it has less risk of detrimental mental impact than childbirth.

OCC: Again, this is the opinion of the American Psychological Association and other medical organizations. See clickies above.


Again I ask you, what about a persons right to live? And of all people a human child, the most innocent of us.

What part of making abortions as rare as possible did you not understand?

If you eliminated unwanted pregnancies, you eliminate most abortions.

If you improve your pre-natal care and medical technology, you can eliminate more abortions.

You can make abortions non-existent without depriving women of rights. Why are you against that?

By the way, I love that you refer to a person's right to live and then, in the next part of your argument, deny that personhood is a meaningful criteria.

Personhood has NO scientific, psychological or legal validity/meaning/definition.

So that must mean that you mean the scientifically incorrect philosophical definition of "personhood"! Which is just that, philosophical theory, NOT scientific fact!

Otay ...

But the "right to life" has a scientific and psychological validity/meaning/definition? Care to explain?

Pray tell, how do you determine who has rights and what rights they have?

Why do carrots, trees, pigs, chimpanzees, and dolphins not have a right to life, but a zygote or embryo does?

OCC: Personhood has a rather important legal meaning. Check your US Constitution. The 14th Amendment, for example, guarantees the rights of persons. The US Supreme Court has held that an unborn child is not a person under the Constitution.

The whole philosophical definition of personhood is based on incorrect scientific claims and invalid scientific analogies! Along with all the "potential" arguments!

Bullshit.

"Personhood" is simply a way of deteriming who has rights. Unless you think everything has rights, then there must be some criteria for distinguishing those entitled to recognition of rights from those not so entitled. It is clear that any individual who is self-conscious and acts autonomously on the basis of a set of moral beliefs, that is, who is a center of autonomous choice and evaluation, qualifies as a person. Obviously, any normal adult human being qualifies as a person under these criteria. But one should not limit rights to normal adult human beings.

For example, one good set of criteria uses five necessary and sufficient conditions are embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:
(1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.
(2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
(3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
(4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
(5) being able to have emotions.

NOTE: (1)-(3) are less problematic than (4)-(5). Perhaps (1)-(3) are enough for personhood.

So, a being who actually has (1)-(5) is a person in the moral sense, i.e. has moral rights.

Fertilized eggs, zygotes, and embryos do not satisfy any of the 5 criteria -- let alone all five. At some point in the latter part of a pregnancy, a fetus may begin to satisfy the criteria -- but not prior to the end of the second trimester.

Please explain where the above makes a scientific error.

And anyway using the personhood argument, the mental handicapped, retarded, elderly and children under a few years of age don’t have any rights either.

Not under any reasonable definition of personhood. By definition, a personhood argument that excluded the mental handicapped, retarded, elderly, and children under a few years of age is not an acceptable definition of personhood.

Nice combination of a strawman and a slippery slope argument, however. ;)

Actually - the interesting thing I find in his argument is that he makes a distinction about early-term fetuses - but one of the major considerations is what to do with latter term fetuses and whether or not they are legal to abort or not (I note one person has argued that we are still allowed to make late-term fetuses illegal).

I am the person making both arguments.

I can defend late-term abortion, but it is also possible to ban or eliminate them without violating the UN resolution -- so the issue is moot.

Well, adding in my two cents, normally a touchy subject such as this should be left up to the individual nations. So, even though I (and my nation Jahov, to stay vaguely IC like) support abortion on a pro-choice type issue, we also support this bill, because it should be the nations place to say not the UN's.

Our office largely agrees with this stance, and would support a repeal of the resolution in question.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Our office largely agrees with this stance, and would support a repeal of the resolution in question.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith
As do we.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I am the person making both arguments.

I can defend late-term abortion, but it is also possible to ban or eliminate them without violating the UN resolution -- so the issue is moot.

Oh - sorry - missed the fact that you posted both posts

Could you possibly explain the loophole - I'm having a hard time seeing it in action.