NationStates Jolt Archive

A Proposal for Repeal has been submitted.
~~~~
Catergory: Repeal

Strength: Significant

To members and delegates of the UN, we the Holy Republic of Pikal hereby ask to make a proposal to Repeal the previously approved "Abortion Rights".

The actual wording of the original Resolution:

Description: 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.

AFFIRMING,
-that the pursuit of abortion to select countries is favorable.

NOTING with Satisfaction,
-the pursuit to better endow the human person with rights.

DEEPLY DISTURBED,
-by the fact that a country cannot legislate according to the beliefs (majority, minority or otherwise) of it's people or political goals.

NOTING,
-that the original Resolution does not make any attempts to disclaim the debatable personhood and individuality of the fetal entity.

REQUESTS,
-that the UN repeals this act for the sake of allowing each country to pursue the beliefs of its people or that of its soverign governing body.

URGES,
-that the UN at least repeal this act in favor of allowing a country to attain its own full self-governing (if that is the goal of a said country) goal.

EMPHASIZING,
-the extreme controversial natures of abortion and the unique points discussion of it brings up.

REPEAL "Abortion Rights"
~~~


EDIT 1: Changed Catergory to Repeal. Credit to Yeldan UN Mission for the correction.
EDIT 2: Added "select countries" under affirms.
EDIT 3: All edits from now will be for spelling or grammatical corrections only. This is my final wording for the Proposal.

Full support

Take from a former attempt of mine what you want but add me as a co-author ;)

HAVING CONSIDERED the full effects of this resolution
EMPHASISING that this resolution states that no member nation has the right to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion
NOTING WITH REGRET that the use of those words prohibits nations from legislating against women having abortions after any time period
RECOGNISING that under this resolution an abortion is legal right up until birth
DEEPLY REGRETTING that those unborn children who are both healthy and no threat to the mother’s life can be aborted right up until birth
CONVINCED that this is unacceptable to many nations, pro-life nations and pro-choice nations
DECLARING that this resolution must be repealed so that a better resolution may be passed that clearly defines when abortions are allowed and/or under what circumstances.

Full support

Take from a former attempt of mine what you want but add me as a co-author ;)

HAVING CONSIDERED the full effects of this resolution
EMPHASISING that this resolution states that no member nation has the right to interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion
NOTING WITH REGRET that the use of those words prohibits nations from legislating against women having abortions after any time period
RECOGNISING that under this resolution an abortion is legal right up until birth
DEEPLY REGRETTING that those unborn children who are both healthy and no threat to the mother’s life can be aborted right up until birth
CONVINCED that this is unacceptable to many nations, pro-life nations and pro-choice nations
DECLARING that this resolution must be repealed so that a better resolution may be passed that clearly defines when abortions are allowed and/or under what circumstances.

Thank you. :cool:
I may consider adding the CONVINCED part, although I may have to pull out the word "Pro-choice", unless a pro-choice country has sympathy for a pro-life country that can't be that way :)

Although cultures and individual Nations may have there own beliefs on this matter surely its a womens right to choose wether to have an abortion or not. If a repeal is made abortion clinics in soem antions will be got rid of and people will be going to back street places to get it doen. As for so called pro-life nations, it will cost lives if this repeal is made.

Catergory: Furtherment of Democracy

Strength: Significant

Well, the category won't be "Furtherment of Democracy", it'll be "repeal". You don't submit a repeal as a resolution. You use the repeal function. Oh and, we won't support this.

Although cultures and individual Nations may have there own beliefs on this matter surely its a womens right to choose wether to have an abortion or not. If a repeal is made abortion clinics in soem antions will be got rid of and people will be going to back street places to get it doen. It will cost lives if this resolution is evr passed!

I'm asking for this because if a country is predominately Pro-life, and abortion clinics are being opened, and possibly even being funded by tax dollars, how fair is that to the people who believe it is a crime? This sets in stone abortion rights, but an issue like abortion is one all countries should be allowed to deal with on their own terms.

I'm asking for this because if a country is predominately Pro-life, and abortion clinics are being opened, and possibly even being funded by tax dollars, how fair is that to the people who believe it is a crime? This sets in stone abortion rights, but an issue like abortion is one all countries should be allowed to deal with on their own terms.

How can a womens right to choose wether she has a baby be a crime? What about the poor people who end up beign pregnant trought crime? i.e. Rape. Waht about them? Are they meant to have a baby that would be a reminder for the rest of their lives of the horrible event that tehy went trough. Abortion is not a crime! Its a thing that a women has a right to choose wetehr she does or not!

How can a womens right to choose wether she has a baby be a crime? What about the poor people who end up beign pregnant trought crime? i.e. Rape. Waht about them? Are they meant to have a baby that would be a reminder for the rest of their lives of the horrible event that tehy went trough. Abortion is not a crime! Its a thing that a women has a right to choose wetehr she does or not!

I am not here to debate whether or not abortion is justifiable. I'm here to propose the idea that a country should not be forced to legislate something it does not want; in this case abortion.

What's more the crime? Not being able to choose abortion? Or have a country by majority is of a faith that is appalled by abortion and to have to watch it be legal and funded right before their eyes?

You obviously dont..


AFFIRMING,
-that the pursuit of abortion to countries is favorable.



:rolleyes:

You obviously dont..


AFFIRMING,
-that the pursuit of abortion to countries is favorable.



:rolleyes:

Ah yes, I am lacking a well-needed adjective.

That's my disclaimer, I'm not out to outlaw abortion WITHIN the UN.

I appreciate your attempt to not sound like an extreamist, but abortion must be accessible to all women.

I appreciate your attempt to not sound like an extreamist, but abortion must be accessible to all women.

But you're forcing this belief on countries now, what about those that do not want it? What about those that do not even have a need for it?

If women should be allowed to abort, a country should be allowed to establish it's own laws (considering they are well in bounds of being humane etc.), period.

I personally HATE abortion with an absolute passion BUT I think it should be allowed but the circumstances where it is allowed should be limited to where the Mother is in danger of dying after being diagnosed with Pre eclampsia. Other issues involving the mother including Rape and being below legal age then Adoption should be encouraged rather than Abortion.
In case of issues with the fetus only babies that will not survive more than a few hours, or will live in constant pain, or have an extreme disability (perhaps a panel of doctors from a cross section of nation states should be conviened to determine on what is severe enough to warrant an abortion).

no nation/government/people have the right to decide a woman's right to choose.

no nation/government/people have the right to decide a woman's right to choose.


So you're saying you have never made a decision to allow/restrict ANYTHING for your citizens?

Besides, what's so bad about restricting something your country is not for anyway? What if a woman CHOOSES to outlaw abortion by voting against it?

I think that in the case of consentual and legal sex where the man wants to raise the child he should have a say and be able to adopt the child, after all it is half his.

Its simple, whether you are a man or a woman; if you dont support abortion, dont have one.

Its simple, whether you are a man or a woman; if you dont support abortion, dont have one.

It isn't that simple. Abortion is life or death. Either the fetus lives or dies. For some, watching the fetus be killed under a process made legal is a travesty to themselves. You do not tell Pro-life people to simple stand by and watch, abortion isn't like selecting a national flag, or choosing whether or not salaries should be monthy or bi-weekly, this has to do with actual people.

I fully support this. Killing children is wrong.

I agree, killing children is wrong and I dont support this proposal. :)

It isnt a case of killing children. Its a case of allowing women to choose wether to have a baby or not.

Although cultures and individual Nations may have there own beliefs on this matter surely its a womens right to choose wether to have an abortion or not.
Surely you have proof to back up your opinion that this is somehow an inalienable right?


As for so called pro-life nations, it will cost lives if this repeal is made.
I and I’m sure many other people would fully support a resolution which mandates that the mothers life has precedence over that of the unborn child when her life is in danger. (Most pro-life people feel this way already.)


If a repeal is made abortion clinics in soem antions will be got rid of and people will be going to back street places to get it doen.
I say this in light of my above (^) statement.

SO WHAT!
Being killed while in the commission of a crime is not something that should have us rethinking our health, rights and law policies.


How can a womens right to choose wether she has a baby be a crime? Abortion is not a crime! Its a thing that a women has a right to choose wetehr she does or not!no nation/government/people have the right to decide a woman's right to choose.
It’s not a crime but murder is. And it’s a right that begins and ends with choosing to perform the reproductive act or not and acknowledging the consequences and responsibilities that go with the choice.

Contrary to the now popular belief, procreation isn’t a side affect of sex, it’s the point.

Nobody (man or woman) ever died from not having sex and I don’t really care how wrong or politically incorrect that sounded (or it is to say something like that) because it is the truth.

To quote a line that people like to use against men a lot. “You play the game, you pay the price.”


My god what a stupid moronic fucking society we live in!


What about the poor people who end up beign pregnant trought crime? i.e. Rape. Waht about them? Are they meant to have a baby that would be a reminder for the rest of their lives of the horrible event that tehy went trough.
What about them? They may not have had a choice in the matter (being raped) but if they don’t want a child then put it up for adoption.

Quick Fact: Mothers that choose to keep their child are more then two thirds less likely to commit suicide or suffer from severe long lasting depression as a result of the rape.(I’m not sure if that’s the exact number, looking for the link)


I appreciate your attempt to not sound like an extreamist, but abortion must be accessible to all women.
Hahaha.. I love when people feel they have to resort to name calling to try and win a debate.

Let’s see we have:

Person 1. “At least let the people have say in the matter”

Person 2. “No no no we can’t debate this or look at the facts, in my opinion it should always be aloud and nobody could have say in the matter.”

And person one is being called the “extremist?” :rolleyes:


I personally HATE abortion with an absolute passion BUT I think it should be allowed but the circumstances where it is allowed should be limited to where the Mother is in danger of dying after being diagnosed with Pre eclampsia. Other issues involving the mother including Rape and being below legal age then Adoption should be encouraged rather than Abortion.
In case of issues with the fetus only babies that will not survive more than a few hours, or will live in constant pain, or have an extreme disability (perhaps a panel of doctors from a cross section of nation states should be conviened to determine on what is severe enough to warrant an abortion).
Yes exactly.

A lot like it is in most of the industrialized world.


I think that in the case of consentual and legal sex where the man wants to raise the child he should have a say and be able to adopt the child, after all it is half his.
Yeah true but this issue kind of gets complicated and if not handled right could make this problem much worse. But that’s a whole other debate for a later time. (Not much later though.)


It isnt a case of killing children. Its a case of allowing women to choose wether to have a baby or not.
They do. But as with men, that ends when you choose to perform the reproductive act. (sex)

“It’s a right that begins and ends with choosing to perform the reproductive act or not and acknowledging the consequences and responsibilities that go with the choice.”

“You play the game, you pay the price.”

“Contrary to now popular belief, procreation isn’t a side affect of sex, it’s the point. Nobody (man or woman) ever died from not having sex and I don’t really care how wrong or politically incorrect that sounded (or it is to say something like that) because it is the truth.”

NOTING that abortions are conducted even in nations where they have been outlawed

FURTHER NOTING that these abortions have an alarmingly higher mortality rate of the would-be mother.

NOT GIVING A DAMN about where the definition of life begins - for the child cannot sustain itself without the womb regardless

ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution is poorly constructed for addressing such a complex topic

ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution does need to be replaced with a document that takes greater care in addressing late-term abortions (when the child is capable of sustaining itself without the womb - though plenty of medical equipment)

NOTING this repeal is attempting to give the right back to the Nations

BELIEVING nations haven't thought it through in this manner (or perhaps don't care)

REJECT this repeal.

NOTING that abortions are conducted even in nations where they have been outlawed

As does EVERYTHING else that's been outlawed. It appears you have stumbled upon something now!

FURTHER NOTING that these abortions have an alarmingly higher mortality rate of the would-be mother.

Which is why calling "back-alley" abortions extremism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extremism) isn't completely wrong now is it? You insert objects into cavities where they don't belong, you take a risk. The majority of abortions are brought on through consensual sex, case and point, you've brought upon your own problem.

NOT GIVING A DAMN about where the definition of life begins - for the child cannot sustain itself without the womb regardless

This is irrelevant. A large number of human beings cannot sustain life without support either. The question of personhood is the key issue of any abortion debate, if you can define it correctly you can either protect or destroy the fetus.

ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution is poorly constructed for addressing such a complex topic

ACKNOWLEDGING a claim without explanation to the benefit of the addressed party.

ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution does need to be replaced with a document that takes greater care in addressing late-term abortions (when the child is capable of sustaining itself without the womb - though plenty of medical equipment)

Then you'll agree with my proposal to repeal the "Abortion Rights" amendments, do you or do you not?

We support the esteemed delegation of Pikal's effort to repeal this resolution. It is one of a number which We believe infringe on the sovereign right of NationStates to decide their own cultural values.

We support the esteemed delegation of Pikal's effort to repeal this resolution. It is one of a number which We believe infringe on the sovereign right of NationStates to decide their own cultural values.

Thank you.

The Free Land of CTerryland tentatively approves this resolution. To be honest the Free Land sits on the fence in this debate, not being completely persuaded by either side of the argument and would rather leave this to be decided on a national level.

As does EVERYTHING else that's been outlawed. It appears you have stumbled upon something now!

Which is why calling "back-alley" abortions extremism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extremism) isn't completely wrong now is it? You insert objects into cavities where they don't belong, you take a risk. The majority of abortions are brought on through consensual sex, case and point, you've brought upon your own problem.

No, but it is a justification we use as a reason to legalize all sorts of things - at a UN sense, prostitution. I'm worried about protecting the mothers. My statement stands.

This is irrelevant. A large number of human beings cannot sustain life without support either. The question of personhood is the key issue of any abortion debate, if you can define it correctly you can either protect or destroy the fetus.

Yes, but these human beings aren't attached by an umbilacle cord to a single human being that they are solely and completely dependant upon. If someone at a hospital can't stand that person, they just get another nurse to take care of him.

ACKNOWLEDGING a claim without explanation to the benefit of the addressed party.

WTF?

Then you'll agree with my proposal to repeal the "Abortion Rights" amendments, do you or do you not?

No, because as I implied in the lines you deleted, I take more importance to the message than the actual effect. It's the same reason why the original prostitution resolution was repealed. The UN supported prostitution as a whole, but they felt that the original resolution was so despicable in what it was trying to say that it needed to be repealed anyways.

NOTING that abortions are conducted even in nations where they have been outlawed

FURTHER NOTING that these abortions have an alarmingly higher mortality rate of the would-be mother.

NOT GIVING A DAMN about where the definition of life begins - for the child cannot sustain itself without the womb regardless

ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution is poorly constructed for addressing such a complex topic

ACKNOWLEDGING the resolution does need to be replaced with a document that takes greater care in addressing late-term abortions (when the child is capable of sustaining itself without the womb - though plenty of medical equipment)

NOTING this repeal is attempting to give the right back to the Nations

BELIEVING nations haven't thought it through in this manner (or perhaps don't care)

REJECT this repeal.


Hear ! Hear!

Outlawing abortion is like outlawing masturbation. Except that masturbation wont kill you, but conducting your own abortion might.

OOC: Its frightenning that there are so many people who want to turn back the clock on abortion rights. So it isnt an imaginary threat after all. Reproductive freedom was a hard won right born out of the women's movement. We must be resolute in protecting it.

No, but it is a justification we use as a reason to legalize all sorts of things - at a UN sense, prostitution. I'm worried about protecting the mothers. My statement stands.


Protecting their actions would only stand if one could sympathize with their actions, I for one do not. Not everyone who cannot obtain an abortion will flock to illegal clinics, you need to take risks for greater gain.

Yes, but these human beings aren't attached by an umbilacle cord to a single human being that they are solely and completely dependant upon. If someone at a hospital can't stand that person, they just get another nurse to take care of him.


? What are you talking about? This isn't a matter of changing Nurses. It could be a grandfather confined to a wheelchair, an aunt with alzhiemers, a cousin with autism. You cannot simply claim they can find another means of support, it's family or nothing. If you family doesn't support you, you will also lack the financial support to be put into the medical system.

They are solely dependant on the mother, so? How does this devalue them? Because it inconveniences the mother? That can never devalue anyone.

WTF?

You said poorly constructed, would you like to be more specific?

No, because as I implied in the lines you deleted,

I didn't include them because I didn't have anything against them. I'm not snipping your posts to make then senseless.

I take more importance to the message than the actual effect. It's the same reason why the original prostitution resolution was repealed. The UN supported prostitution as a whole, but they felt that the original resolution was so despicable in what it was trying to say that it needed to be repealed anyways.

Then why do you refuse to agree to my proposal? The message is political freedom to do as you feel. even if the actual effect means some country outlaws abortion. So? It doesn't bother you, you can make abortion legal, and it certainly isn't human torture, child trafficking, nothing that serious, it's abortion, sex is not a disease it can be avoided.


OOC: Its frightenning that there are so many people who want to turn back the clock on abortion rights. So it isnt an imaginary threat after all. Reproductive freedom was a hard won right born out of the women's movement. We must be resolute in protecting it.

God Forbid a Nation is allowed to do as they please! This isn't attacking abortion, this is asking a highly controversial process be brought down to the National Level of legislation, that is all.

God Forbid a Nation is allowed to do as they please! This isn't attacking abortion, this is asking a highly controversial process be brought down to the National Level of legislation, that is all.

which means abortion will be outlawed in some countries and that will be the direct result of this proposal if it is passed.

which means abortion will be outlawed in some countries and that will be the direct result of this proposal if it is passed.

Exactly.

Oh my God!! If we don't repeal this, nations won't have the right to decide on a morally hot topic their own opinions!!!

In a word:

GOOD!

Oh my God!! If we don't repeal this, nations won't have the right to decide on a morally hot topic their own opinions!!!

In a word:

GOOD!

BAD!

((I'd also say this is a rough example of metagaming, but if this is most of all the UNs proposals would fall under that. ))

Yes, sovereignty of an individual should be greater than the sovereignty of a nation, but the woman is not the only one affected by an abortion. There is a human being inside with perhaps a different blood type, and a developing nervous system, and many other characteristics of a LIVING THING
.
Is human life more important than a comfort? No.
Should a woman have the right to choose to end that human life? No.

I only support abortion when the fetus endangers the mother's life.

I urge all nations to support this repeal.

Yes, sovereignty of an individual should be greater than the sovereignty of a nation, but the woman is not the only one affected by an abortion. There is a human being inside with perhaps a different blood type, and a developing nervous system, and many other characteristics of a LIVING THING
.
Is human life more important than a comfort? No.
Should a woman have the right to choose to end that human life? No.

I only support abortion when the fetus endangers the mother's life.

I urge all nations to support this repeal.

*groans*

Please don't get me started on whether or not a baby is alive, etc. I was just doing this battle a month ago.

Yes, sovereignty of an individual should be greater than the sovereignty of a nation, but the woman is not the only one affected by an abortion. There is a human being inside with perhaps a different blood type, and a developing nervous system, and many other characteristics of a LIVING THING
.
Is human life more important than a comfort? No.
Should a woman have the right to choose to end that human life? No.

I only support abortion when the fetus endangers the mother's life.

I urge all nations to support this repeal.

I thank you for your support, and I too am share the same beliefs, but I argue my Repeal from a neutral stand-point. This is for the betterment of goverment in general, the actual issue of abortion itself is left to that of the countries...

BAD!

((I'd also say this is a rough example of metagaming, but if this is most of all the UNs proposals would fall under that. ))

In a word:
:headbang:

MetaGaming

MetaGaming is a difficult to understand category at times, especially since it often shares jurisdiction with Game Mechanics violations. Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself.

Hmm....I fail to see how it forces events outside the UN

Proposals dealing with Regions,

Nope

with other nations,

Nope - just a general rule applied to all nations (BTW Hack, "with other nations" is a bit ambiguous and could be used as an argument for national sovereignty issues, even though that wasn't your intention. I actually am having a hard time figuring this one out - are you refering to non-UN nations or to individual nations)

Moderators,

No orders for moderators

and requiring activities on the Forums

Nope

are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

Nope

BTW - notice how these pretty much all address OOC issues - which is not done by this resolution

* Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

No committee

* Optionality

UN Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The opinionality ban refers to when language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

Nope, no optionality.

There's a lot of resolutions that would be considered illegal under the current set of laws (just look at all the same-sex rights and what not that have passed through the UN). However, this is not one of them.

Hmm....I fail to see how it forces events outside the UN


Oops, I screwed up the definition, oh well.

*groans*

Please don't get me started on whether or not a baby is alive, etc. I was just doing this battle a month ago.
Which means it's time for the issue to pop up again. ;)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

PS I fully support the repeal.

Which means it's time for the issue to pop up again. ;)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

PS I fully support the repeal.
Yay. :D


I'm not sure but I think I have an idea about which debate Forgottenlands was talking.. ;)

I am very definitely pro-life,but I think abortion is a matter for individual nations to decide on,and not the UN.The issue is viewed very differently from one nation to another,so a decision one way or the other should not be forced on all.

I have already submitted a proposal to repeal "Abortion Rights",any support would be much appreciated.

My government would support any well-written attempt to repeal the abortion rights resolution on the grounds that we've already expressed an interest in drafting a resolution condemning infanticide. Though admittedly, it is possible that the current resolution does not promote or support this practice ... which is why we'd consider well-written repeals.

Currently we do not have but a draft of a proposal, the text of which was drafted by the international affairs embassy from the people of Hirotia. My government's current priority is actually in leaning political support to other resolutions as set forth by the International Democratic Union (meaning we don't consider this pressing, but will be open to the idea).

<deep breath> Here we go again.
We have no doubts that the mother has full human rights, fully protected under law. There is, however, serious doubt as to whether the fetus has any rights at all. In this situation, if errors are to be made, we prefer to err in favor of the mother. We are opposed to any proposal which would seek to place limits on womens rights.

Thermidore respectfully declines to urge their regional delegate to support this proposal.

While a repeal to the abortion resolution is needed, we believe it is on the grounds of proper wording and respecting the right of the father as well (thank you Tajiri san for high lighting this oft controversial topic).

However, we believe there should be at least an ability to recourse to abortion in all states and not a moratorium on it, even for parents who simply don't want the child. Thermidore believes it is more harmful to bring more children into the world, for the sake of an unthinking mass of cells being given the same rights as humans, where there are already too many people in the world (even in in our region, where admittedly birth rates are probably the lowest in the world).

As a representative of the Allied States of Socratic Self-Doubt, I support this resolution, on the grounds that the entire abortion debate is a gargantuan, illogical crock. The choice of a side in this faux debate is an arbitrary one.

Legal hair-splitting out the window--and what is law but opinion?--if one endorses abortion, one endorses infanticide, and one endorses flat-out, dictionary-definition murder. You are denying another being its right to live. The first trimester is the third is the first postnatal month is the twentieth postnatal year. There is no logical foundation for drawing any line whatsoever. What is the difference between using a condom and having an abortion? Yes, yes? A destruction of potential. Equivalents. What is the difference between using a condom and killing a newborn? A destruction of potential. Equivalents. Ergo, &c. Your distinction is emotional; it is not rational. A newborn looks too human for you.

Religious fatalism out the window, if one opposes abortion, one endorses rape. Why draw the line at conception? There is no reason. Why not actualize all potential beings? If you pass a woman in the street and do not impregnate her, you have killed a child. It's the same thing.

The religious are the only ones with any sort of coherent logical foundation--given that they can say merely, "God wished it to be so"--yet of course that leads to the thorny question of whether God similarly wished the abortion to be so...

Thus there is no Right. There is seldom a Right. If no Right, there ought to be no law.

As a representative of the Allied States of Socratic Self-Doubt, I support this resolution, on the grounds that the entire abortion debate is a gargantuan, illogical crock. The choice of a side in this faux debate is an arbitrary one.

Legal hair-splitting out the window--and what is law but opinion?--if one endorses abortion, one endorses infanticide, and one endorses flat-out, dictionary-definition murder. You are denying another being its right to live. The first trimester is the third is the first postnatal month is the twentieth postnatal year. There is no logical foundation for drawing any line whatsoever. What is the difference between using a condom and having an abortion? Yes, yes? A destruction of potential. Equivalents. What is the difference between using a condom and killing a newborn? A destruction of potential. Equivalents. Ergo, &c. Your distinction is emotional; it is not rational. A newborn looks too human for you.

Religious fatalism out the window, if one opposes abortion, one endorses rape. Why draw the line at conception? There is no reason. Why not actualize all potential beings? If you pass a woman in the street and do not impregnate her, you have killed a child. It's the same thing.

The religious are the only ones with any sort of coherent logical foundation--given that they can say merely, "God wished it to be so"--yet of course that leads to the thorny question of whether God similarly wished the abortion to be so...

Thus there is no Right. There is seldom a Right. If no Right, there ought to be no law.

OOC: I have to say that I really enjoyed this post. It wasn't perfectly logical, but it did highlight some interesting issues.

IC:

Our office supports a repeal of the resolution in question, and may choose to debate the abortion issue if it becomes apparent that we need to do so.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

We, the Holy Republic of Pikal thank all of the support we have received and we will be soon hoping to move this to a more suitable proposal quene. There we will need as much support we can recieve, thank you everyone.

<deep breath> Here we go again.
We have no doubts that the mother has full human rights, fully protected under law. There is, however, serious doubt as to whether the fetus has any rights at all. In this situation, if errors are to be made, we prefer to err in favor of the mother. We are opposed to any proposal which would seek to place limits on womens rights.

sorry,but the choice of possible errors is
9 months of inconveiniance OR infanticide.hmmmmmm.

Its simple, whether you are a man or a woman; if you dont support abortion, dont have one.

Once something becomes legal,it becomes socially acceptable,and so putting something into law encourages it.

Abortion is something I see as utterly wrong.Imagine something you see as utterly wrong and evil being allowed under law.Rape for example.And someone tells you,"if you don't support rape,then don't do it".Same thing.

sorry,but the choice of possible errors is
9 months of inconveiniance OR infanticide.hmmmmmm.

in·fant Pronunciation Key (nfnt) n.


1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. Law. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.

in·fan·ti·cide Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd) n.


1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.


A fetus is not an infant, thats just your opinion. Try again.

Once something becomes legal,it becomes socially acceptable,and so putting something into law encourages it.

Abortion is something I see as utterly wrong.Imagine something you see as utterly wrong and evil being allowed under law.Rape for example.And someone tells you,"if you don't support rape,then don't do it".Same thing.

I'm not going to engage in a debate at this time, I'm unlikely to change your mind on this subject and you won't change mine. If this repeal comes to a vote however, I will oppose it vigorously.

Once something becomes legal,it becomes socially acceptable,and so putting something into law encourages it.

Abortion is something I see as utterly wrong.Imagine something you see as utterly wrong and evil being allowed under law.Rape for example.And someone tells you,"if you don't support rape,then don't do it".Same thing.

abortion didn't appear when laws legalized it, abortion exist since long time, abortion rate is not much higher than before it's legalization

The problem is that when abortion is forbidden, people practice it anyway, but outside hospitals, and this is very dangerous for the mother

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, allow non resident to practice abortion in The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, we are pretty sure we are not the only nation wich allow that
=> if abortion is forbidden in a nation, only rich people can afford to pay for flight ticket + hospital cost => it's a discrimination by money

=> if abortion is forbidden in a nation, only rich people can afford to pay for flight ticket + hospital cost => it's a discrimination by money

This can be said about EVERY illegalized process that exists today.

Everyone understands: These. Things. Still. Happen. It isn't a question of whether or no it goes on, for most people they realize it's impossible to eradicate many of these actions. The question at hand: Do you want your Government to Sanction Abortion or to not? I feel it is in the interest of the government to decide these things on their own, not decided by the UN.

A fetus is not an infant, thats just your opinion. Try again.

I said infanticide was one of the possible results.If you do not believe life begins at conception,you will at least concede that the matter of when a fetus becomes a human being is a grey area.So aborting a fetus is taking a risk.Is it worth this risk?No.

Every sperm also has a potential to become a human being so masturbation is out?

I'll get straight to the point and reveal
This been tried many times with much spiel
A repeal of this thing
Has as much chance of passing
As pigs do of flying I feel.

I'll get straight to the point and reveal
This been tried many times with much spiel
A repeal of this thing
Has as much chance of passing
As pigs do of flying I feel.

You're a poet and you didn't know it,
oh silly me yes you did,
this poetry I forbid.

Seriously, a yes, no, and an explanation would have been nice. Now I have your pessimism, and no indication about what you feel of our Proposal.

in·fant Pronunciation Key (nfnt) n.


1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. Law. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.

in·fan·ti·cide Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd) n.


1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.


A fetus is not an infant, thats just your opinion. Try again.

Infant = Child.
Child = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
"2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus."
Fetus = Child. Infant = Child. Therefore, Fetus = Infant, by dennotative reasoning.
Interesting thing to note.

in·fant Pronunciation Key (nfnt) n.


1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. Law. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.

in·fan·ti·cide Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd) n.


1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.
*cough*


A fetus is not an infant, thats just your opinion. Try again.
Hahahaha.. :rolleyes:

Ok, I'll repeat what I've posted in every other thread on an attempted repeal of this resolution.

No support at all. I think the resolution says all it needs to say and don't think the reproductive business of half a nations population is any of the governments business. Those that don't like abortion, won't be held down and forced to have one. Those that don't want the pregnacy shouldn't be forced to go through with it. The decision of abortion is a private one between the woman concerned and her doctor.

As for the national soverignty argument. Again against. The right of bodily integrity is a fundamentel one in my opinion and we have no problems defending the rights of all women to control their own fertility as higher than the right of any government to oppress them and force their own version of morality onto a population that may or may not share them.

Ok, I'll repeat what I've posted in every other thread on an attempted repeal of this resolution.

No support at all. I think the resolution says all it needs to say and don't think the reproductive business of half a nations population is any of the governments business. Those that don't like abortion, won't be held down and forced to have one. Those that don't want the pregnacy shouldn't be forced to go through with it. The decision of abortion is a private one between the woman concerned and her doctor.

As for the national soverignty argument. Again against. The right of bodily integrity is a fundamentel one in my opinion and we have no problems defending the rights of all women to control their own fertility as higher than the right of any government to oppress them and force their own version of morality onto a population that may or may not share them.

If you're looking for a Utopian society where everyone shares the same views tell me when you find it. I doubt it exists. Fact number on in Politics: People lose. People do not always get their way. It is either the way of the majority, the powerful, the government, or some unique X factor. In this case, I am allowing the government of each Nation to decide the reasoning of abortion.

For the umpteenth time, Abortion is not a fine have it your way. This is LIFE and DEATH. If you lose people die. The end. This isn't a matter of percentage, taxation, enviremental sanctions, this is the argument of actual living PEOPLE being killed and some nations do not agree with it.

How is letting women make their own decisions on controlling their own fertility utopian? I don't want nations that all share the same views, I want nations to accept that the people within have different views and just because a government is against abortion, that doesn't give it the right to shove its views on its entire population.

What people are dying? A fetus isn't a person, its a potential person and until it is capable of surviving outside the womb, the already born, thinking individual carrying it has every right to decide if she wants to allow it to use her body for nine months.

If abortion is banned, people will certainly be dying. Women will be dying in droves in nations that ban abortion. Backyard abortions don't just kill the potential life but often take the woman as well. That doubles the death rate. Just because its banned, doesn't stop it happening.

How is letting women make their own decisions on controlling their own fertility utopian? I don't want nations that all share the same views, I want nations to accept that the people within have different views and just because a government is against abortion, that doesn't give it the right to shove its views on its entire population.

What people are dying? A fetus isn't a person, its a potential person and until it is capable of surviving outside the womb, the already born, thinking individual carrying it has every right to decide if she wants to allow it to use her body for nine months.

If abortion is banned, people will certainly be dying. Women will be dying in droves in nations that ban abortion. Backyard abortions don't just kill the potential life but often take the woman as well. That doubles the death rate. Just because its banned, doesn't stop it happening.


Then what's the point of Government if it can't be an Authoratative figure? Some governments listen to their people, others dont' give them that pleasure. Either way, the purpose of government is to esbatlish laws that reflect of system of though. If you outlaw abortion that is your system of though, what is so wrong about that? What is the government going to cold feet the issue and be like "Well we don't like it but we'll keep it"?

And this is why you will not understand the issue properly: to some people, they are people.

Exactly. Everyone loses in this case. However, backyard abortions has a great stigma by risk alone, does not have a 100% mortality rate, and I think "droves" is the wrong word.

Infant = Child.
Child = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
"2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus."
Fetus = Child. Infant = Child. Therefore, Fetus = Infant, by dennotative reasoning.
Interesting thing to note.

OH MY GOD. I cannot believe you said something so utterly stupid. That's a basic online IQ question.

If all zig of figs
and all wigs are figs
are all zigs definately wigs?

NO

Bah - diagram isn't working......

Let's put it this was - picture a head

The entire head are all the figs
the left eye are the wigs
the right eye are the zigs

The wigs and zigs are contained within the head (so they are all figs) but there is no overlap, so you can't be both a wig and a zig.

(I could go into more detail, but that is one clear example. There's several others I could go into with various properties of wigs and figs, but......yeah.)

OH MY GOD. I cannot believe you said something so utterly stupid. That's a basic online IQ question.

If all zig of figs
and all wigs are figs
are all zigs definately wigs?

NO

Bah - diagram isn't working......

Let's put it this was - picture a head

The entire head are all the figs
the left eye are the wigs
the right eye are the zigs

The wigs and zigs are contained within the head (so they are all figs) but there is no overlap, so you can't be both a wig and a zig.

(I could go into more detail, but that is one clear example. There's several others I could go into with various properties of wigs and figs, but......yeah.)

Let's put it like this. CHILD and INFANT are interchangable in that defintion. FETUS and CHILD are interchangable within the definition of CHILD. What about INFANT though? Subjective.

However, you can make these things (called Affirming the Consequent) correct. If all Ferals are Felines, and all Felines are Animals, all Ferals are Animals.

I do understand the issue. I understand it very well. I just don't agree with the "they are people" assesment.

In the last repeal attempts thread, or maybe it was the one before, a few of us had a very good debate about the "personhood" of the fetus and the effects giving legal "personhood" to a fetus from conception would have on mothers who wanted the child but who miscarried due to accidents ect. It opened a legal minefield the woman would have to live through for the entire pregnacy.

As for governments. I am not a national soverignist so have no problems trampling all over a governments "rights" when it comes to protecting the personal freedoms of all people.

The Commonwealth of Sylvania and West Jersey places it full support behind the repeal of the abortion "rights" resolution. We call upon all peoples who value liberty and life for the least in our society to do likewise.

Sincerely,

Ebbarc Smith and Johannes Fox
Co-Clerks of the Committee of State of the Commonwealth of Sylvania and West Jersey.

I do understand the issue. I understand it very well. I just don't agree with the "they are people" assesment.

In the last repeal attempts thread, or maybe it was the one before, a few of us had a very good debate about the "personhood" of the fetus and the effects giving legal "personhood" to a fetus from conception would have on mothers who wanted the child but who miscarried due to accidents ect. It opened a legal minefield the woman would have to live through for the entire pregnacy.

As for governments. I am not a national soverignist so have no problems trampling all over a governments "rights" when it comes to protecting the personal freedoms of all people.
You don't have to, you merely must understand it exists, and is believed.

Laws can be personalized to situations, in other words, you can make a miscarriage a federal offense, or something not even documented. For the most part, a Hypothetical is a Hypothetical, you can believe all you want to, we won't know until it is carried out.

If you're for the politlcal freedoms of people, then what about the freedom to vote on any issue? Some issues I can understand never being given an option, very sensible reasoning. But abortion? You would deny the people's right to that? Far to controversial.

Those women that don't like abortion can vote with their wombs and not have one. Simple.

Let's put it like this. CHILD and INFANT are interchangable in that defintion. FETUS and CHILD are interchangable within the definition of CHILD. What about INFANT though? Subjective.

However, you can make these things (called Affirming the Consequent) correct. If all Ferals are Felines, and all Felines are Animals, all Ferals are Animals.

WTF? Infant and child are only interchangable insofar as a child is considered an infant under law by those definitions - but that's because they are both "MINORS" - but minor applies to citizens and citizenship NEVER applies to pre-birth.

Fetus and Child are NOT interchangable. Some children may be fetuses, but I'm sure my 15 year old brother (a child under many definitions) would be considered a fetus. They are only equivelent if the relationship of one being the other in all cases applies both ways - and they are only interchangable if they are equivelent. That's basic logic.

"Your distinction is emotional; it is not rational. A newborn looks too human for you."

This is very true.Children who could have been legally aborted have survived premature birth.While on life support,if someone broke in and murdered the child,the law would immediately take action against them.But if the child was still in the womb,and a doctor killed them,nothing would be done.

"Religious fatalism out the window, if one opposes abortion, one endorses rape. Why draw the line at conception? There is no reason. Why not actualize all potential beings? If you pass a woman in the street and do not impregnate her, you have killed a child. It's the same thing."

Interesting bit of philosophy there,but no,it is not the same thing.You cannot kill something that does not exist yet.So a condom is fine,but an abortion is not.You draw the starting line at conception because that is the moment when two cells are no longer an egg and a sperm,they are a new individual.

"Every sperm also has a potential to become a human being so masturbation is out?"

That is the most annoying argument of all.A sperm is a sperm.It is not growing into anything else.It is just a sperm,a cell in a man's body.Just like an egg in a woman's.Both are regularly ejected from the body naturally.

A zygote is a completely different thing.It is a new human being,albeit in the very earliest stages of development.If you kill a fetus,you are killing a very small,perhaps unrecognisable,but still totally human being.

WTF? Infant and child are only interchangable insofar as a child is considered an infant under law by those definitions - but that's because they are both "MINORS" - but minor applies to citizens and citizenship NEVER applies to pre-birth.

Fetus and Child are NOT interchangable. Some children may be fetuses, but I'm sure my 15 year old brother (a child under many definitions) would be considered a fetus. They are only equivelent if the relationship of one being the other in all cases applies both ways - and they are only interchangable if they are equivelent. That's basic logic.

I meant Fetus is replacable with Child.

In the context (or more precisely, for the purpose) you're using, you can't. I'd have to dig out my logic textbook (which is packed up for moving this weekend so I'm not going to) to explain why, but you plain can't. To summarize, you're basically trying to take a specific situation and apply it to a general situation to create a proof - which is a fault in logic. You always (in logic) have to either contradict a specific for a general or use a general to find a specific.

Since I've taken apart your ability to jump from infant to child (as it is also a specific-> general), you can't equate the two.

*cough*



Hahahaha.. :rolleyes:

Care to explain yourself in English? Or do you just cough, laugh and roll eyes?

Infant = Child.
Child = http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
"2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus."
Fetus = Child. Infant = Child. Therefore, Fetus = Infant, by dennotative reasoning.
Interesting thing to note.
This nonsense has already been thouroughly gutted and disected by Waterana and Forgottenlands, so no need to address it in great detail.

Here's the entire definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
1. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
2. A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).

Interesting that you didn't quote the first entry.

in·fant Pronunciation Key (nfnt) n.


1. A child in the earliest period of life, especially before he or she can walk.
2. Law. A person under the legal age of majority; a minor.

in·fan·ti·cide Pronunciation Key (n-fnt-sd) n.


1. The act of killing an infant.
2. The practice of killing newborn infants.
3. One who kills an infant.


A fetus is not an infant, thats just your opinion. Try again.


Hmmmm, but the problem is that later in the pregnancy, the fetus / child's gender can be known. My government's concern is in late term abortions.

The problem with the current resolution is that it merely states, "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."

What about a situation where parents found out late in the pregnancy (such as the third trimester) decide that they don't like the gender of their new child? The child is still technically a fetus, but it is much more developed. One of the characteristics of the third trimester, is in some cases it is possible for a fetus to survive. In some societies the fetus is considered alive at this point, as evidenced by some legal restrictions on late term abortions.

That is why my government associates this resolution as a possible legal obstruction to condemning infanticide. In order for nations that wish to condemn the practice to proceed, we will first have to build a case why this resolution doesn't permit abortions based only on knowledge of the gender of a fetus.

The government of Krioval, holders of the Protectorate of Kriovalian UN Mission, see no reason why women should be compelled to harbor parasites. Thus, we see no reason to restrict abortion.

If I may, my government likely voted in favour of the original resolution, but also could have abstained. I'll have to check Ambassador Meyers' records from last year or ask him.

In any event, my government's concern is in the practice of sex-selective abortions, which we consider infanticide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion

The practice we are condemning is the decision to abort or kill based on gender. The problem really does have cultural roots and isn't easily addressed. However, we feel somewhat optimistic that some restrictions on abortion coupled with educational programs may in time reduce sex-selective abortions / infanticide.

The international ramifications here go beyond cultural practices:

Here is an analysis from Wiki:
"Gender-selective abortion and infanticide may make it more difficult for a generation to seek heterosexual romantic relationships. That happens years from the time of abortion after the children have grown up. For example, it is likely that Chinese men in the future may find it more difficult to find wives, simply because there will not be enough women to go around.

It is estimated that by 2020 there could be more than 35 million young 'surplus males' in China, 25 million in India, and 4 million in Pakistan, all of whom will be unable to find girlfriends or wives. In both China and India there are already growing rates of violent crime, sexual exploitation, and industrial accident fatalities which many attribute to large numbers of single men. The basic problem is that single men do not have to return home every night to a wife and child, and thus have less to lose when they engage in irresponsible behavior. Some experts have argued that there is a slim but possible risk of political instability in these countries in the near future."

Granted this is for human populations. Dwarven society seems to have adapted well with the ratio of male dwarves to female dwarves being skewed (afterall, how often have you heard a dwarf male complain about a lack of dwarven females to take his gold). ;)

In any event, ultimately we see our position condemning gender discrimination early on, as actually helping to promote gender equality for all ages and a basic human right.

Is there any way to combat that problem without repealing the current resolution though?

Perhaps an education campaign like you said, along with bans on testing of the fetus simply for gender identification. I do understand your stance against infaticide and agree with it, but what worries me is that if this resolution is repealed, it either won't be replaced or any replacement will restrict womens rights severely.

If a replacement could be passed that gave all women unrestricted access to abortion up to the time the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, when the doctors would still have to honour her request to remove it but would take all steps necessary to deliver the baby alive, then that would be acceptable. If she doesn't want the child, it can then be adopted out.

OOC: Mik, you and I both know that late term abortions are exceedingly rare. It's like the hullabaloo over "partial birth abortions", one of the rarest procedures in medicine (I can't wait to see the response to that statement). I could google up a bunch of links, but it would all be stats that you had seen before. This isn't an easy topic to debate.

IC: We would be very interested in a proposal condemning infanticide and would likely support. Why would it need to cover fetuses? Couldn't you condemn late term abortions as a method of sex selection, while outlawing the practice where infants are concerned?

If a replacement could be passed that gave all women unrestricted access to abortion up to the time the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, when the doctors would still have to honour her request to remove it but would take all steps necessary to deliver the baby alive, then that would be acceptable. If she doesn't want the child, it can then be adopted out.
We could support such a proposal.

The Government of New Hastings will support the repeal of the resolution concerning abortion. It has never been implemented, as the Supreme Court of our nation struck it down as being unconstitutional. This is the case with all of the following resolutions:

12 gay rights
43 legalise euthanasia
61 abortion rights
81 definition of marriage
82 stem cell research funding
91 the sex industry worker act

In each case the court found the resolution to be in contravention of either the Charter of Rights or the Constitution, the latter generally due to the potential relinquishing of sovereignty.

As a result, New Hastings is technically at odds with the UN. One wonders if the Prisoners of Conscience Resolution is more than just a piece of paper.

New Hastings is hoping to put together a bloc of nations to stand up for the sovereign right of nations to make their own laws through democratic means without excessive interference from external entities. If there is any interest, send a telegram to the Dominion of New Hastings.

With support and best regards,

Daniel Cutler,
Minister of Justice
Her Majesty's New Hastings Goverment

I don't see that the Gay rights act is Unconstitutional after all don't most constitutions ensure equal rights for all?

The Government of New Hastings will support the repeal of the resolution concerning abortion. It has never been implemented, as the Supreme Court of our nation struck it down as being unconstitutional. This is the case with all of the following resolutions:

12 gay rights
43 legalise euthanasia
61 abortion rights
81 definition of marriage
82 stem cell research funding
91 the sex industry worker act

In each case the court found the resolution to be in contravention of either the Charter of Rights or the Constitution, the latter generally due to the potential relinquishing of sovereignty.

As a result, New Hastings is technically at odds with the UN. One wonders if the Prisoners of Conscience Resolution is more than just a piece of paper.

New Hastings is hoping to put together a bloc of nations to stand up for the sovereign right of nations to make their own laws through democratic means without excessive interference from external entities. If there is any interest, send a telegram to the Dominion of New Hastings.

With support and best regards,

Daniel Cutler,
Minister of Justice
Her Majesty's New Hastings Goverment


Compliance with UN resolutions isn't voluntary. Unlike the real UN, a nation in the NSUN can't decide which resolutions apply to it and which don't. All the resolutions you've put up there are law in your nation.

Interesting that you didn't quote the first entry.


1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus.
2. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
1. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
2. A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).

Happy? Number one Opposes me, 2, 1) supports me. A contradictory definition.

Is there any way to combat that problem without repealing the current resolution though?

Perhaps an education campaign like you said, along with bans on testing of the fetus simply for gender identification. I do understand your stance against infaticide and agree with it, but what worries me is that if this resolution is repealed, it either won't be replaced or any replacement will restrict womens rights severely.

If a replacement could be passed that gave all women unrestricted access to abortion up to the time the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, when the doctors would still have to honour her request to remove it but would take all steps necessary to deliver the baby alive, then that would be acceptable. If she doesn't want the child, it can then be adopted out.

As far as I am aware that would utitlize technology we do not have (IC) however if there is something I am not aware of... (OOC)

OOC: Mik, you and I both know that late term abortions are exceedingly rare. It's like the hullabaloo over "partial birth abortions", one of the rarest procedures in medicine (I can't wait to see the response to that statement). I could google up a bunch of links, but it would all be stats that you had seen before. This isn't an easy topic to debate.

OOC: As I noted before, I likely voted in favour before. Since that time, I've seen a few references to sex-selection based abortions ... these have to be made at a point once a fetus has a visible gender, which is probably later in the term. I honestly don't know if this is something that can be identified during the second trimester or third (I tried quickly to find out, and will have to spend a few more hours reading). In any event, in the US doctors aren't like to recommend the proceedures, but in China, India, or Saudi Arabia it they are not so rare that whomever contributed to the Wiki article did not have a problem fingering those countries.


IC: We would be very interested in a proposal condemning infanticide and would likely support. Why would it need to cover fetuses? Couldn't you condemn late term abortions as a method of sex selection, while outlawing the practice where infants are concerned?

The problem here is the resolution currently in place wouldn't cover fetuses, and while you are right that we can't outlaw the practice, I'm not sure how the UN Secretariat would respond to even a condemnation given that there is a once sentency blank check we've already adopted. The reason we'd like fetuses protected, is because we feel killing a child based on its gender is discrimination ... this is something that can be done after birth or *shortly* before.

Compliance with UN resolutions isn't voluntary. Unlike the real UN, a nation in the NSUN can't decide which resolutions apply to it and which don't. All the resolutions you've put up there are law in your nation.

Yes, but how one chooses to implement them is voluntary.

Ladies & Gentleman & Other Esteemed Colleagues:

I would like to ask for a halt on the debate of the moral issues to this proposal and allow it to come to the open floor of the General Assembly of the United Nations and allow it to be fully debated there. It should prove to be a most interesting and most rewarding discussion if nothing else. We can already see that evidenced here. I would LOVE to see this come to the floor as a voteable and debatable issue. Any and all debate here is a moot point. I feel that those who are for abortion rights as well as those who are of a staunch right to life stance can benefit from this repeal coming before the general assembly. Who is afraid of a vote on this? Let them cower while the rest of us face this proposal for a repeal full in the face, debate it, and cast our votes accordingly! Shall we vote?!?

:cool:

As far as I am aware that would utitlize technology we do not have (IC) however if there is something I am not aware of... (OOC)

What do you mean about technology we don't have? I am talking about late term abortions when the fetus would be viable outside the womb and capable of surviving if delivered. Doctors save premature babies in neonatal intensive care units every day. These babies would be no different.

Ladies & Gentleman & Other Esteemed Colleagues:

I would like to ask for a halt on the debate of the moral issues to this proposal and allow it to come to the open floor of the General Assembly of the United Nations and allow it to be fully debated there. It should prove to be a most interesting and most rewarding discussion if nothing else. We can already see that evidenced here. I would LOVE to see this come to the floor as a voteable and debatable issue. Any and all debate here is a moot point. I feel that those who are for abortion rights as well as those who are of a staunch right to life stance can benefit from this repeal coming before the general assembly. Who is afraid of a vote on this? Let them cower while the rest of us face this proposal for a repeal full in the face, debate it, and cast our votes accordingly! Shall we vote?!?

:cool:

You may get your wish soon. There is a repeal against the Abortion Rights resolution in the list now that is only 50 or so endorsements away from achieving quorum.

What do you mean about technology we don't have? I am talking about late term abortions when the fetus would be viable outside the womb and capable of surviving if delivered. Doctors save premature babies in neonatal intensive care units every day. These babies would be no different.



You may get your wish soon. There is a repeal against the Abortion Rights resolution in the list now that is only 50 or so endorsements away from achieving quorum.

I do not believe it has achieved quorum, the Due Date for approvals from delegates with today.

I believe that a nation should have every right to outlaw abortion. The same goes for in real life too. Give teh kid up for adoption if you dont want it.

I believe that a nation should have every right to outlaw abortion. The same goes for in real life too. Give teh kid up for adoption if you dont want it.

That's a fair idea to have.

How can anyone want to outlaw abortion? I just don't get it. It's the mother's choice, not the government's.

How can anyone want to outlaw abortion? I just don't get it. It's the mother's choice, not the government's.

The argument is that Humans do not have the right to terminate the life of another humen being, for in doing so they are voilating their right to life. So, in actuality, the debate over abortion is "when does the unborn become life?" I personally default to the standered which has been set with the life suppoert issue. In the US, it is illegal to remove someone from life support as long as they are emmitting brainwaves. In the case of abortion, an unborn child emitts brainwaves at 6 weeks in the womb. It is my belief that any abortion preformed after the six week mark is an atrocity.

The argument is that Humans do not have the right to terminate the life of another humen being, for in doing so they are voilating their right to life. So, in actuality, the debate over abortion is "when does the unborn become life?" I personally default to the standered which has been set with the life suppoert issue. In the US, it is illegal to remove someone from life support as long as they are emmitting brainwaves. In the case of abortion, an unborn child emitts brainwaves at 6 weeks in the womb. It is my belief that any abortion preformed after the six week mark is an atrocity.

I consider that the central argument as well, but i've known people who have even said if it comes down to it: infanticide. So the question is, is it a person, AND will you respect it? We've seen examples of people mistreating people all the time. That's the sad part.

Ok, let's go off the traditional postion for one sec that pro-choice people have held - let's just say for one second that a baby is alive from conception. Screw the scientific facts, screw everything. I am not claiming it is the position I hold, but let's just think of this for a second.

1) There is no universal "Right to life"!
a) There is only one "natural" right, that is the right to die. I would be amazed if anyone could possibly figure out a way to actually remove the right to die. That is your one and only one right. Wow, I'm starting to sound like DLE. Amazingly, some states have tried to remove that right for certain scenarios....with rather humorous results (so wait, this guy is suffering from depression, attempts to commit suicide, and because he broke the law, we're arresting him?)
b) All other rights must be declared in some law or another
c) If anyone can show me any law in any RL nation that says we have a right to life, please prove me wrong. Until then....

2) A fairly commonly held belief is you should have every right in the world to do what you want to do, so long as you don't infringe upon anyone else's rights.

3) A fairly common right is the right to one's own body (don't remember the actual term). This includes deciding what can and cannot be done to one's own body (of course, limitations to what can be done are often made by the government, but that's beside the point).

4) The fetus, by its very existance, is infringing upon that right, and continues to exist within the mother only at her discretion. It's just like one's right to property - someone may trespass upon your property only at your own discretion. If you decide you want them off your property, you can ask them to leave and, if they still refuse, you can call the police and have them arrested for tresspassing.

Now, I admit there are some nations that don't believe in the right to one's own body... a lot of them are labelled as immoral. Things such as forced sterilization, etc, are often done by those governments. If you don't believe in that right, fine. However, I do, I don't believe that any government should remove that right, but I'm not going to debate that one here. I am, however, going to push the matter on Abortion and this right as my reasoning behind abortion. Again, I note, that I support banning late-term abortions under the belief that those fetuses we just aborted could be sustained without the womb. I would like to see a new resolution that considers putting them on incubators, but we don't have that resolution in place so.....

-by the fact that a country cannot legislate according to the beliefs (majority, minority or otherwise) of it's people or political goals.

NOTING,
-that the original Resolution does not make any attempts to disclaim the debatable personhood and individuality of the fetal entity.

REQUESTS,
-that the UN repeals this act for the sake of allowing each country to pursue the beliefs of its people or that of its soverign governing body.


This resolution does not stop any nation from 'defing' abortion... What is does is say they will not interfer with a woman having one... If an 'abortion' is defined by a nation then they simply have to let a woman have an abotion as they might define it.

My Nation Zeldon Defines Abortion: "A medical procedure performed by a skilled documented doctor of health, with at least a Doctor of Devine Health Degree (6 years school), two years internship in a National Hospital, two years individual medical service, to remove a fetus that is deamed a 'cancer' or 'tumor' effecting the health of the mother and removal or the 'cancer' or 'tumor' is the only means of preserving the life of the mother, or improving her health.. where the health issue will effect the mother beyond the natural period of pregnancy of 40 weeks. All abortions must be conducted in a Case Level V Hospital to insure safe performance and the presence of qualified medial support staff to the Doctor performing an abortion."

'cancer' defined any genetic or other mass in a human body that may cause death to the human.
'tumor' defined any growth or other mass in a human body that does cause extreme continured pain and suffuring to the human.

Thus a woman can have an 'abortion' if she meets the definition of one...and has it where it must be done... Do you think that they UN membership would prefer we let a woman find anyone and anyplace to have an abortion.. or go out for a nose ring and claim she has a right to because to her thats an abortion..... NOR does it say that any nation has to even provide it in their borders... If nobody wants to do them... who will make them to do them and under what authority....

Resolution 61 simply says a woman can have an abortion... It doesn't say what an abortion is nor where she can have or who will give it to her......

Thus a woman can have an 'abortion' if she meets the definition of one...and has it where it must be done... Do you think that they UN membership would prefer we let a woman find anyone and anyplace to have an abortion.. or go out for a nose ring and claim she has a right to because to her thats an abortion..... NOR does it say that any nation has to even provide it in their borders... If nobody wants to do them... who will make them to do them and under what authority....

Description: 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.

That last clause, "no memeber nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

No law can be passed against it. You're (forgive my presumption) attempting to quelle me by telling me no Nation is forced to provide or legalize abortion but this Resolution specifically says no Nation is allows to interfere with a woman's right to have one. Clearly, you and I know a buisness is in abortion, an outlet will open somewhere. Maybe not everywhere, but several places. Our demand for abortion is small in Pikal but a few clinics have sprouted up.

Do you think that they UN membership would prefer we let a woman find anyone and anyplace to have an abortion.. or go out for a nose ring and claim she has a right to because to her thats an abortion

...? I'm afraid you aren't making much sense. You can redefine something as many times as you want that:
A) Doesn't make it correct or sensible
and B) As long as the term itself is illegal, the definition is reguardless. You could take abortion and refer it to some kind of food consumption, but the abortion being discussed here is the medical procedure of pregnancy termination.

In addition: for the umpumpteenth time, laws are disreguarding once passed. However performing an abortion in a "non-safe" envirement is not only an act of utmost extremist movement, it's just like every other illegalized issue on the planet: it is performed reguardless of national stature on the issue and that cannot be helped. At least deter the masses from having an abortion, and maybe even create a new sense of responsiblity for those who partake in sex, and maybe the problem will be so miniscule, you'll be able to not even worry. Beside, this an an appeal to pity, do not undermine the pro-life belief that all life is sacred, in which case, small unborn people have been getting killed everyday.

Screw the scientific facts I'm sorry are you trying to say science is on your side? Science is ambiguous, you add words preceding any scientifically true fact and you can potentially make it apart of your argument.

1) There is no universal "Right to life"!

Yes there is. People are born everyday are they not?

a) There is only one "natural" right, that is the right to die. I would be amazed if anyone could possibly figure out a way to actually remove the right to die. That is your one and only one right. Wow, I'm starting to sound like DLE. Amazingly, some states have tried to remove that right for certain scenarios....with rather humorous results (so wait, this guy is suffering from depression, attempts to commit suicide, and because he broke the law, we're arresting him?)

I believe the right to die is something more along the lines of "forced or requested death". Natural death (but in the bed death or sickness) is natural, you couldn't outlaw it even if you took it to the streets and shouted at death to stop it. There is no right to ALL death, it just HAPPENS, death, laughably, is one anarchist body that cannot be stopped.

c) If anyone can show me any law in any RL nation that says we have a right to life, please prove me wrong. Until then....

I believe you may have heard of some faraway land that has a little exert that goes a little like this: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. It is listed as one of the "inalienable rights" of man." Right from Wikipedia. It may not be Law, but it is the cornerstone for all laws created for the RL country of the United States. The right to life doesn't end in the womb and at conception by the way, it is flexed every time you go to extreme ends to save a life from death, unfortunate accidents, the lives of others in severe conditions, etc., etc.

2) A fairly commonly held belief is you should have every right in the world to do what you want to do, so long as you don't infringe upon anyone else's rights.

Double-edged sword. That's a choicer argument. A life argument believes you're indeed hurting a second person, and yourself.

This statement is also highly illogical. You give people a certain right and they can become a danger to themselves and others. People also have responsibilty to help and protect one another, if a law does more harm then good...

I believe also this resolution limits the rights of many countries as well, yes?

3) A fairly common right is the right to one's own body (don't remember the actual term). This includes deciding what can and cannot be done to one's own body (of course, limitations to what can be done are often made by the government, but that's beside the point).

Bodily Integrity. This involes a second entity, in this case a living homosapien. It is being housed in the womb, yes, but it is also it's own self. The fetus is not an organ, it is the gestational human. Saying you own a fetus is like saying you own your born children. Their in your juristdiction, but you cannot do whatever you please to them. You're there as their support and protection in life, you aren't arround to kill them when they become an inconvenience.

4) The fetus, by its very existance, is infringing upon that right, and continues to exist within the mother only at her discretion. It's just like one's right to property - someone may trespass upon your property only at your own discretion. If you decide you want them off your property, you can ask them to leave and, if they still refuse, you can call the police and have them arrested for tresspassing.

The vast majority of pregnancy is consensual. This isn't "tresspassing", if you're pregnancy, chances are, you left the doors wide open. In addition, the journey of sperm to egg if not something chosen, it is instictive. Tresspass is a verb but a conscience one. It's also malicious. You can't make malicious actions when you can't even control it.

Now, I admit there are some nations that don't believe in the right to one's own body...

Maybe some nations do believe this, but this has NOTHING to do with abortion, you're trying to villify pro-lifers now, at least I presume.

However, I do,

Good! When this is all over, if my repeal goes through, you'll still be able to legalize abortion in your country.

I would like to see a new resolution that considers putting them on incubators, but we don't have that resolution in place so....

Have you never read or viewed any fictional media's that talk about the issues of when the government has control over fertility and birth? It is disturbing. You're letting the fetus leave your own body, to go into more uncharted territory into the hands of the government, where you believe they will make the best decisions? You can 't believe that. PEOPLE have children for a reason, they aren't made by machines.

There is only one "natural" right, that is the right to die. I would be amazed if anyone could possibly figure out a way to actually remove the right to die. That is your one and only one right. Wow, I'm starting to sound like DLE. Amazingly, some states have tried to remove that right for certain scenarios....with rather humorous results (so wait, this guy is suffering from depression, attempts to commit suicide, and because he broke the law, we're arresting him?)

We are disturbed that the esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands would think that institutionalizing a suicidal person would be grounds for humor. We ask the assembled delegates to consider--with such a callous lack of empathy on display here, should this delegate's views on such a sensitive topic as abortion be given any weight?

We are disturbed that the esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands would think that institutionalizing a suicidal person would be grounds for humor. We ask the assembled delegates to consider--with such a callous lack of empathy on display here, should this delegate's views on such a sensitive topic as abortion be given any weight?

We find this an interesting (although accusational) point to make.

[QUOTE=DLE]Life is not a right, just a luxury most people enjoy.

I believe the right to die is something more along the lines of "forced or requested death". Natural death (but in the bed death or sickness) is natural, you couldn't outlaw it even if you took it to the streets and shouted at death to stop it. There is no right to ALL death, it just HAPPENS, death, laughably, is one anarchist body that cannot be stopped.

Actually, death is the one thing that can never be revoked by any country with our current level of technology. If we somehow made it that we could make someone be kept alive forever.....then it would not actually be a "natural" right.

I believe you may have heard of some faraway land that has a little exert that goes a little like this: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. It is listed as one of the "inalienable rights" of man."

Amazing, the latter two have already been revoked as inalienable (thank you, oh wonderous Patriot Act), why shouldn't the third?

Right from Wikipedia. It may not be Law, but it is the cornerstone for all laws created for the RL country of the United States. The right to life doesn't end in the womb and at conception by the way, it is flexed every time you go to extreme ends to save a life from death, unfortunate accidents, the lives of others in severe conditions, etc., etc.

Double-edged sword. That's a choicer argument. A life argument believes you're indeed hurting a second person, and yourself.

Oh really? How the heck are you hurting yourself?

This statement is also highly illogical. You give people a certain right and they can become a danger to themselves and others. People also have responsibilty to help and protect one another, if a law does more harm then good...

???

I believe also this resolution limits the rights of many countries as well, yes?

Country != person. Government != person. Group != person. If you want to make that argument (or even try to contradict my argument by trying to take it to its effects on the individual - which I can actally beat you on since you are removing more rights by restricting abortion than you are by making all countries accept it as legal), you're basically arguing that ANARCHY is the only form of government that's reasonable. I'm not claiming it is an invalid form of government, just disputing that it is the best form of government (and I note, an anarchy would not be outlawing abortion)

Bodily Integrity. This involes a second entity, in this case a living homosapien. It is being housed in the womb, yes, but it is also it's own self. The fetus is not an organ, it is the gestational human. Saying you own a fetus is like saying you own your born children. Their in your juristdiction, but you cannot do whatever you please to them. You're there as their support and protection in life, you aren't arround to kill them when they become an inconvenience.

No,no, no,no. You misunderstand. The fetus isn't yours, the womb is. Anything that uses the womb does, therefore, at your own whim, or they are infringing upon your right to your own body.

The vast majority of pregnancy is consensual.

So we just left rape in the dust? Or is that still a situation where abortion is illegal? What about torn condoms? What about several layers of protection that failed? What, you think it is adequate to say "you consented to sex, therefore you consented to pregnancy". No, she did not.

This isn't "tresspassing", if you're pregnancy, chances are, you left the doors wide open. In addition, the journey of sperm to egg if not something chosen, it is instictive. Tresspass is a verb but a conscience one. It's also malicious.

No, connotatively, it is malicious. Denotatively, it just means you are infringing upon someone's property/territory/etc without the consent of the person who owns that property/territory/etc

You can't make malicious actions when you can't even control it.

:rolleyes:

Maybe some nations do believe this, but this has NOTHING to do with abortion, you're trying to villify pro-lifers now, at least I presume.

Hardly. I'm merely pointing out the contradiction. There's quite a few pro-lifers that believe in it too.

Good! When this is all over, if my repeal goes through, you'll still be able to legalize abortion in your country.

As it stands, I think it is more of a right I wish to support at an international level, and thus, you can enjoy me trying to cram it down your throat (yes, I said that, I'm sick of Pro-lifers and that's all I think about it right now 'cause I'm sick of arguing amazing amounts of BS)

Have you never read or viewed any fictional media's that talk about the issues of when the government has control over fertility and birth? It is disturbing. You're letting the fetus leave your own body, to go into more uncharted territory into the hands of the government, where you believe they will make the best decisions? You can 't believe that. PEOPLE have children for a reason, they aren't made by machines.

*sighs* Says who the incubators will mean the government has control over those kids. Quite frankly, the rights to the child on incubators will remain in the hands of the parents until they choose to give up that right. It is the parent's decision.

We are disturbed that the esteemed delegate of the Forgottenlands would think that institutionalizing a suicidal person would be grounds for humor. We ask the assembled delegates to consider--with such a callous lack of empathy on display here, should this delegate's views on such a sensitive topic as abortion be given any weight?

Actually, I think it is a very disgusting idea. I don't believe you can force help on someone. I believe you are mandated to offer help whenever possible and whenever it is evident someone may need it, but to force it I would say is an even greater evil than failing to suggest it in the first place. That is why I find the entire concept nothing short of humorous - my actual feelings are closer to total disgust and contempt.

That last clause, "no memeber nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion.".


My laws in no way interfere with a woman having an abortion... What it does is define and abortion and define where and under what conditions it will be done... Thus avoiding abuse of 'Abortion' as being defined as 'killing the diryt bastard got me this way' thus a woman having a right to an 'Abortion' thus defined can kill the bastard.. that got her pregnant, as it is her right to do... thus it would be legal for her to kill the bastard as any laws written on killing would interfer with her right to have an 'Abortion' as she might define it... The resolution simply says the UN will leave this up to the 'woman' to have one as it may or may not be provided wherever she can get one... If we done offer her an 'Abortion' as she defines it then she can go some place else that does.. You can't force any nation to give 'Abortions'.... anyway you may define them anytime and place you may want them... You violate other rights of other individuals... Thus the UN has said sure a 'woman' can have an abortion... we will as a group not ban them nor will we tell others what they are nor how and where and when to do that.... We shall as a UN leave that part up to individual 'woman' who may want it and those willing to give her what she wants... My nation doesn't stop any woman from having an abortion who wants it.. We do provide safe proper 'Abortions' to them when her life is in danger and the fetus is a product of rape and issues deam it warranted to abort it. The current Resolution doen't have the UN doing anything to keep a nation from defining and controling 'Abortions'... All it does is say a 'woman' can have one... If I bake a cake and it's pound... the woman can have cake and eat it.... hope see likes pound cause it's all we bake... here. She can also go elsewhere to find fruit cake if that what she wants... we don't stop her.. from having her cake..... just she has to eat what we have... or go where they serve what she wants... We also have Social Groups that help women in need of help... to get proper help.. or come to a choice right for them and all concerned....

I believe you may have heard of some faraway land that has a little exert that goes a little like this: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. It is listed as one of the "inalienable rights" of man." Right from Wikipedia. It may not be Law, but it is the cornerstone for all laws created for the RL country of the United States. The right to life doesn't end in the womb and at conception by the way, it is flexed every time you go to extreme ends to save a life from death, unfortunate accidents, the lives of others in severe conditions, etc., etc.





Okay you go to the US for this... so Life is here... and one has a right to life.... what about Liberty... and pursuit of happiness.. A woman has a right to be happy and free (liberty) don't she.. Others have these rights also... So if a woman wants an 'Abortion' and is happy with the idea that killing the bastard that got her pregnant will set her free as she can simply abort the bastard... be happy and free...

Even with these so called '"inalienable rights" if you kill a bastard, call it Abortion, cause he knocked you up you may lose your life or liberty and therefore I don't think you will find much to be happy about... because you broke laws.... limiting your so called 'Abortion' rights as you might define them...

Ok, let's go off the traditional postion for one sec that pro-choice people have held - let's just say for one second that a baby is alive from conception. Screw the scientific facts, screw everything. I am not claiming it is the position I hold, but let's just think of this for a second.



Now, I admit there are some nations that don't believe in the right to one's own body... a lot of them are labelled as immoral. Things such as forced sterilization, etc, are often done by those governments. If you don't believe in that right, fine. However, I do, I don't believe that any government should remove that right, but I'm not going to debate that one here. I am, however, going to push the matter on Abortion and this right as my reasoning behind abortion. Again, I note, that I support banning late-term abortions under the belief that those fetuses we just aborted could be sustained without the womb. I would like to see a new resolution that considers putting them on incubators, but we don't have that resolution in place so.....

Excelent idia, i was going to say the same thing! You cant ban abortion becouse you will kill some women that way...CHANGE resolution bring one in place of existing one so you ban late-therm abortions, becouse babys are sure alive then! If an baby can survive outside womens body, then it's gone to far to take away its chance for real life!

But every women may decide when be or not to be pregnant, its her body. Just late-therm abortions...thats immoral, i mean its damn months of time, they sure can decide before its so far gone! Embrio is just an parasite, but almost fullgrown baby is already an person, small one but one!

Its rather hard to decide where is border betwen parasite and percon, but thats where we can use our knowledge...we live in modern world rights must fit this times!

A woman has an absolute right to her own body. Period.

It is obvious that you have a personal belief system that finds abortion distasteful, or even criminal. Most nations will see thru this as an attempt from a religious group to hijack the UN and its previous resolutions.

Legistative attempts to strike down a woman's right to choose is, well, prudish and victorian.

Leave the current UN resolution as it stands. Your attempt to overturn the resolution will be futile.

Prime Minister
Sapland

A woman has an absolute right to her own body. Period.

It is obvious that you have a personal belief system that finds abortion distasteful, or even criminal. Most nations will see thru this as an attempt from a religious group to hijack the UN and its previous resolutions.

Legistative attempts to strike down a woman's right to choose is, well, prudish and victorian.

Leave the current UN resolution as it stands. Your attempt to overturn the resolution will be futile.

Prime Minister
Sapland

You accuse me as though I am a terrorist. You should choose your enemies more carefully.

You are correct that is my belief on abortion, but my belief on abortion is that every nation has the power and right to do as it pleases with the issue.

I find this resolution a form of oppression coming from no other place then the UN. It is appaling.