NationStates Jolt Archive

Text of the proposal:
"Without being concerned with ideological tendencies, this resolution infringes upon the rights of the nation-state.
The decision to allow or outlaw abortions should be made within each individual state, and it is neither the responsibility nor the right of the United Nations to deny any country national sovereignty to such a vast degree. The passage of this resolution was a regrettable hyperextension of the UN's power.
Moreover, this resolution violates the policies of the UN on a fundamental level. It gives the majoritarian sentiment preference over the needs and beliefs of individual societies, in a manner for which the UN was not designed. The passage of this resolution was too drastic, and the terms of the document are too overbearing."

I'd like to hear what anyone has to say on this matter; however, "I'm, like, pro-choice" is not an argument, nor is it relevant to this proposal. As the text states, this proposal is not anchored in ideology, simply in the reality that the aforementioned resolution is antithetical to the spirit of both the UN and the game.

Thanks!

The Sultanate of Burma and Myanmar

ahhhhh, national sovereignty.

The UN can do whatever it likes to override national sovereignty. Check here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4) for what I consider the defining article on sovereignty vs UN.

Moreover Hirota considers the rights of the individual superior to the rights of the state in this scenario.
.

Moreover Hirota considers the rights of the individual superior to the rights of the state in this scenario.

Agreed. The state should not have the right to violate the sovereignty of a woman's body. Sovereignty of the individual > sovereignty of the nation, in this case.

We would support this repeal.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

:headbang: Such a proposition would never get our approval! women have a right to decide what to do with their bodies and children have a right to be born into decent situations (which means, at least have parents able to give the love you need to get through this life). this choice isn't against life, it is pro decent live. no woman should have to be forced to have a child she doesn't want. especially as nations against abortion are also, most often, against birth control of any king! let god decide ... yeah, and be lost forever. no religious fanaticisme should be allowed to overrule UN-decisions!

With respect to the delegate from Cally24, our objections to the resolution in question are not a matter of "religious fanaticisme", but respect for cultural differences. A successful repeal would not alter our policy on abortion (a matter left to local communities to determine, with the proviso that abortion is available on demand at any time somewhere in the islands), but we feel that other nations may wish to impose justifiable limits on availability and not just for religious reasons.

Abortion is an issue that we class as 'grey'; that is, we do not feel that one can determine an absolute 'moral' position with respect to it.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

“Well it’s good to see the old discussions are still churning its way round the system, gives one a sense of nostalgia every time they come round” thought the young Telidian while waiting for her Ecopoeian colleague to finish. Nodding an acknowledgement to Varia she rose to address the assembled delegates.”

The government of Telidia echo many of the sentiments of our learned colleagues and in the past have always campaigned against a repeal. Our preference has always been to work toward a further proposal, which help to define the current legislation more clearly. Regrettably however these attempts by various delegates seem to have failed and with great reluctance we agree there may now be cause to repeal the current legislation in favour of better structured and more considered legislation.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

My feeling is that if there is legislation needed here, it is to make abortion possible for women in all nations. it is a matter of personal choice in which no governement should be able to interfere! other legislation only makes things worse by opening the doors for illegal abortion. it is better to give those matters a legal regulation.

My feeling is that if there is legislation needed here, it is to make abortion possible for women in all nations. it is a matter of personal choice in which no governement should be able to interfere! other legislation only makes things worse by opening the doors for illegal abortion. it is better to give those matters a legal regulation.

The current legislation already make abortion legal in member states, it is however regrettably, a very poorly written piece of legislation. All it does is legalise the act without tying up any of the loose ends, such as ensuring abortions are done safely by trained medical staff and in clean medical facilities as one example.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Interesting remark there by telidia ...
can anyone tell me where i can find this original proposal?

Thanks,
The Republic of Cally 24

If you haven't read the original resolution, your opinion on both pieces of legislation means very little.

Thanks for the input, all!

Also, I think a good point was raised about individual rights over the nation-state, but in this situation, such an argument is on shaky ground.

The decision to have an abortion is irreversible and irrevocable. The terms of the highly insufficient original resolution do not address the countless factors surrounding each and every abortion, and this shortcoming is hard to overlook -- however, some ideologues will invariably prefer principle over public safety. That very well may be how you run your country, but it's not how I run mine. In that sense, the decision should be left up to individual states, hence my call for national sovereignty as the deciding factor rather than a categorical ban on abortion.

The individual's rights are important, but to suggest that the universal right to an abortion without regard to the circumstances deserves no skepticism would be downright irresponsible. Individuals should have the right to oversee most of their own daily affairs, but the state's responsibility is to ensure the public good and to protect its citizens. The legislation whose repeal I am supporting protects no one -- it ignores the psychological and social factors resulting from abortion and ignores cultural beliefs, in effect spitting on the practices and policies of a vast number of societies, all in the name of "individual freedoms." To allow abortions within individual states may be perfectly acceptable, but to force them upon every member state is certainly not.

Any other feedback is more than welcome. Thanks!

Given the changing circumstances within the global political climate, I think this issue deserves some debate -- if not in the form of approvals and an actual vote, then on this board, so please, anyone on either side, give some feedback.

Thanks!

The Sultanate of Burma And Myanmar

In the last 7 days alone, this would be the third abortion repeal thread that has actually lasted a while for debate. The political climate has not changed on this board and the opinions are reiterances of what was posted on the last thread (or sometimes, the last post on the same thread).

If the political climate of the UN has changed, its proof will not be found on these forums - where the experienced and the hardened newbies stay and the rest only peek in from time to time - fearful of being gutted. Of 36k members and 2k delegates, I'd say less than 20 talk regularly on here and less than 100 keep track of the forum (perhaps posting once in a while). When most resolutions pass with about 10k voters total, I don't think those numbers are relevant

I would be more than willing to support a resolution to remove the original Abortion Rights resolution, provided the wording of the new resolution would include text along the lines of if a nation state outlaws abortion in its own borders, for whatever reason, it's citizens should have the right to seek the abortion abroad without fear of reprisal from the nation state. Though this might put an additional financial burden on the individual considering abortion, it should also satisfy cries for national sovereignty and protect the rights of women to make their own decision in this manner.

Grossherzog Troy Kramer
Federation of Traumtal

Well, I imagine that would need to be addressed in another resolution. It's hard to do that in a repeal. :-)

Thanks!

If you haven't read the original resolution, your opinion on both pieces of legislation means very little.

after having found the original proposal by myself - thanking, by the way, burma and myanmar for not giving away this peace of information and just getting haughty - i still would have to vote against this proposal because it's fundamentally reactionnary!

Also, I think a good point was raised about individual rights over the nation-state, but in this situation, such an argument is on shaky ground.

The decision to have an abortion is irreversible and irrevocable. The terms of the highly insufficient original resolution do not address the countless factors surrounding each and every abortion, and this shortcoming is hard to overlook -- however, some ideologues will invariably prefer principle over public safety. That very well may be how you run your country, but it's not how I run mine. In that sense, the decision should be left up to individual states, hence my call for national sovereignty as the deciding factor rather than a categorical ban on abortion.

The individual's rights are important, but to suggest that the universal right to an abortion without regard to the circumstances deserves no skepticism would be downright irresponsible. Individuals should have the right to oversee most of their own daily affairs, but the state's responsibility is to ensure the public good and to protect its citizens. The legislation whose repeal I am supporting protects no one -- it ignores the psychological and social factors resulting from abortion and ignores cultural beliefs, in effect spitting on the practices and policies of a vast number of societies, all in the name of "individual freedoms." To allow abortions within individual states may be perfectly acceptable, but to force them upon every member state is certainly not.

Any other feedback is more than welcome. Thanks!

I agree with you that the resolution fails to accomplish a lot of important factors, and is insufficent. You are looking specifically at cultural factors, I look at the resolution lacking guidance on when an abortion can be performed - there surely is a cut off point when we are not talking about an embryo, but something which can survive independently (with or without medical aid).

BUT I disagree that the cultural beliefs of a state should override induvidual soverignty. Nations will have people residing within their borders who do not share the same cultural beliefs, either from being from a different nation, or a myriad of other factors. Banning abortion for everyone simply because the government thinks it is wrong.

If society as a whole thinks that abortion is unacceptable, then the majority will not take up the option to exercise their right because it is taboo/immoral within your culture. If it is a religous belief, then education and faith will encourage people not to exercise their rights in this area.

In summary, having the right to do something does not mean people will rush to do it. If as a culture abortion is frowned upon, then people of that culture will be far less likely to have an abortion.

Again, by a similar margin, if you banned abortion, then there will be people who will simply have the procedure performed abroad (RL Example - I know Ireland has an issue with people hopping over the border to Northern Ireland and getting a quickie abortion), so making it illegal in your nation for religous or cultural reasons will not prevent people from having abortions.

The Telidian government applaud the comments from the Hirota delegation and we share many of their sentiments and thoughts. Whilst we are in favour of repealing the current legislation we would not support a repeal based on cultural grounds. We would however support a repeal with the understanding considered legislation would be brought at a later date.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

In those cases, it would likely not be an issue of preventing abortions, per se. It would be a matter of principle on behalf of the state. If the government defines abortion as, say, murder, the UN has no right to force the state to sanction abortion as an institution.

Furthermore, the requirements of monitoring and overseeing abortions should not become a burden on a state that would, without the UN's self-righteous intervention, not condone abortions. If citizens cross the border and receive abortions, there's not much their home states can do, but to expect each and every member state to condone this institution is preposterous.

If citizens cross the border and receive abortions, there's not much their home states can do, but to expect each and every member state to condone this institution is preposterous.

Your point uniquely illustrates one of the main reasons I have always maintained the UN should have legislation regarding abortion. Just because a nation decides to criminalise abortion, it does not mean they have the right to indirectly pass the problem to their neighbours who don't and have them foot the medical bills.

You admit yourself individuals will have abortions regardless whether you make it illegal or not. Why then not take the responsible approach and at least help these individuals to do so in a safe way? Secondly and this is the part that always worries me, what happens to individuals who do decide to have an abortion in a nation where it is illegal. Will they be put in prison? Any law requires a consequence if it were to be broken, without it would be meaningless. In our humble opinion turning someone into a criminal simply because they made a personal choice about their own body is not something the Telidian government could support.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Get off your high horse for just a second.

If you read the earlier posts, you *should* see that several of your points were already addressed by one person or another; furthermore, your argument that "any law requires a consequence if it were to be broken" is irrelevant here, as we're dealing with transnational violations. For example, if someone takes a trip to a country where marijuana is legal, uses it there, and then returns to his/her home country, where it is illegal, is that person prosecuted? It's the same situation.

Furthermore, it makes more sense to place the financial burden on those countries who ideologically support abortion, rather than forcing it on those who don't -- if a country decides to allow abortions within its own borders, it decides to take on a further responsibility of monitoring these procedures, and the home state should not be force-fed a practice it does not believe in, and particularly, should not be responsible for the bill.

Get off your high horse for just a second.
Respectfully, sir, I've witnessed no high-horsing on the part of Ms Cornwall. Much to my regret.

M Vergniaud

If that's the case, I have to wonder what you've been reading.

If that's the case, I have to wonder what you've been reading.
Polite debate. Well, on Ms Cornwall's part. I'm reassessing your own contribution. Disagreement is not equivalent to getting on one's high horse.

M Vergniaud

Get off your high horse for just a second.

You get off of yours and stop saying statements like that. No one is on a high horse - though I could argue you are considering the arrogant "I am right tone, you haven't been reading" tone.

If you read the earlier posts, you *should* see that several of your points were already addressed by one person or another;

And now it has been uttered by another person giving the argument more strength so when those that oppose it speak, they will have a bigger group to debate with

furthermore, your argument that "any law requires a consequence if it were to be broken" is irrelevant here, as we're dealing with transnational violations.

No, we're dealing with national issues because we are concerned what some nations might do should a citizen of that nation use the facilities of another nation to perform an operation that is illegal in their home country.

For example, if someone takes a trip to a country where marijuana is legal, uses it there, and then returns to his/her home country, where it is illegal, is that person prosecuted?

In real life - no

In NS - I would bet there's a nation that does that

It's the same situation.

No, because Marijuana is drug use - a relatively minor offense that at most ususally goes with a moderate fine or community service (rarely jail time). On the other hand, Abortion many feel is akin to murder - and to commit such a crime is punishable by death in many nations.

Furthermore, it makes more sense to place the financial burden on those countries who ideologically support abortion, rather than forcing it on those who don't

That's a rather concerning argument....

-- if a country decides to allow abortions within its own borders, it decides to take on a further responsibility of monitoring these procedures, and the home state should not be force-fed a practice it does not believe in, and particularly, should not be responsible for the bill.

Why should the citizens of another country who don't pay the taxes for the country they visit have their treatment paid for by that country?

Furthermore, it makes more sense to place the financial burden on those countries who ideologically support abortion, rather than forcing it on those who don't -- if a country decides to allow abortions within its own borders, it decides to take on a further responsibility of monitoring these procedures, and the home state should not be force-fed a practice it does not believe in, and particularly, should not be responsible for the bill.

This all boils down to what members see as more important on this subject. The states right to opress half its population and deny them the right to make their own decisions concerning their own body (and thats what banning or restricting abortion is, make no mistake), and the human right of the individual to bodily integrity.

Personally I'm with the second group. Women aren't helpless, hapless creatures who need others running their lives for them, and are quiet capable of making the right decision for their own situation after consultation with their doctors without state interference.

As I think someone said earlier in this thread, if you don't like abortion, no-one is going to hold you down and force you to have one but IMO no state/government should have the right to force women to bear children they don't want either.

This subject is one of those where the "rights" of the state should take a backseat to the rights of the individual and the UN has stepped in to protect those rights from states that would deny them in an instant to their people if they had the chance. I guess you can tell I'm not a rabid national soverignist.

As for cost, well if a state thinks abortion is too expensive then they can always use education and promoting contraception use to reduce the numbers preformed. I don't have a lot of sympathy for nations with bad economies. I just answered a few issues and got Waterana's up from resonable to thriving. Its not that hard to improve.

I'm kind of worried that this is turning into an ideological debate, which is really not what I was hoping for. Discussing the morality of abortion seems to be a dead end, which is why I was pushing for a policy-oriented debate, with national sovereignty as the rationale rather than going back-and-forth about the rights and wrongs of abortion.

Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that the procedure would be paid for by the government of the host country, and I apologize if it sounded as though I was. Instead, I was saying that said government would be responsible for monitoring the safety of the procedures as a whole, which they would be doing anyway for women receiving abortions within their country who happen to be citizens -- it wouldn't seem to complicate matters all that much.

I don't think this needs to be a discussion of pro-abortion and anti-abortion arguments. Those arguments can take place within national legislatures. The purpose of this resolution is, and has always been, that the decision should be precisely there, in the national legislatures, and not in the halls of the UN.

For the marijuana argument.. no. They are not prsocuted. However, if you go to work with THC in your system and get randomly drug tested, you stand to loose your job.

Now, the issue at hand is abortion and the UN banning it. We feel that the only time abortion is appropriate is in cases of rape, incest or if the mother was in immidiate risk of death from having the child. Aside from that, adoption would be the appropriate route, in our humble opinion. Outside of this, you get people using abortion as a contraceptive. We feel that the legislation should be re-written. Abortion should be banned from open usage, and highly restricted to those two situations.

This opinion is not that of theological belifes. As Mr. Mike Reagan once said, "I've never talked to an adopted person who would have prefered to have been aborted."

I'm kind of worried that this is turning into an ideological debate, which is really not what I was hoping for. Discussing the morality of abortion seems to be a dead end, which is why I was pushing for a policy-oriented debate, with national sovereignty as the rationale rather than going back-and-forth about the rights and wrongs of abortion.

Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that the procedure would be paid for by the government of the host country, and I apologize if it sounded as though I was. Instead, I was saying that said government would be responsible for monitoring the safety of the procedures as a whole, which they would be doing anyway for women receiving abortions within their country who happen to be citizens -- it wouldn't seem to complicate matters all that much.

I don't think this needs to be a discussion of pro-abortion and anti-abortion arguments. Those arguments can take place within national legislatures. The purpose of this resolution is, and has always been, that the decision should be precisely there, in the national legislatures, and not in the halls of the UN.

I admire you for trying to keep idealogical arguements out of this discussion but with this sort of subject its unavoidable :).

99% of arguements for or against, even when argueing states rights to control abortion over an international body's, are based on idealogical ideas. Put that together with the often very strong emotions people have for one side or the other and its impossible to keep it out.

This opinion is not that of theological belifes. As Mr. Mike Reagan once said, "I've never talked to an adopted person who would have prefered to have been aborted."
That quote is mildly inaccurate. If they were aborted, they would never have developed consciousness. Of course nobody chooses to be aborted, because it is quite physically impossible to choose something before you have conscious existance.

you are correct, but the point he (and I) was trying to get across was that he's glad he and those he spoke to were glad they had not been aborted.

I'm kind of worried that this is turning into an ideological debate, which is really not what I was hoping for. Discussing the morality of abortion seems to be a dead end, which is why I was pushing for a policy-oriented debate, with national sovereignty as the rationale rather than going back-and-forth about the rights and wrongs of abortion.

I could not agree more, debates on ideology often go nowhere since it is very unlikely either one of the opposing sides will steer away from their point of view.

Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that the procedure would be paid for by the government of the host country, and I apologize if it sounded as though I was. Instead, I was saying that said government would be responsible for monitoring the safety of the procedures as a whole, which they would be doing anyway for women receiving abortions within their country who happen to be citizens -- it wouldn't seem to complicate matters all that much.

Certainly I can agree in nations where abortion is legal it is far more likely legislation will exist to ensure abortions are carried out safely and support given to the woman in question. However the Telidian government remain anti-abortion nations cannot assume their pro-abortion partners will pick up the tab, but that point is already made. Perhaps the honourable member from Burma AND Myanmar and I should agree to disagree on this point.

I don't think this needs to be a discussion of pro-abortion and anti-abortion arguments. Those arguments can take place within national legislatures. The purpose of this resolution is, and has always been, that the decision should be precisely there, in the national legislatures, and not in the halls of the UN.

Unfortunately this is where our two governments fundamentally differ; the Telidian government feels there is a case for the legality of abortion within this body.

Upon completing her comments, Lydia nodded politely in the direction of the Burma and Myanmar delegate showing her intent to leave the debate for the moment. Upon leaving the room she handed a note to a member of the UN staff asking it to be delivered to the Burma and Myanmar delegation. It simply read “Thank you for the debate and I whilst our two nations may not agree on this subject we do look forward to continued contact in the future.”

Most Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Thank you for the feedback!

If the ambassador from Telidia is still participating in this debate, could she please elaborate on the point pertaining to "picking up the tab" between nations, as this would seem to be an important issue.

Before responding, I'd like to understand more clearly exactly what the opposing argument is.

Thanks!

Thank you for the feedback!

If the ambassador from Telidia is still participating in this debate, could she please elaborate on the point pertaining to "picking up the tab" between nations, as this would seem to be an important issue.

Before responding, I'd like to understand more clearly exactly what the opposing argument is.

Thanks!

Answer me this - you've stated that the nation that opposed abortion shouldn't be required to pay for someone getting the operation done in another country. Then you stated that the operation shouldn't be paid for by the country that performed the abortion. Are you trying to suggest it should be paid for by the individual? Do you see the problem with this?

Honestly, I don't. Please explain to me what the problem is with such an arrangement.

Answer me this - you've stated that the nation that opposed abortion shouldn't be required to pay for someone getting the operation done in another country. Then you stated that the operation shouldn't be paid for by the country that performed the abortion. Are you trying to suggest it should be paid for by the individual? Do you see the problem with this?

That's something else I'd want to address in a future resolution if I got my way and we were able to replace the original with a better resolution. Not sure what the answer is quite, as health services can be publicly funded, or privately funded, but i'd want to address it.

Honestly, I don't. Please explain to me what the problem is with such an arrangement.

Hmm:

-How about the prostitute (who is legally allowed to work per "The Sex Industry Worker Act") who's condom failed? Do you think she has the money to pay for an abortion? Do you feel it is her fault?
-How about the single mother working two jobs just so she can feed her two kids. She has a stupid night - and is pregnant all of a sudden. She couldn't hope to support another child - but she couldn't hope to raise the couple hundred dollars for her abortion - after all, that would be half her paycheck
-How about the illegal immigrant who's working a practically slave labour salary? Don't believe that exists? Go to California - there's a fair bit of that still going on. What if her boss raped her?
-What about the 14 year old girl in the ghetto who got raped on night on her way home from school? What if her parents can barely pay rent - let alone afford an abortion? What if her parents both just got laid off?

Want me to continue?

Hmm:

-How about the prostitute (who is legally allowed to work per "The Sex Industry Worker Act") who's condom failed? Do you think she has the money to pay for an abortion? Do you feel it is her fault?
-How about the single mother working two jobs just so she can feed her two kids. She has a stupid night - and is pregnant all of a sudden. She couldn't hope to support another child - but she couldn't hope to raise the couple hundred dollars for her abortion - after all, that would be half her paycheck
-How about the illegal immigrant who's working a practically slave labour salary? Don't believe that exists? Go to California - there's a fair bit of that still going on. What if her boss raped her?
-What about the 14 year old girl in the ghetto who got raped on night on her way home from school? What if her parents can barely pay rent - let alone afford an abortion? What if her parents both just got laid off?

Want me to continue?

How true, how very true! Congratulations to Forgottenlands from Cally24.
:D

There's this new thing they just invented called adoption.

It's a fascinating system.

So the RICH get to have an abortion while the poor have to pay whatever medical bills are necessary to make sure the baby is delivered in good health - including check ups from the doctor on the baby, any additional nurishment the mother needs, not to mention the fact that a single mother will find it difficult to work all her shifts when she needs to visit the doctor AND when she gets into, say, her 8th month, she's going to have a LOT of fun working ANY of her shifts.

Or we can look at the first example - I'm sure after she starts showing that a prostitute is going to do a REAL good job raking in money.

Adoption deals with 18 years of responsibility plus any post-secondary considerations. It doesn't deal with the 9 months of pain and expense before that.

BTW - if there are any mothers out there, could you possibly give an estimate of how much you spent during your pregnancy on medical bills alone?

Never going to happen, give it up.
:rolleyes:

Kall Discordium
Self-appointed temporary Atheist Haven goodwill ambassador.
Visit us, we are looking for a few good nations

Being poor is not an excuse for being irresponsible. It doesn't matter that the person would have a harder time paying for the abortion/pregnancy costs -- there are consequences for a person's actions, and the law has always maintained that. For some reason, many of you violently pro-abortion activists think it makes sense to make an exception in the case of abortion. It doesn't. Placing the burden of someone else's irresponsibility on the state and its taxpayers is not a solution.

Maybe we could look into placing some of those costs on the father? Just floating ideas, but it doesn't seem fair to me to force the bill on people who had nothing to do with the irresponsibility.

Being poor is not an excuse for being irresponsible. It doesn't matter that the person would have a harder time paying for the abortion/pregnancy costs -- there are consequences for a person's actions, and the law has always maintained that. For some reason, many of you violently pro-abortion activists think it makes sense to make an exception in the case of abortion. It doesn't. Placing the burden of someone else's irresponsibility on the state and its taxpayers is not a solution.

Maybe we could look into placing some of those costs on the father? Just floating ideas, but it doesn't seem fair to me to force the bill on people who had nothing to do with the irresponsibility.

Being poor is not an excuse for being neglected either. Why is it that an irresponsible rich person will be able to get an abortion while an irresponsible poor person will be unable to get one?

Why is it that people assume that just because we make that argument, we're giving poor people an excuse to be irresponsible? If we assume that both a rich person and a poor person is just as likely to be irresponsible, the poor get screwed and the rich get away with what they want. The state isn't there to take the punishment of those that are irresponsible, they're there so that the poor can still enjoy the same necessities as the rich while their disposable income (funding their WANTS/LUXURIES) is much less. I would consider an abortion a necessity - considering the physical and mental strain of a pregnancy on a mother, the considerable cost required to produce a healthy baby (which many poor mothers would be unable to do without government assistance), and considering the potential loss of income.

Regardless, both of your arguments ABSOLUTELY ignore my first case study - what about prostitutes?

I will give you a real life example that just came to my attention in the past two hours - that concerns one of my co-worker's sister. Her parents are extremely religious. She (AFAIK, while being responsible with the use of contraceptives) got pregnant. If her parents found out, they would've disowned her. She got an abortion (which also is a big no-no in that family....but still). If you make abortion illegal, she would've had a significant difficulty getting an abortion. Further - if it was a pay-to-use health care, she would've been out on the street.

Her future, her dreams, EVERYTHING would've been lost if she didn't have this abortion. Now tell me, does one dumb mistake make it ok for her to lose everything like that?

Reducing the argument to extremes doesn't accomplish anything. You seem like an intelligent debater; you probably know that.

It seems that much of your argument hinges on either prostitutes or other extreme circumstances. The reality is that it is impossible to accomodate everyone. The essence of your argument is accomodating prostitutes over normal taxpayers. See the problem there?

I admit the plan is not necessarily ideal, and is certainly not perfect. However, we need to accept that no plan is going to be perfect, and while in some circumstances, the poor prostitutes will be in a difficult situation, it can't be the responsibility of the general population to completely revamp its cultural values to accomodate a handful of individuals pointlessly protected by the UN.

Fitting, Myanmar AND Burma, how you come up with a proposal that would be more at home in the nation you've chosen to name yourself after... :rolleyes:

Repressive AND illiberal.

Reducing the argument to extremes doesn't accomplish anything. You seem like an intelligent debater; you probably know that.

It seems that much of your argument hinges on either prostitutes or other extreme circumstances. The reality is that it is impossible to accomodate everyone. The essence of your argument is accomodating prostitutes over normal taxpayers. See the problem there?

I admit the plan is not necessarily ideal, and is certainly not perfect. However, we need to accept that no plan is going to be perfect, and while in some circumstances, the poor prostitutes will be in a difficult situation, it can't be the responsibility of the general population to completely revamp its cultural values to accomodate a handful of individuals pointlessly protected by the UN.


I'm well aware of that comment and actually brought it to myself this morning to figure out a good response (yes, I've been waiting for this one). Of course, this goes back to metaphysics so I'm not going to try and claim a right and wrong, just my preference (and I shall address what I BELIEVE is the truth about your position later due to lack of time).

Human rights is actually a "moderate" argument where the concern isn't about the average joe, it's about the "extreme" case. You look at most "Human Rights" issues - it's about the woman who is mistreated, the black that gets beaten for being black, the homosexual who can't see the other sex that way, the citizen who gets thrown in prison for his beliefs, etc. Human Rights issues regarding public health care/education, welfare, etc are about the extreme case of a person in poverty. The reason is that one argues "this is a human right, no one should be denied it" - and therefore argues the cases where one is denied it.

My belief in public health care is on that extreme case - those who can't afford it - no matter what scenario they are in. I do not believe they should be denied this health care because they can't afford it - as I believe health is a human right. Therefore, I take serious issue with any position that leaves those extremes in the dark. Yes there is a consequence that A) you're talking about government funding and B) you're talking about abuses of the system, but A) I feel it is society's duty to protect all of its members' Human Rights and B) I feel those are minor consequences to solve the much greater danger of what would happen if these laws were not in place.

After all - you can prosecute those that abuse the system. You can't punish those that are unable to benefit from it.

BTW - you still are refusing to address my arguments. Care to give me an argument for prostitutes?

We're dealing with a situation of personal responsibility. In the case of rape/incest I feel it appropriate that there be a victims fund established to pay for those procedures. If there is risk of imminant death to a mother and an abortion is needed to save her, then she can pay for it. Prostitutes know the risk they are taking and should be more careful. It's a system of checks and balances. If your a victim, we can be compasionate and provide a service. If your irrisponsible and happen to end up pregnant.. tough. You got yourself into the mess and abortion should not be used as contraceptive. Give it up for adoption!

Abortion is flat out murder. Its killing a human being. Even if its not fully develouped into a body its still a human being. Abortion is wrong. If you don't want the baby stick it up for adoption for someone who does.

There are many arguments on both sides on the abortion issue. What I suggest is that we live in a society in which both individual rights and free speech must be respected. If you disagree with abortion, use whatever public channels you wish to try and persuade individuals not to abort their foetus - but in the end the moral decision is theirs and theirs alone. The spectacle of men pouring conservative vitriol over the bodies of women is a sickening spectacle.

More practically - you'll never get this through. You'll be banging your head against a brick wall all the way. There's an icon for that... ah yes... :D

Give it up for adoption!

I just read this in the style of a shout out. Ladies and gentlemen, please give it up for adoption!

*applause* :p

I just read this in the style of a shout out. Ladies and gentlemen, please give it up for adoption!

*applause* :p


LOL.. now that's funny!

First, I realized something:

It seems that much of your argument hinges on either prostitutes or other extreme circumstances

Being poor is not an excuse for being neglected either. Why is it that an irresponsible rich person will be able to get an abortion while an irresponsible poor person will be unable to get one?

Why is it that people assume that just because we make that argument, we're giving poor people an excuse to be irresponsible? If we assume that both a rich person and a poor person is just as likely to be irresponsible, the poor get screwed and the rich get away with what they want. The state isn't there to take the punishment of those that are irresponsible, they're there so that the poor can still enjoy the same necessities as the rich while their disposable income (funding their WANTS/LUXURIES) is much less. I would consider an abortion a necessity - considering the physical and mental strain of a pregnancy on a mother, the considerable cost required to produce a healthy baby (which many poor mothers would be unable to do without government assistance), and considering the potential loss of income.

So the RICH get to have an abortion while the poor have to pay whatever medical bills are necessary to make sure the baby is delivered in good health - including check ups from the doctor on the baby, any additional nurishment the mother needs, not to mention the fact that a single mother will find it difficult to work all her shifts when she needs to visit the doctor AND when she gets into, say, her 8th month, she's going to have a LOT of fun working ANY of her shifts.

(snip)

Adoption deals with 18 years of responsibility plus any post-secondary considerations. It doesn't deal with the 9 months of pain and expense before that.

Those are extreme arguments?

1) Single poor mothers are not uncommon - anyone got a stat? That's hardly an extreme case
2) Being poor is not uncommon
3) I am not arguing that a rich person or a poor person is any less responsible - as the result for both is the same, the options are MUCH different and the ability to deal with the options they are able to use is MUCH different.

We're dealing with a situation of personal responsibility. In the case of rape/incest I feel it appropriate that there be a victims fund established to pay for those procedures. If there is risk of imminant death to a mother and an abortion is needed to save her, then she can pay for it. Prostitutes know the risk they are taking and should be more careful. It's a system of checks and balances. If your a victim, we can be compasionate and provide a service. If your irrisponsible and happen to end up pregnant.. tough. You got yourself into the mess and abortion should not be used as contraceptive. Give it up for adoption!

Hmm - "it's a consequence of the job you took, live with it!"

Do you believe in Worker's Compensation?

Also - read my comment about cost of adoption to the birth-mother.

BTW - moms, I'm still interested in hearing a stat on how much you spent in your pregnancy on medical bills!

What they should do is set up a organization to help pregnate mothers who cant afford to keep there babys. One that encoureges them to keep there baby by suppling them with baby things. Like carseats clothes baby toys ect. Woman who have had babys that grow out of these things can donate them to the organization.

Please excuse my spelling errors.

Anyways, I thought I should get to the other side of the coin (as I promised). Of course, I'm only stating things everyone knows, but it never hurts to remember the reasoning

A right wing opinion on (particularly) public services is really hard to describe at a metaphysical level in either a nice manner or one that shows the logic to it without inciting an absolute dislike of what is stated. Parts of it are fairly simple to show as appealing, but the majority of it.....not so easy. I'm not trying to say it is invalid, nor am I trying to imply that there is an immoral position held by such people, just a different one. If we had a much different set of morals as a populace, many would see the logic of this position over its rather negative conotation.

There are a few fundamental core issues:
1) When one is working for their own benefit, they will work harder (and it is a proven fact). There is the odd case where this is false, but by and large this is true.
2) I worked hard for this money, I deserve it. I made good choices in life, I therefore earned my reward. Why should I be required to pay for THEIR mistakes.

Of course, the latter is a fairly Darwinian style argument (though not Darwin directly) - I was successful, so I should get ahead while they should be held behind. It is through Survival of the Fittest that man became the dominant species - and also through it that the current power balance exists today - including the fact that Europe and North America currently trump China and Asia. It was because of European belief in "he who falls behind, dies" over several centuries (pretty much, from the middle ages up to .....I'd say Napolean's time but perhaps as far as WWI) that several European states competing against each other to be the dominant state made them stronger than what had (in 1500AD) been a much more advanced Asia as a whole. Many Asian nations stagnated as the competitors presented to them were few and, in most cases, less advanced. Enough history though.

If one wanted to continue the growth of this domination, they need to forgo "human rights" and permit people to act as they see fit - something that Adam Smith noted - a fully free enterprise will grow the fastest. Now, we all know the arguments against this, but to fail to recognize these beliefs is shameful.

While the issue of banning abortion comes from a variety of different beliefs and metaphysical statements, and the interesting thing is those that were once for things like "Death Penalty" and "if he's in my house, I should be allowed to kill him" are against the killing of a fetus while those that oppose both of the above are (in the eyes of pro-life advocates) murdering a child. I find it to be one of the more interesting ironies in our society. Now the reasons behind these stances are much different and the things to consider that is common to both cases are few and far between, but I think a lot of people can at least see and (perhaps) appreciate the irony here. (Sorry - stupid aside)

The concept of private health care is based upon both of the above core beliefs. Private clinics will be more efficient and I shouldn't have to pay for his surgery just because he couldn't afford it.
------------------------------------

Yeah - we all know this, don't kill me for being an arrogant a-hole.

Why do I disagree with this position, because I look at society and I see the lowest member as being JUST as important to its existance as the highest. Bill Gates was an absolutely vital person to our society (his importance has died down over the last 20 years, but his work initially is THE reason that we can all afford PCs and know how to use them) - but his washrooms are scrubbed by maids, his house was build by construction workers who were given assistance by electricians and plumbers, his power lines are maintained by the electric company which we will claim is getting its power from coal. The Electic plant has many employees doing a variety of tasks including offloading any coal that is shipped in by the trucker who is bringing it from the coal mine where the miners worked.

You get my drift? I would like to refer you (further) to the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. In one of the books (was it 2 or 3?), they discuss the "second ship". For those that never read it, a brief history:

One planet, I believe feeling the need to move to another planet for some reason, set up 3 ships - one for all the scientists and brainiaks of the world, one for all the politicians and lawyers, doctors were on one of those two, and the third (which was the second ship BTW - I don't know which was which of the other two and I may have gotten categories a bit mixed up here), and the third was for, well, the lower class: garbage men, cleaners (including telephone cleaners), and various other sorts. They sent the second ship first telling them the other two would be along shortly.

The other two never left. They never planned to leave. They were trying to get rid of the lower class - that was all. However, they later died from a bacteria that hadn't been cleaned off the phone in a telephone booth by a telephone cleaner (who, of course, was on the second ship) and, well, the entire population died.

What they should do is set up a organization to help pregnate mothers who cant afford to keep there babys. One that encoureges them to keep there baby by suppling them with baby things. Like carseats clothes baby toys ect. Woman who have had babys that grow out of these things can donate them to the organization.

Please excuse my spelling errors.

Why does everyone CONTINUE to glaze over my comment about medical costs during pregnancy?

Why does everyone CONTINUE to glaze over my comment about medical costs during pregnancy?

(OOC)It could be because women who have had children are a bit thin in the ground in the UN forum :).

I'm a 41 year old woman, but have never had children so can't help you with costs of pregancy but from what I've seen of friends and relatives who have had babies its not cheap, even though we have universal health care here (which the current conservative government is trying to destroy) so even the poorest women have access to a doctor and hospital without charge. Those who want to and can afford it have the option of going private. To encourage women to breed in this country the government is also paying all women $3000 per child to help cover the costs associated with the pregnacy. Quite a few have complained its nowhere near enough.

(OOC)It could be because women who have had children are a bit thin in the ground in the UN forum :).

I'm a 41 year old woman, but have never had children so can't help you with costs of pregancy but from what I've seen of friends and relatives who have had babies its not cheap, even though we have universal health care here (which the current conservative government is trying to destroy) so even the poorest women have access to a doctor and hospital without charge. Those who want to and can afford it have the option of going private. To encourage women to breed in this country the government is also paying all women $3000 per child to help cover the costs associated with the pregnacy. Quite a few have complained its nowhere near enough.

Actually - the complaint was more about how people keep talking about helping the costs post-birth, but no one has acknowleged my comment pre-birth. Thank you for the stat.

Points well taken, and I completely agree that every person is equally valuable. That's certainly important to recognize.

The problem with the system as is, however, is that it doesn't see to be (in my eyes) oriented toward the common good, and it doesn't encourage responsible behavior. It offers a way out for irresponsibility and encourages an excessive moral permissiveness that wears away at both the financial and social elements of the civilization.

By no means was I dismissing the single mother situation as an extreme case, and I apologize, as I didn't realize it would be so unclear to some people. I was referring to the situations in which a single mother could not, due to a variety of financial and personal factors, possibly go on living having had a child, adoption or not. Such circumstances are not as insurmountable as they might initially appear. In particular, I don't think the system should be designed to accomodate these circumstances at the cost of the overwhelming majority of the population -- charities, agencies, and programs exist to offer assistance in these types of situations, and offer, in many cases, an easier way out, whether you choose to believe that or not.

In the case of prostitutes, as I've tried to address before, but have apparently not been explicit enough...it doesn't make sense to force the burden of their circumstances upon the state and the taxpayer. You mentioned the concept of worker's compensation. In this case, why not place the financial burden on the employer who put the prostitute in such a position, or on the customer? If she is self-employed, well, self-employed individuals in other professions don't receive worker's compensation, do they?

The basis of this, in my eyes, is that the burdens of a few people should not be extended to society as a whole. In that spirit, the government should not be forced by the UN to play such an active role in the process that it did not create, and by extension, should not be forced to behave a certain way with respect to its laws and policies regarding abortion.

Points well taken, and I completely agree that every person is equally valuable. That's certainly important to recognize.

*nods*

The problem with the system as is, however, is that it doesn't see to be (in my eyes) oriented toward the common good, and it doesn't encourage responsible behavior. It offers a way out for irresponsibility and encourages an excessive moral permissiveness that wears away at both the financial and social elements of the civilization.

Ah, the issues of responsbility vs irresponsibility. Responsibility is EXTRAORDINARILY difficult to teach through punishment. It is doable, but it is amazingly difficult. Part of the problem is then you get those that, well, don't take punishments as "lessons" but as...well...reasons to be even more angry at the system. While personally, I have my own position on abortion that is quite different from the UN (and actually, I'm a bit closer to your position than you might think), I still prefer to argue this position because the issue of "where do you draw the line" becomes something to consider. (First time pregnant? Now you know why condoms are important. Don't screw up again). However, that said, to ignore my own arguments and contradict them would be pointless and I should address the alternatives:

Education
My nation currently has an extraordinarily low crime rate - and it's actually only increasing more because I'm legislating on, well, nothing. I have no prisons, minimal police, and no military of note (though RP wise, I still have a decent budget, just too small per-capita to be noticed). What made my crime rate so low? Education. If you teach someone responsibility, in a much different fashion, they will pick it up. There is certainly flaws and exceptions to this system - just I showed the flaws and exceptions to your system (and actually, my gf would likely be an exception to both systems...due to other issues), I personally prefer the concept of "to teach is better than to punish". (BTW, irrelevant, I just realized it's 8:15 and I haven't had supper. I've gotta stop doing this)

By no means was I dismissing the single mother situation as an extreme case, and I apologize, as I didn't realize it would be so unclear to some people. I was referring to the situations in which a single mother could not, due to a variety of financial and personal factors, possibly go on living having had a child, adoption or not. Such circumstances are not as insurmountable as they might initially appear. In particular, I don't think the system should be designed to accomodate these circumstances at the cost of the overwhelming majority of the population -- charities, agencies, and programs exist to offer assistance in these types of situations, and offer, in many cases, an easier way out, whether you choose to believe that or not.

I believe they exist, I do not believe they suffice. However, not having stats on these groups, I am unable to make an educated response on the matter.

In the case of prostitutes, as I've tried to address before, but have apparently not been explicit enough...it doesn't make sense to force the burden of their circumstances upon the state and the taxpayer. You mentioned the concept of worker's compensation. In this case, why not place the financial burden on the employer who put the prostitute in such a position, or on the customer? If she is self-employed, well, self-employed individuals in other professions don't receive worker's compensation, do they?

Self-employed, I admit, is a seperate issue (though in my country - RL and NS, they will still get their medical bills, they just may need to have a different situation for loss of profit.) However, my experience with worker's comp is, well, it's government funded.... not employer (though the employer may be charged if an unsafe working environment was found. So if the prostitute was not getting condoms, then I would fine her boss)

The basis of this, in my eyes, is that the burdens of a few people should not be extended to society as a whole.

I have a suspicion we will not see eye-to-eye on this matter.

In that spirit, the government should not be forced by the UN to play such an active role in the process that it did not create, and by extension, should not be forced to behave a certain way with respect to its laws and policies regarding abortion.

A majority opinion has enforced their beliefs on a minority opposition. The majority believes that it is a right and it is better to allow and make it a choice than to make it a crime. That is why abortion is set up the way it is.

HOWEVER, you can decide if you wish to make it so that one must pay for certain scenarios of abortions, as long as they are allowed to make that choice. After all, it is better if they are going to do it anyways, they do it in a safe environment. Judging from your statements, this might be a slightly more satisfactory....well....compromise (sorta).

The idea of abortion costing money is an interesting idea. I guess it would be better than letting them abort for nothing. But it still doesnt solve the issue. I still think abortion is flat out wrong. That baby that is about to be aborted has a right to live just like the woman who is carrying it has a right to live. Letting the mother deside if the baby can live or not is wrong.

The idea of abortion costing money is an interesting idea. I guess it would be better than letting them abort for nothing. But it still doesnt solve the issue. I still think abortion is flat out wrong. That baby that is about to be aborted has a right to live just like the woman who is carrying it has a right to live. Letting the mother deside if the baby can live or not is wrong.

I don't see a baby there. I see a fetus. If I remove it from the womb, I can't get it to do dip squat for more than a few minutes....

Mind you - I'm ignoring late-term abortions.

*spots a piece of metal in a gun plant*

Look! It's a gun!

*spots a catapiler*

Look! It's a butterfly!

*spots a 14 year old*

Look! It's a senior citizen!

Point: in this society, we do not classify things by what they will be, but what they are. Just because a fetus WILL be a baby doesn't mean we classify it as such.

a fetus is still a human being. It's just not fully grown. It has a soul just like everything else. as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg it becomes a human being. Weather it is in its fetus stage or farther.

sorry i made a mistake. I ment to say it has a soul just like every one else. Meaning every other human being.

sorry i made a mistake. I ment to say it has a soul just like every one else. Meaning every other human being.

Assumption 1: belief in a soul. I only kinda believe in it - insofar as I believe it is distinct from both mental and physical aspects. There are many who do not. What makes your belief valid? More important, what makes your belief so valid you can press it on others? If there are others, like you, who believe in the soul of a fetus, then they, like you, may choose not to have an abortion. However, what gives them the right to make that decision for others?

Assumption 2: Belief of when the soul begins. I actually believe that the soul doesn't become a part of your body until like 2-3 years of age - when people first actually start accumulating memories. Again, this is partly based upon my belief of what a soul is compared to yours. However, how do you prove when a soul joins a body? Don't say bible - because I believe heavily in seperation of church and state - and firmly believe that the church should not be able to enforce the rules of "God" and "the bible" (or Gods and equivelent holy texts) upon the general populace.

Assumption 3: Killing of a human being is equivelent to killing of the soul. Many religions (including most mainstream ones) don't believe that a soul can be killed. Therefore, if all you're doing is destroying something that really isn't classified as alive by any empirical sense, how do you conclude that a being with a soul is a human.

Assumption 4: Soul determines human: many religions (notably, many American Natives) believe that all animals have souls. How can you declare that something which is not considered to be human by most scientific definitions and is human by your definition because of the fact it has a soul is therefore a human being?

Wow, I got all that out of soul - I just scared myself :/

a fetus is still a human being. It's just not fully grown. It has a soul just like everything else. as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg it becomes a human being. Weather it is in its fetus stage or farther.

If a fetus is given "personhood" at the earliest stage of pregnacy then that opens a very dangerous can of worms for the would be mother. By the very fact its inside her body, and until the late stages unable to leave without dying, it instantly gains importance over her and she will be walking a legal tightrope for the whole nine months.

If a fetus is a "person" with recognised legal rights, the woman would expect to face manslaughter charges for slipping wearing high heels, falling off a ladder while painting her coming childs room, falling down the stairs or any manner of scenarios that cause a miscarriage. If someone else bumped into her in the street and she fell losing the baby, the person responsible would be charged with anything from manslaughter to murder. I know this sounds silly and can easily be dismissed as a slippery slope arguement, but its what I can see will happen.

As for the cost arguement. This whole thread seems to be moving from "its the states right to choose" to "the state shouldn't have to pay for it". If you ban abortion the state won't have to pay for it anymore, however rich women will still be able to pay for and get an abortion in another nation. The poor women will go to cheap back yard butchers who will often kill the woman with the fetus.

For any of you who are screaming "just give it up for adoption", please be aware that comes with its own set of baggage and isn't the easy option a lot of people think it is.

If a fetus is given "personhood" at the earliest stage of pregnacy then that opens a very dangerous can of worms for the would be mother. By the very fact its inside her body, and until the late stages unable to leave without dying, it instantly gains importance over her and she will be walking a legal tightrope for the whole nine months.

If a fetus is a "person" with recognised legal rights, the woman would expect to face manslaughter charges for slipping wearing high heels, falling off a ladder while painting her coming childs room, falling down the stairs or any manner of scenarios that cause a miscarriage. If someone else bumped into her in the street and she fell losing the baby, the person responsible would be charged with anything from manslaughter to murder. I know this sounds silly and can easily be dismissed as a slippery slope arguement, but its what I can see will happen.

As for the cost arguement. This whole thread seems to be moving from "its the states right to choose" to "the state shouldn't have to pay for it". If you ban abortion the state won't have to pay for it anymore, however rich women will still be able to pay for and get an abortion in another nation. The poor women will go to cheap back yard butchers who will often kill the woman with the fetus.

For any of you who are screaming "just give it up for adoption", please be aware that comes with its own set of baggage and isn't the easy option a lot of people think it is.

If anyone's got a stat for # of miscarriages per 1000 conceptions (and this is KNOWN conceptions), it would be appreciated (though I doubt it's ever been done). I'm sure it'll be fairly high compared to what most people would think - probably above 1%.

1% of our women are going to prison for having a miscarriage? That's logical :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I would also note that most states don't actually fill out the paperwork for a child until....well....they are born.

Also, infant mortality rate is, IIRC, over 1% (sometimes as high as 3%) in most INDUSTRIALIZED nations. That's AFTER the baby is born (and before they reach the one year mark).

Something to think about

For you who ask if you remove a fetus from the womb can it survive I have a question for you. Can a one year old survive alone? How about a three year old? What if you just left them alone like you would a fetus? It would die also. So you can't really say its not a human just because it cant survive on its own outside of the womb.

If a woman fell from a ladder causing a misscarrage that would be an accident. But if a man attack a pregnate woman killing her and the fetus/baby that would be double murder. Or if he just killed the fetus/baby intentionally that would be murder.

Argh! How do you guys do that thing where it shows what the other person said?

For you who ask if you remove a fetus from the womb can it survive I have a question for you. Can a one year old survive alone? How about a three year old? What if you just left them alone like you would a fetus? It would die also. So you can't really say its not a human just because it cant survive on its own outside of the womb.


*bangs head*

Ok - put EVERY care you would give an infant to that fetus. Heck, give every medical care available in today's society to that fetus. Give it ABSOLUTELY anything it needs except the womb of a mother. Can it survive?

There are absolutely no characteristics of that fetus that would classify it as being, well, "living" - no matter how extensive you make the scientific defintion.

An infant is not dependant on one and only one thing. You leave it alone on its own for half a day, it might cry about its diaper or being hungry, but it'll survive. It can stay alive without the total and complete all consuming nurture of a mother's womb.

Don't
give
me
that
crap

I'm not saying making abortion ilegal is going to solve the abortion problems. It might not be the best way to go about stoping abortion. Because of what Waterana said about rich woman being able to still abort and poor woman still having some buther do the aborting. Instead something else like giving docters the right to refuse to abort a baby and having orginizations helping poor pregnate mothers care for their babys. And encoureging them to keep the baby/babies by donating items or giving them funds to do so.

Argh! How do you guys do that thing where it shows what the other person said?

Bottom right corner of each post: "quote"

Doing multiple posts just requires a bit of quotation manipulation (which you can do via extrapolation of code)

If a woman fell from a ladder causing a misscarrage that would be an accident. But if a man attack a pregnate woman killing her and the fetus/baby that would be double murder. Or if he just killed the fetus/baby intentionally that would be murder.

Under current laws in this society - killing some "by accident" that is not justified is a charge of manslauter (ask any police officer, lawyer, judge, or educated individual - heck, watch any of those "law" shows). The case presented where a woman got bumped is more along the lines of "train stopped suddenly and all the standing passengers went flying - one knocking into a pregnant woman knocking her on the floor causing a miscarriage". We are not even kinda discussing an intentional threat to the mother's life - or that of the child.

I take it your for abortion forgottenlands.

I'm not saying making abortion ilegal is going to solve the abortion problems. It might not be the best way to go about stoping abortion. Because of what Waterana said about rich woman being able to still abort and poor woman still having some buther do the aborting. Instead something else like giving docters the right to refuse to abort a baby and having orginizations helping poor pregnate mothers care for their babys. And encoureging them to keep the baby/babies by donating items or giving them funds to do so.

Ok - so you don't worry about that. The fact of the matter is it's still "Abortion is wrong." and you have failed to adaquetely, logically, and intelligently address the matter. You keep arguing details - when it is QUITE clear that the problem of our differences lies in our beliefs. You have yet to discuss my comment about souls.

Though that said, you also ignored a few of our details arguments to and brought back "support for pregnancies" discussion. *sighs*

The reasion i think abortion is wrong is because i believe that a fetus is still a human being with a soul. And i mean soul as in the soul in the bible. I am a christian. I believe in God and the Bible. But seeing how there is a seperation between church and state i really cant argue all that well about why i think abortion is Sientifily wrong.

I take it your for abortion forgottenlands.

Actually - not as much as you might think - if you read my posts, you might realize this. My only issues of abortion are when it comes to issues of responsibility - or lackthereof. However, I can adaquetely argue a completely pro-abortion stance ignoring this responsibility issue and addressing it in other manners (which I did earlier).

I am ABSOLUTELY against the belief that abortion should be made illegal for ANY sort of case because you are destroying the life of a "human being" - I do not believe in that, I do not believe in the logic or metaphysics that lead to those beliefs. That is a completely different issue altogether and it is why I'm debating such a heavy pro-abortion stance.

I see.

So what would you have done about abortions Forgottenlands?

The reasion i think abortion is wrong is because i believe that a fetus is still a human being with a soul. And i mean soul as in the soul in the bible. I am a christian. I believe in God and the Bible. But seeing how there is a seperation between church and state i really cant argue all that well about why i think abortion is Sientifily wrong.

No surprises. You still failed to address my question: what gives YOU the right to impose your Christian beliefs upon the majority of the populace? If you don't personally feel you can support abortion, then don't have one. If you feel that those that are members of your church shouldn't either, that's an issue for your church to deal with. If you feel that those who do not believe in Christianity should follow this belief because of this Christian reason, why?

If you can only defend your position effectively from a biblical stand point, how is that debating? I use the word effectively because soul was the one area I actually had to concentrate to argue against.

So what would you have done about abortions Forgottenlands?

Rape, prostitution, teenage, life threatening - automatic, government funded.

Outside that - you have one chance. You get pregnant twice because of stupid mistakes, you're having a baby.

*note* I would allow for odd exceptions (bratty brother punched holes in condoms?)

BTW - funny/spooky story: apparently there was a radio station in my city that asked "what is the worst thing you have ever done". One woman phoned in and said "I wanted to get pregnant, so I punched holes in my bf's condoms"

Radio: "Did it work?"
Lady: "Yes"
Radio: "Are you two still together?"
Lady: "No"
Radio: "Is he paying child support?"
Lady: "Yes"
Radio: "Why?"
Lady: "Because he's the father! He should be paying for his child"
Radio: "Does he know?"
Lady: "No"

This is a rather shortened version of the conversation (with other parts with the DJs trying to convince her of the idea her action was immoral and her not getting it whatsoever), but I think you get the picture......

I don't have the right to impose your Christian beliefs upon the majority of the populace. But God does.

My i ment to say my not your sorry again.

I don't have the right to impose your Christian beliefs upon the majority of the populace. But God does.

I'm agnostic, one of my friends is aethist, I have several others that vary from aethist to belief in God, but not any religion to being religious in some religion or another (both passively and actively religious). Amongst my friends, there is a representation of probably at least 5 religions (I can count off 4 on the top of my head). If I included my ex-friends (lost due to loss of contact), that number just gets MASSIVE.

Amongst these friends, oddly, I can't think of one that believes in the actual Christian God (though I note, there are a lot of Catholics, and some of my gf's friends are Christian). My point is this:

As it stands, until God himself appears in the heavens and tells us all which religion is right (and, admittedly, there will probably be skeptics then - just as there were skeptics every other time God spoke to someone), how can you enforce any law based upon "this is God's word"? If God can impose his will, he's choosing (and there's a lot of arguments of why) not to - and until he changes that, if we are wrong, we'll meet up again in Hell. Until then, why do you have the right to say that your way is right, your God is right and therefore, your beliefs are right and you are pushing them on us on the behalf of God (though I suppose, you aren't exactly saying that)?

That really is odd - I don't have a single friend that's Christian. Relatives, yes, friends, no.

Mind you - I'm ignoring late-term abortions.That's my biggest problem with the current resolution - makes no effort to implement some restrictions on when abortions can be performed. The most notably is late-term.

Re: The christian arguement - Genesis 2:7,
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Man was not a living soul until he (Adam) took his first breath.

Moreover, in the Bible a prophet of God calls upon God to induce abortions in the wives of his enemies? Let's look at Hosea 9:14.
"Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb (an abortion) and dry breasts."
And later,
"...yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."
Hosea 9:16

In this case God causes abortions, the prophet prays that these women will abort. If these are truly innocent children, how could God do this? But they are not, they are "miscarrying wombs," "unperfect substances" and God will prevent them from becoming human souls that will grow up to oppress his people.

The bible has repeated instances of where abortion is not a big deal - references it happening, and doesn't really make a song and dance about it (regardless of what certain pro-life christian fanatics would say).

Quick clarification on why I put the bible quotes.

I appreciate there is a lot of justification by prolifers from the bible, I wanted to post a couple of entries to suggest that the bible is really not as clear cut as stating "abortion is bad" and there are different understandings from other sources of what the bible says about abortion.

It's the same with homosexuality and a lot of other things - the justifications used by people are not as clear cut as thought.

BTW - funny/spooky story: apparently there was a radio station in my city that asked "what is the worst thing you have ever done". One woman phoned in and said "I wanted to get pregnant, so I punched holes in my bf's condoms"

Radio: "Did it work?"
Lady: "Yes"
Radio: "Are you two still together?"
Lady: "No"
Radio: "Is he paying child support?"
Lady: "Yes"
Radio: "Why?"
Lady: "Because he's the father! He should be paying for his child"
Radio: "Does he know?"
Lady: "No"

This is a rather shortened version of the conversation (with other parts with the DJs trying to convince her of the idea her action was immoral and her not getting it whatsoever), but I think you get the picture......
OOC: Nothe first time I've heard of such things. Scary and awful.

Originally Posted by Hirota
In this case God causes abortions, the prophet prays that these women will abort. If these are truly innocent children, how could God do this?






First of all they arnt innocent children. We are all born with sin. Second, God has a right to deside wether or not you live. He made you and you belong to him. Choosing to follow him or not is up to you.

Originally Posted by Hirota
In this case God causes abortions, the prophet prays that these women will abort. If these are truly innocent children, how could God do this?






First of all they arnt innocent children. We are all born with sin. Second, God has a right to deside wether or not you live. He made you and you belong to him. Choosing to follow him or not is up to you.

Could having an abortion, then, be doing God's bidding?

Could our own actions be influenced by God without our knowing?

Wouldn't it therefore be a betrayal to God to forbid us from doing so?

First of all they arnt innocent children. We are all born with sin. Second, God has a right to deside wether or not you live. He made you and you belong to him. Choosing to follow him or not is up to you. Splendid, and choosing on understanding of the bible or another is up to you. Just don't make the mistake of assuming to know what the bibles stance is on abortion - like I've just shown there are strong counter arguements to any justification you bring from the bible, and those counter arguements come from the bible.

I don't have the right to impose your Christian beliefs upon the majority of the populace. But God does.

Does God have a vote in the UN? Apparently not.

Does God have a vote in the UN? Apparently not.

I suspect that the nation of God Himself would disagree with you there, as would many other nations of that sort.

Hmmm I notice a lot of "right to choose" by the woman, and not a lot of "right to life" of the fetus/baby/human. I guess this issue is going to remain contentious until economical artificial wombs become available, that way the women can choose not to have the "burden" of having a child of their own, yet the child can "choose" to continue living. There are many couples who would gladly look after such babies (in this country anyway), and as for the rest, that's what government social programs are for. The "quality of life" argument is facetious, under that argument we should euthanase all orphans too young to support themselves. As a civilised race, we support and care for such people until such time they are able to care for themselves. I have friends who were adopted from birth (single mothers unable to support them), they would both much rather prefer life under the government than being irrevocably dead. They don't even bear their biological parents any bad feelings, recognising that such situations are bound to occur due to accidents or bad judgment.

As such, provisionally we would support this repeal.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

Assumption 2: Belief of when the soul begins. I actually believe that the soul doesn't become a part of your body until like 2-3 years of age - when people first actually start accumulating memories. Again, this is partly based upon my belief of what a soul is compared to yours. However, how do you prove when a soul joins a body? Don't say bible - because I believe heavily in seperation of church and state - and firmly believe that the church should not be able to enforce the rules of "God" and "the bible" (or Gods and equivelent holy texts) upon the general populace.
:/

Leaving aside the question "how much support do you need to give to an organism to enable it to stay alive, in order to judge whether it has the right to live", I just want to ask Forgottenlands, if the soul/personhood/sentience only applies from the age of 2-3, what would terminating the life of an organism below that age be classified as? Post-term abortion? Some countries do that now (China being a case in point - yuck). Is there a penalty associated with that, and would it be the same as murder? Is it something that the UN should act on?

This is not an attack on your views, just wondering how you resolve your personal viewpoints to the responsibility of ruling a disparate population. I'm still feeling my way around how to deal with the vocal minority. :)

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

Hmmm I notice a lot of "right to choose" by the woman, and not a lot of "right to life" of the fetus/baby/human.
Which is strange because the "woman's choice" argument has no ground unless it first proves that there is not life in a possibly aborted fetus--or, more accurately, that the life of a fetus is not worth saving or not yet imbued with that inalienable right to life. Choice is hardly an issue if it's a life with a right to life. Adult murderers have the "choice" of killing their adult victims, but that doesn't justify them. I mean, If a fetus is a life which has an inalienable right to life, then it's no one's choice whether or not to end it. I wish more people recognized the intricacies of the issue of abortion rather than parroting their favorite respective right and left wing ideologues.

Which is strange because the "woman's choice" argument has no ground unless it first proves that there is not life in a possibly aborted fetus--or, more accurately, that the life of a fetus is not worth saving or not yet imbued with that inalienable right to life. Choice is hardly an issue if it's a life with a right to life. Adult murderers have the "choice" of killing their adult victims, but that doesn't justify them. I mean, If a fetus is a life which has an inalienable right to life, then it's no one's choice whether or not to end it. I wish more people recognized the intricacies of the issue of abortion rather than parroting their favorite respective right and left wing ideologues.

So is it the absolute assumption that all "pro-choice" supporters have a firm belief that the "organism" in question (insert age) has no life and/or is not worth saving? Because from my discussions with my "pro-choice" colleagues in hospital I am getting different opinions in this case. And before you accuse me of "parroting ideologies" we had extensive debates throughout med school regarding this issue, both in regard to the Hippocratic oath and civil liberties. I am also personally very well acquainted with abortion and the physical, mental and economic consequences. This viewpoint is the one I eventually chose, and notice I have not launched any personal attacks either.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate for the White Dwarf Dominion

Reply to Gun fighters:

Why are you bringing extremist religious views into an strictly ethical/political discussion? It should be obvious to you that noone here withthe exception of a few fundamentalists is even agreeing with you, and less so as you get even less rational. Please try to bring things back to a more civilised tone, respecting the rights of others to hold different views, even as we respect your right to try to persuade us to yours.

Trying a more reasoned approach will gain you more supporters than ranting. Your "arguments", such as they are, have done more to persuade me to reject this proposal than the opposite, due to my dislike for extremists and fundamentalists.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

Esteemed Members of the United Nations,

We of the Nine Realms recognize the sovereignty of the individual over their own body, as well as the right for the individual to determine the course of their own medical care.

With that in mind, we also recognize the responsibility of the individual for choices made. The choice to engage in sexual activity could have many consequences, despite all measures of protection. One of those consequences may be pregnancy.

We do NOT recognize that abortion is an effective form of birth control, and choose instead to educate our citizens on birth control methods that do not risk the severe physical and emotional side effects that often accompany abortion procedures.

Abortion is anathema to our nation's philosophies and idealogies. We certainly support a repeal of any worldwide ban on abortion, and encourage other nations to respect the rights of individual societies, cultures, and states to enact rules of conduct on their citizens.

Wassail!

Douglas Bjornson
Ambassador to the United Nations
In service to His Imperial Majesty, Richard Stevenson, Emperor of the Nine Realms

Leaving aside the question "how much support do you need to give to an organism to enable it to stay alive, in order to judge whether it has the right to live", I just want to ask Forgottenlands, if the soul/personhood/sentience only applies from the age of 2-3, what would terminating the life of an organism below that age be classified as? Post-term abortion? Some countries do that now (China being a case in point - yuck). Is there a penalty associated with that, and would it be the same as murder? Is it something that the UN should act on?

This is not an attack on your views, just wondering how you resolve your personal viewpoints to the responsibility of ruling a disparate population. I'm still feeling my way around how to deal with the vocal minority. :)

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

You're confusing the arguments. Gun Fighters argued that the person inside a womb was a human being because it had a soul - not me. I actually believe that is irrelevant. I personally work on the ability to live without the dependance of the womb. Late term abortions I'm against - regardless of whether they have a soul or not - because you can do something for those fetuses without the womb, without serious side effects (though I think my cousin was not so lucky on that note).

I tie a soul to one's memory and beliefs more than anything (while mental I attach to processing capabilities) - and yes, if you had amnesia, I would say your old soul "died" (unless you get it back).

In the post you were quoting, I wasn't disputing Gun Fighter's choice as "this is how I define a human", I was disputing (which you can note through my serious of posts AFTER that one) that his choice of definition is one he can force upon people in that manner.

Which is strange because the "woman's choice" argument has no ground unless it first proves that there is not life in a possibly aborted fetus--or, more accurately, that the life of a fetus is not worth saving or not yet imbued with that inalienable right to life. Choice is hardly an issue if it's a life with a right to life. Adult murderers have the "choice" of killing their adult victims, but that doesn't justify them. I mean, If a fetus is a life which has an inalienable right to life, then it's no one's choice whether or not to end it. I wish more people recognized the intricacies of the issue of abortion rather than parroting their favorite respective right and left wing ideologues.

Most of this thread, the point of what defines life has been brought forth of as the fact that the fetus is entirely dependant upon the womb and fails to meet any requirements of "living organism" by scientific definition. Of course, that means (and we REALLY haven't been doing a sufficient job in differentiating this one) that we're discussing early-term abortions (and many have stated they cannot support late-term abortions).

The definition of life is a difficult one to determine (and I apologize to Gun Fighters for the massive assault on his beliefs like that), and every nation has people from all sides of the fence (including those that say we should have the right to kill anyone anyways to those that believe contraceptives are inventions by the devil). I was going to leave a question, but I just got a counter-argument to it and I shall have to try and pursue the argument before I post my rebuttle.....

Though perhaps this argument has been made before, the wording of the resolution currently in effect says "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.".

Two major problems exist with the resolution as it currently stands.

1) It does not actually protect a woman seeking an abortion. It simply states that a woman is to be given the right to have an abortion without the government of a member nation interfering. It does not guarantee quality medical treatment; it does not even guarantee that a member nation of the UN cannot pass laws outlawing abortion within their own country. Let me explain, if Traumtal outlaws abortion procedures within it’s borders, but still allows its citizens to go to another country to get an abortion without penalty, then it can technically be said to be following the resolution. In other words, the government is not restricting the woman’s right to an abortion, merely restricting the practice of abortion within it’s borders.

2) It does not adequately define an “abortion”. Several members have posted in this very forum trying to clarify that issue, but unfortunately, the resolution as it stands offers no guidance. Does a child, say 5 years of age (to be extreme), who lives wholly due to the grace and care of his/her parents (and cannot survive without the care provided by the parent/parents), have the right to his/her own life, or can the mother decide that she needs to abort this child because she no long can/is willing to provide for him? Are late-term abortions sanctified by this resolution (late term being abortions performed after the “fetus” is able to exist without life support, outside the womb)?

Therefore, I will be voting to repeal this poorly worded resolution, and encourage members of my region to do the same.

Grossherzog Troy Kramer
Federation of Traumtal

Having been entirely satisfied by Forgottenland's reasonable explanation, I apologise for the misunderstanding, and withdraw my objections to his last posts. I still disagree with Gun fighter's stand, but that is over religious stance, not because of any personal emnity.

Traumtal has raised some very pertinent issues. Given the widely differing viewpoints of the governments in question in the UN, a repeal of the original resolution followed by the passage of a more clearly defined and coherent bill appears to be the best choice available if the aim is the safeguard the health and rights of the women in question while simultaneously showing respect for potential for life of the fetus/baby/spoon of organic material (insert age) in question.

This will be my last post in this thread, I look forward to debating it further should it reach the floor.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

Most of this thread, the point of what defines life has been brought forth of as the fact that the fetus is entirely dependant upon the womb and fails to meet any requirements of "living organism" by scientific definition. Of course, that means (and we REALLY haven't been doing a sufficient job in differentiating this one) that we're discussing early-term abortions (and many have stated they cannot support late-term abortions).

The definition of life is a difficult one to determine (and I apologize to Gun Fighters for the massive assault on his beliefs like that), and every nation has people from all sides of the fence (including those that say we should have the right to kill anyone anyways to those that believe contraceptives are inventions by the devil). I was going to leave a question, but I just got a counter-argument to it and I shall have to try and pursue the argument before I post my rebuttle.....
Perhaps my accusation that this thread had ignored the points I consider to be important is just projection from my frustration over the partisanship in the US. Sorry, bout that.

Otherwise I think I agree almost entirely with this post--in that it's relly hard to define life (or when an organism acquires an inalienable right to it), and that there are almost as many opinions as hairs on my head. Sorry if it seemed like I was attacking the thread or the forum (which is what I think it seems re-reading my post). It's just RL frustration coming out in the game.

Darn that Real life! It gets in the way so much! ;)

Hey look, another Repeal "Abortion Rights" proposal


:headbang:

If a fetus is given "personhood" at the earliest stage of pregnacy then that opens a very dangerous can of worms for the would be mother. By the very fact its inside her body, and until the late stages unable to leave without dying, it instantly gains importance over her and she will be walking a legal tightrope for the whole nine months.
The time at which an unborn child is “given personhood" is irrelevant, by virtue of the fact that the term "personhood" is legally and scientifically nonexistent. Thus how could it have any rational bearing on defining what a person is?

Besides personhood is in the eyes of the beholder so how could you ever hope to fairly use a term that could involve any number of criteria or ideals to legally define a person?

No the child gains no importance over her. All it does is gain the rights and freedoms afforded to every other living person.


If a fetus is a "person" with recognised legal rights, the woman would expect to face manslaughter charges for slipping wearing high heels, falling off a ladder while painting her coming childs room, falling down the stairs or any manner of scenarios that cause a miscarriage. If someone else bumped into her in the street and she fell losing the baby, the person responsible would be charged with anything from manslaughter to murder. I know this sounds silly and can easily be dismissed as a slippery slope arguement, but its what I can see will happen.
I’m not even going to dignify that ludicrous assertion with a response. And on a personal note, if you really believe that then all I have to say is that you seriously need to do some studying of law.


As for the cost arguement. This whole thread seems to be moving from "its the states right to choose" to "the state shouldn't have to pay for it". If you ban abortion the state won't have to pay for it anymore, however rich women will still be able to pay for and get an abortion in another nation. The poor women will go to cheap back yard butchers who will often kill the woman with the fetus.
So then should we not legalize murder to make it safer and easier for murderers to kill?

For any of you who are screaming "just give it up for adoption", please be aware that comes with its own set of baggage and isn't the easy option a lot of people think it is.
Neither is abortion but none of this (adoption) is really relevant to this discussion.

The time at which an unborn child is “given personhood" is irrelevant, by virtue of the fact that the term "personhood" is legally and scientifically nonexistent. Thus how could it have any rational bearing on defining what a person is?

Actually - from a legal standpoint, personhood is rather significant in definition. Scientifically on the other hand.... no it is not defined, though many associate personhood with signs of life (which is scientifically defined).

Besides personhood is in the eyes of the beholder so how could you ever hope to fairly use a term that could involve any number of criteria or ideals to legally define a person?

Very good - now you know why there are such massive arguments between the pro-life and pro-choice camps - because the two sides (for the most part) couldn't see eye-to-eye if they had a telescope 5000X more powerful than Hubble. Both sides have both fair and stupid reasons on why they are correct (though of course, being pro-choice, I think pro-life has a higher ratio of stupid arguments to smart ones). Shall we continue to state the obvious?

No the child gains no importance over her. All it does is gain the rights and freedoms afforded to every other living person.

And you just justified why we need to define personhood - for someone who is not a person does not have the rights afforded to persons. Would a clone be a person? What about an alien? Obviously, the latter isn't human, but human does not equate to person - human refers to the species, person refers to the member of society

Though I must ask - if you don't define personhood, how can you declare that someone is a person?

I’m not even going to dignify that ludicrous assertion with a response. And on a personal note, if you really believe that then all I have to say is that you seriously need to do some studying of law.

If you ignore the argument, it is still there. I note, you are quite outnumbered on this point (that it is a "ludicrous assertion").

Further - I'm certain if you accidentally bumped into someone that made them knock their head on cleats that for some reason are facing up, you would be charger with manslaughter (with investigation into a possible charge of Second Degree Murder - though it's unlikely to actually be applied).

Before I continue, I'd just like to shout out to anyone who might have a link to a page that goes over major charges that can be brought up (in any country really), but this is what I found at dictionary.com (not the best source considering the topic, but it shall suffice for now)


man·slaugh·ter Audio pronunciation of "manslaughter" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mnslôtr)
n.

The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury.

Hmm, killing a fetus (who, by your belief is a person) by accidentally bumping into someone (who you had no intent to injure) would be considered manslaughter. Also in that case, you could possibly charge the mother with involuntary manslaughter.

By the same theory, falling down a flight of stairs resulting in a miscarriage would similarly result in a charge of manslaughter.

So then should we not legalize murder to make it safer and easier for murderers to kill?

I'm sorry, but your comment made absolutely no logical sense compared to what Waterana is getting at (though I congradulate you on arguing from a stance that is so overly biased that it will likely get your argument ignored - regardless of whether any good points were brought up. Since you didn't address the issue at hand, I'm not annoyed by such a point). Abortion on the discussion she was pointing at has less to do with murders vs choice, it has to do with operations. If you outlaw transplants in your nations, the rich will go to other countries to get transplants, the poor may be so desperate that some woman may get her brother to donate a kidney to her in some run down illegal hospital in some guy's basement. During the operation, his procedure is faulty and both end up dieing.

This is a largely downplayed version as Abortions often have a higher rate of illegal conductions of Abortion than most major operations (you're going to get an illegal brain transplant? Ok, do you think I should get this tie with the stripes or that one that's just a plain black for your funeral?), however, I think you get the point. Just because its illegal doesn't mean it stops (same goes for things like prostitution and drug use). I note that if you read Shakespear's Hamlet, Ophelia is suspected to be attempting an abortion in the days before her death (I believe it's the semi-monologue of the flowers or herbs or something that brings this belief about). I'm pretty sure abortions were illegal back in that day. (Source: Gr 12 English teacher - who's compiled one of the many versions of Hamlet)

Neither is abortion but none of this (adoption) is really relevant to this discussion.

Actually it has GREAT relevance to this discussion, but again you took a pig-headed route and failed to address a core belief (or state your own opinion which is quite obviously that it doesn't really matter since you believe that it's a child's right to life).

But hey, since you seem to be so new at this, allow me to teach you how this argument works.

There are many pro-choice arguments pointing to how some parents are unable to support their children. Certainly, issues like single-mothers often fall under this category since they are already (in many cases) struggling to make ends meet. The response from pro-life people is "give it up for adoption" - to which (if you've actually been reading the thread) we have given numerous arguments as to why that argument is invalid. Waterana's is just the latest of them.

Now, get your head out of your a**, if you don't see the logic to the argument, say so - but don't call it irrelevant. We will try to help you with that. If you want to change core beliefs, address the core beliefs, and for goodness sakes, show some actual intelligence. Contradicting your very self is such an excruciatingly difficult thing to stand and was what prompted me to actually respond to you (and quite frankly, in such a harsh manner. I normally am now so outright vicious with those I argue with).

Thankyou for your post Forgottenlands. You answered the other members points better than I could have :).

The point I was trying to make that was dismissed as "ludicrous", is that if a fetus is given right to life (in which case it would be considered a official person), and the woman carrying it does anything to endanger or premeturely end that right to life whether by accident or design, then she would probably be held responsible for her actions in a court of law. Unless all pregnant women spend their entire pregnacies wrapped in bubble wrap and locked in a padded room to ensure the fetus is never put in any danger, then they will end up running a legal gauntlet for the entire nine months.

I'm sorry but I consider the woman, the living, breathing, alive, thinking person to have rights over her own body and that includes whether she wants to share it for nine months. The decision of abortion is the business of the woman and her doctor only. I don't believe its the governments role to go sticking its nose into the private medical decisions of its citizens.

After careful consideration and lengthy discussions between the Minister for Science and Medicine Rebecca Lewis and the Minister for Religion Sofia Chu, The Commonwealth of Pontinia has decided that pregnant mothers should have the right to have an abortion if:
The child would have a poor quality of life (to be decided by a committee)
There is a significant chance that the child would be still-born
The mother's life would be put at risk by going through with the pregnancy

Furthermore, abortion should only be allowed before such time as the foetus would survive if born at the time of the abortion - currently 20 weeks.

I'm sorry but I consider the woman, the living, breathing, alive, thinking person to have rights over her own body and that includes whether she wants to share it for nine months. The decision of abortion is the business of the woman and her doctor only. I don't believe its the governments role to go sticking its nose into the private medical decisions of its citizens.

What about the baby fetus' body? What if it wants to live? Its not the baby's fault the mother is a whore. It should have the right to live. They have this thing called adoption, those sort of mothers should try it.. that and not having sex with everything they see.

What about the baby fetus' body? What if it wants to live? Its not the baby's fault the mother is a whore. It should have the right to live. They have this thing called adoption, those sort of mothers should try it.. that and not having sex with everything they see.

Thank you for coming into the discussion so late and restating opinions that have already been dealt with several times.

If I had more time right now, I'd drill you on it, but I don't so....

Actually - from a legal standpoint, personhood is rather significant in definition. Scientifically on the other hand.... no it is not defined, though many associate personhood with signs of life (which is scientifically defined).
Yes and generally “signs of life” are present as early as twelve weeks.


Very good - now you know why there are such massive arguments between the pro-life and pro-choice camps - because the two sides (for the most part) couldn't see eye-to-eye if they had a telescope 5000X more powerful than Hubble. Both sides have both fair and stupid reasons on why they are correct (though of course, being pro-choice, I think pro-life has a higher ratio of stupid arguments to smart ones). Shall we continue to state the obvious?
I only mentioned it because I see so many people using the term as if it were some kind of scientific fact.


And you just justified why we need to define personhood - for someone who is not a person does not have the rights afforded to persons. Would a clone be a person? What about an alien? Obviously, the latter isn't human, but human does not equate to person - human refers to the species, person refers to the member of society

Though I must ask - if you don't define personhood, how can you declare that someone is a person?
Oh god don’t even start with the “lets play dumb” tactic.
First forget about personhood, it shouldn’t have any place in an argument of fact.

I look at it in two ways.

1. DNA. The DNA of the mother and that of the child are separate and unique. After all they are two genetically different beings. Further more, its DNA is that of a human (Not alien, tree or dog.) so there is no “slippery slope” argument.

2. From a physical development perspective.

It’s as simple as that.

We don't!


If you ignore the argument, it is still there. I note, you are quite outnumbered on this point (that it is a "ludicrous assertion").

Further - I'm certain if you accidentally bumped into someone that made them knock their head on cleats that for some reason are facing up, you would be charger with manslaughter (with investigation into a possible charge of Second Degree Murder - though it's unlikely to actually be applied).

Before I continue, I'd just like to shout out to anyone who might have a link to a page that goes over major charges that can be brought up (in any country really), but this is what I found at dictionary.com (not the best source considering the topic, but it shall suffice for now)
I’m still amazed by the lengths to which people try and divert topics off in to ridiculous and irrelevant sub debates.

All I’m saying is that if we are debating what it takes to be a person with all due rights, then topics like that are not relevant. To put it simple, if we’re talking about a person then any legal repercussions as a result of that person having rights, are irrelevant!

It’s not that I think issues like this should be ignored, I’m just saying that this isn’t the topic in which we should debate them.


Hmm, killing a fetus (who, by your belief is a person) by accidentally bumping into someone (who you had no intent to injure) would be considered manslaughter. Also in that case, you could possibly charge the mother with involuntary manslaughter.

By the same theory, falling down a flight of stairs resulting in a miscarriage would similarly result in a charge of manslaughter.
Again you’re jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion in order to try and make a point that has no relevance in this debate.


I'm sorry, but your comment made absolutely no logical sense compared to what Waterana is getting at (though I congradulate you on arguing from a stance that is so overly biased that it will likely get your argument ignored - regardless of whether any good points were brought up. Since you didn't address the issue at hand, I'm not annoyed by such a point). Abortion on the discussion she was pointing at has less to do with murders vs choice, it has to do with operations. If you outlaw transplants in your nations, the rich will go to other countries to get transplants, the poor may be so desperate that some woman may get her brother to donate a kidney to her in some run down illegal hospital in some guy's basement. During the operation, his procedure is faulty and both end up dieing.
While I do agree that this is a subject that warrants further debate, I was only referring to the last part by pointing out that either way it doesn’t matter. If it’s alive and human then killing it would be murder. Saying that something should be legal because people will do it anyway and also might get hurt in the process is just retarded...

Call me crazy but I think we should focus on ways to help these women so they don’t feel like they have to go out and get an abortion at any cost. (Money, help with attending school, medical coverage etc.)


Actually it has GREAT relevance to this discussion, but again you took a pig-headed route and failed to address a core belief (or state your own opinion which is quite obviously that it doesn't really matter since you believe that it's a child's right to life).
Hahahaha...... Oh wait were you being serious?

A little slipup on your part I’d say.. :rolleyes:


But hey, since you seem to be so new at this, allow me to teach you how this argument works.
No, I’ve just been in so many debates about this issue that I tend to write off some of the more “out there” arguments a lot easier then I normally would in a debate. Plus I was in kind of a bad mood when writing that.


There are many pro-choice arguments pointing to how some parents are unable to support their children. Certainly, issues like single-mothers often fall under this category since they are already (in many cases) struggling to make ends meet. The response from pro-life people is "give it up for adoption" - to which (if you've actually been reading the thread) we have given numerous arguments as to why that argument is invalid. Waterana's is just the latest of them.
Like I said before, we should focus a lot of attention on alleviating those problems.

Yes I’ve been reading the thread and I’ve seen all of those “reasons” many times before.... Mostly just more crying about being inconvenienced.


Now, get your head out of your a**, if you don't see the logic to the argument, say so - but don't call it irrelevant. We will try to help you with that. If you want to change core beliefs, address the core beliefs, and for goodness sakes, show some actual intelligence. Contradicting your very self is such an excruciatingly difficult thing to stand and was what prompted me to actually respond to you (and quite frankly, in such a harsh manner. I normally am now so outright vicious with those I argue with).
Don’t worry about it, I’m used to “debating” with much more.... forceful debaters. ;)

Oh and I’ll explain my views on a lot of these other issues better when I have more time.

What about the baby fetus' body? What if it wants to live? Its not the baby's fault the mother is a whore. It should have the right to live. They have this thing called adoption, those sort of mothers should try it.. that and not having sex with everything they see.

Maybe a good smacking could help this man?

Irrelevant? We're discussing rights of abortions and you're trying to diverge the topic to "how can we help women who want abortion but should get help otherwise" and you're calling a consequence of declaring a fetus as being a human being from contraception "irrelevant" despite the fact that it is rather an important argument towards MANY arguments against abortion (and certainly seems to be yours - unless you care to prove me wrong, but I'm pretty damn sure my interpretation of your arguments is rather accurate).

If you're so experienced with these arguments, perhaps you should actually start ARGUING.

Greetings.

We of Roathin bring to the table experience with the workings of pre-sentient minds, hive minds, and other unique and rare neurological cases. It is this range of experience which leads us to take the following stand.


if the organism wants life, this 'want' cannot be assumed merely because of an aversion against factors leading to death
if the organism's desire for life is to be a factor, the ability to communicate that desire unequivocally is essential
should the desire be assumed on the basis of analogy or other metaphorical construct, that should not be considered evidence that such desire in fact exists
if the organism is considered to be a thinking being desirous of life, it must have been shown to have sufficient mental apparatus to have complex thoughts such as the ability to apprehend 'suffering'
the 'if you/I/some other entity were in the organism's place' argument should not be used as it is manifestly not the case
potential capacity is not the same as actual capacity, which means that viable organisms must be favoured over potentially viable organisms

Applying this list, we find, renders many cases transparently clear. We kill many insects (and crustaceans and other invertebrates) without qualms because they lack the mental apparatus to suffer, do not communicate unequivocal desire for life (as opposed to an aversion to factors leading to death), and cannot be defended by 'if you were an insect' arguments because we are not an insect.

We are against wanton mass killing, of course, but this stems from a desire to preserve economy of action and ecological viability, rather than from a dedicated insect-directed altruism.

I'll get a full response later (when I have time) - but I thought I'd share a point right now:

If we are to define the right to life to being a human being - other special issues aside - and base this on DNA above all things (and COMPLETELY ignore whether it is actually alive or not):
1) Mutants have no right to life....
2) *cuts off a finger* - oh look - my finger down there - it has a right to life. It's a piece of tissue with human DNA - therefore it has the right to life! It doesn't matter that it has no hope in hell to survive whatsoever....etc. I could expand this argument to include corpses.

Irrelevant? We're discussing rights of abortions and you're trying to diverge the topic to "how can we help women who want abortion but should get help otherwise" and you're calling a consequence of declaring a fetus as being a human being from contraception "irrelevant" despite the fact that it is rather an important argument towards MANY arguments against abortion (and certainly seems to be yours - unless you care to prove me wrong, but I'm pretty damn sure my interpretation of your arguments is rather accurate).

If you're so experienced with these arguments, perhaps you should actually start ARGUING.
No if you wouldn’t have jumped to conclusions and paid attention then you would have read my post better.


I look at it in two ways.

1. DNA. The DNA of the mother and that of the child are separate and unique. After all they are two genetically different beings. Further more, its DNA is that of a human (Not alien, tree or dog.) so there is no “slippery slope” argument.

2. From a physical development perspective.

And as for the irrelevant topics that you’re trying to use in order to divert the discussion. Well I’ve already explained that, please READ my earlier post.


I'll get a full response later (when I have time) - but I thought I'd share a point right now:

If we are to define the right to life to being a human being - other special issues aside - and base this on DNA above all things (and COMPLETELY ignore whether it is actually alive or not):
1) Mutants have no right to life....
2) *cuts off a finger* - oh look - my finger down there - it has a right to life. It's a piece of tissue with human DNA - therefore it has the right to life! It doesn't matter that it has no hope in hell to survive whatsoever....etc. I could expand this argument to include corpses.
:rolleyes: Read above comment. ^

Our most divinely touched and glorious leader sends his blessings to your nations and hopes that you will one day accept his benevolant and fair rule.

We, the delegation of the Holy Empire of the Undeniable Faith, have observed this debate with a degree of confusion. It seems that most of the debate has revolved around whether or not abortion is wrong. Our esteemed leader has decreed that it is a paramount sin, but, at the risk of a severe caning for suggesting that his vision is not the only proper one, this delegation humbly puts forth that this is a moral matter and can be interpreted either way.

We therefore see the central issue of this matter in the question: does the United Nations have the right to impose the moral will of the majority over all of its nations? Is a single solution to matters are religiously charged as abortion to be arbitrarily forced onto every nation, regardless of its faith or moral standing?

It is therefore our recommendation that all Resolutions either ensuring or banning abortion be repealed, and the ultimate decision in the matter be left to the individual governments of the member nations. For those who still suffer in the near-anarchy of democracy, this will involve a vote and therefore the will of the mob--er, majority--will be protected. And for those with divinely supported benevolant leaders, the will of those leaders will be protected from international meddling in moral affairs.

In conclusion, our glorious leader declares that abortion is evil, but we encourage all nations to make that decision for themselves rather than having it forced onto them by the moral will of the majority of nations.

Our compliments to our esteemed colleagues of the other delegations,
The delegation of the Holy Empire of the Undeniable Faith

I've gotta say - for someone who has a respectable use of the English language, I find it frustrating arguing with you because of the style of your arguments - but let's begin:

Yes and generally “signs of life” are present as early as twelve weeks.

Well aware of that - which is why most of this discussion is truly talking about early term abortions. Most people put the number somewhere in the range of 20-25 weeks as the point that there's enough signs of life to consider it close enough to being alive. If you want to use one sign of life as your justification - I suggest we start calling a spring alive - because it certainly responds to external stimuli.

I only mentioned it because I see so many people using the term as if it were some kind of scientific fact.

Which we had generally gotten close enough in range of one another that we were willing to accept each other's stances and work from there. We can begin discussing personhood in a few minutes, but I do believe we have a few issues to address first.

Oh god don’t even start with the “lets play dumb” tactic.
First forget about personhood, it shouldn’t have any place in an argument of fact.

Actually - we should be. But we need to first invalidate any reasoning of using "humanhood" as they definition instead of personhood.

I look at it in two ways.

1. DNA. The DNA of the mother and that of the child are separate and unique. After all they are two genetically different beings. Further more, its DNA is that of a human (Not alien, tree or dog.) so there is no “slippery slope” argument.

2. From a physical development perspective.

It’s as simple as that.

We don't!

I wonder what conditions you support cloning under. Not to mention, point 1 fails to consider identical twins where you have 3 beings with 2 sets of DNA

However, you fail (and actually, fully admit that you are not) addressing issues that are quite pertinent to both nationstates and other future real-world considerations.

1) A lot of nations are role-playing with post-modern and future tech nations with aliens or magic-tech with every fantasy race in existance. The concept of personhood makes it so that rights are granted to other races

2) Evolution. There's plenty of proof that we are evolving still. I've heard of towns where the entire population has developed some peculiarity or another (eg: there's one US town where the cholesterol tollerance is absolutely massive compared to the normal human being). We cannot anticipate what the next evolutionary step will be and if, perhaps, it will result in us having to consider decendants of humans that are not Homo Sapien Sapien. Would these people be excluded from the rights held by everyone else? I don't believe they should

In both of these cases - we are considering the failings of distinguishing between personhood and humanhood. Humans are just that - humans. The wonderful Homo Sapien Sapien race that we are. PERSONS are members of society. They can be human or they can be Intelligent Dolphins.

I may have further, more direct arguments with your definition but we'll get there in a bit

I’m still amazed by the lengths to which people try and divert topics off in to ridiculous and irrelevant sub debates.

All I’m saying is that if we are debating what it takes to be a person with all due rights, then topics like that are not relevant. To put it simple, if we’re talking about a person then any legal repercussions as a result of that person having rights, are irrelevant!

Actually, I consider it QUITE relevant - as there is a considerable consequence of doing so. However, if you are merely stating that you believe there is no reason to fret over this consideration, I congradulate on failing to see the full picture. I have a hard time with the idea that likely more than 1% of women will be in jail for manslaughter. There's something that just seems so utterly wrong about that.

It’s not that I think issues like this should be ignored, I’m just saying that this isn’t the topic in which we should debate them.

Well I happen to disagree.

Again you’re jumping to an unsubstantiated conclusion in order to try and make a point that has no relevance in this debate.

While I do agree that this is a subject that warrants further debate, I was only referring to the last part by pointing out that either way it doesn’t matter. If it’s alive and human then killing it would be murder. Saying that something should be legal because people will do it anyway and also might get hurt in the process is just retarded...

Call me crazy but I think we should focus on ways to help these women so they don’t feel like they have to go out and get an abortion at any cost. (Money, help with attending school, medical coverage etc.)

Actually, I shall take up that invitation and call you crazy. You just jump into this conversation, state your opinion on abortion (BTW - if you recall, this post is about whether or not we should repeal abortion) and therefore decide that any argument for or against abortion or any of the arguments surrounding it is irrelevant. I find that rather arrogant of you.

While we should certainly consider options of making it a viable option to not take an abortion - the discussion at hand IS should abortions be legal, NOT "how should we support people so they don't have to have abortions". If you are pushing the idea of "we should ban abortions but give women support to have children", that's one thing. However, addressing the intricacies of what we should be doing to help these people is not appropriate for this topic.

Hahahaha...... Oh wait were you being serious?

A little slipup on your part I’d say.. :rolleyes:

Fine - fetus. Argument is still there

No, I’ve just been in so many debates about this issue that I tend to write off some of the more “out there” arguments a lot easier then I normally would in a debate. Plus I was in kind of a bad mood when writing that.

Well - if you've been reading the general pattern of this thread, then it should be apparent that "out there" argument is rather heavily supported. Therefore, it is not irrelevant.

Like I said before, we should focus a lot of attention on alleviating those problems.

Yes I’ve been reading the thread and I’ve seen all of those “reasons” many times before.... Mostly just more crying about being inconvenienced.

Uh huh.... I'm sure Waterana is more than pleased to be reading that.

Don’t worry about it, I’m used to “debating” with much more.... forceful debaters. ;)

Oh and I’ll explain my views on a lot of these other issues better when I have more time.

No if you wouldn’t have jumped to conclusions and paid attention then you would have read my post better.

Did you READ my post? I stated quite clearly that my problem was you were declaring arguments against your own position as irrelevant (most notably, personhood and manslaughter) as irrelevant and then trying to force a conversation about whether or not we should keep abortion in the legalized category as per resolution 61 or whether it should be repealed to a conversation about what sort of support should be given to people so they don't have to have an abortion - and then TELL me that my position should be dealt with on a seperate thread because my argument as a consequence of the definition of personhood/humanhood (which is being used as a foundation of many arguments on this thread against abortion - because humans have a "right to life" - even though DLE points out the only right a human has is a right to die) being that a fetus is human from point of conception. (Yes, I'm well aware that was a painfully long runon sentance)

Back to work now....

Well aware of that - which is why most of this discussion is truly talking about early term abortions. Most people put the number somewhere in the range of 20-25 weeks as the point that there's enough signs of life to consider it close enough to being alive. If you want to use one sign of life as your justification - I suggest we start calling a spring alive - because it certainly responds to external stimuli.
By 18-20 weeks the unborn child is developed to the point where abortion for anything other then necessity shouldn’t even be considered.


Actually - we should be. But we need to first invalidate any reasoning of using "humanhood" as they definition instead of personhood.
No, we really shouldn’t, as I've said before......


I wonder what conditions you support cloning under. Not to mention, point 1 fails to consider identical twins where you have 3 beings with 2 sets of DNA
Irrelevant, because only the DNA of the mother and child need to be unique. Plus their still human, so again there is NO “slippery slope” argument... Sorry


1) A lot of nations are role-playing with post-modern and future tech nations with aliens or magic-tech with every fantasy race in existance. The concept of personhood makes it so that rights are granted to other races
Simply extending rights to other races and species would be easy. We’re one step away from doing it for some animals already.


2) Evolution. There's plenty of proof that we are evolving still. I've heard of towns where the entire population has developed some peculiarity or another (eg: there's one US town where the cholesterol tollerance is absolutely massive compared to the normal human being). We cannot anticipate what the next evolutionary step will be and if, perhaps, it will result in us having to consider decendants of humans that are not Homo Sapien Sapien. Would these people be excluded from the rights held by everyone else? I don't believe they should
And the relevance of your point is? You seem to be running out of arguments.


In both of these cases - we are considering the failings of distinguishing between personhood and humanhood. Humans are just that - humans. The wonderful Homo Sapien Sapien race that we are. PERSONS are members of society. They can be human or they can be Intelligent Dolphins.
That’s a rather thoughtless view of things. What about small children 0-3 years old or the retarded, they shouldn‘t have any rights? Because they get excluded from humanity when you use the scientifically irrelevant personhood.

It’s a really weak argument anyway.


Actually, I consider it QUITE relevant - as there is a considerable consequence of doing so. However, if you are merely stating that you believe there is no reason to fret over this consideration, I congradulate on failing to see the full picture. I have a hard time with the idea that likely more than 1% of women will be in jail for manslaughter. There's something that just seems so utterly wrong about that.
Yes but that wasn’t my point. The legal repercussions are irrelevant to the debate on whether an unborn child is a human person or not. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.....


Well I happen to disagree.
Well that’s good for you, just don’t try and make people debate irrelevant issues unless they want to as well.


Actually, I shall take up that invitation and call you crazy. You just jump into this conversation, state your opinion on abortion (BTW - if you recall, this post is about whether or not we should repeal abortion) and therefore decide that any argument for or against abortion or any of the arguments surrounding it is irrelevant. I find that rather arrogant of you.
I stated the reasons why those topics were irrelevant. There’s nothing arrogant about that.


While we should certainly consider options of making it a viable option to not take an abortion - the discussion at hand IS should abortions be legal, NOT "how should we support people so they don't have to have abortions". If you are pushing the idea of "we should ban abortions but give women support to have children", that's one thing. However, addressing the intricacies of what we should be doing to help these people is not appropriate for this topic.
Yes but some people are arguing that unborn children are human persons and as such have all the rights that you and I have. So issues like this are quite irrelevant in that context.


Well - if you've been reading the general pattern of this thread, then it should be apparent that "out there" argument is rather heavily supported. Therefore, it is not irrelevant.
Just because some people care strongly about an issue doesn’t make that issue relevant to the debate.


Did you READ my post? I stated quite clearly that my problem was you were declaring arguments against your own position as irrelevant (most notably, personhood and manslaughter) as irrelevant and then trying to force a conversation about whether or not we should keep abortion in the legalized category as per resolution 61 or whether it should be repealed to a conversation about what sort of support should be given to people so they don't have to have an abortion - and then TELL me that my position should be dealt with on a seperate thread because my argument as a consequence of the definition of personhood/humanhood (which is being used as a foundation of many arguments on this thread against abortion - because humans have a "right to life" - even though DLE points out the only right a human has is a right to die) being that a fetus is human from point of conception. (Yes, I'm well aware that was a painfully long runon sentance)
Ah ok..... a “right to die”

............................................!

That’s quite possibly the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard!

Oh and on a side note to the whole Human vs. person debate. They’re called “Human Rights” not “person rights.”