NationStates Jolt Archive

The Fair Abortion Argument

We, the English Union:

RECOGNIZING the United Nations to be the premier organization among the realm of NationStates,

APPRECIATING the intense divisiveness of the abortion issue,

JUDGING, the fundamental argument of the abortion issue, being that in which the decision over whether a foetus at any moment in its development is in fact an actual and full human life, cannot come to a definite conclusion.

REALIZING to decide such a discordant issue in one manner or the other to be an instance among all nations of the paradigm for the tyranny of the majority,

Hereby declare United Nations Resolution #61 to be rendered null and void on the following grounds:

Namely, we find the argument stating a case for the inherent and natural right of a woman to have full control over her body to be superfluous for the specific reason that if in fact the foetus is a life, which as many member nations would argue, this argument is then in direct violation of United Nations Resolution #25 which demands the full protection of minors and of United Nations Resolution #26 which demands full and basic human rights. One must heed the fact that the previous statement is only true if one believes that life begins at conception, as some member nations certainly do. We, the English Union, DO NOT maintain that the previous statement is necessarily true. We avow that this is a matter of serious significance which neither science nor considerable debate has definitely proclaimed a solution to.

IN RESPONSE, considering these violations to be of serious concern to all member states, we, the English Union, propose to enact a new law requiring that ALL member states be given the choice for themselves to enact laws restricting or allowing the action of abortion in the dominion of their own nation. On such an issue where there is no definite solution, we find Resolution #61 to be extremely dictatorial. We do not believe the tyranny of the majority should ever press a decision where there is NO DEFINITE moral or ethical answer upon any member nation.

You have to phrase repeals as repeals, not as new arguments.

And the majority would appear to disagree with your premise.

I do not think it matters what the majority thinks. If a sizeable minority believes abortion to be murder, which I believe there is judging by the numbers of proposals to repeal the act, then why should the United Nations impose a law on someone forcing them to commit an action which they see as murder?

You have to phrase repeals as repeals, not as new arguments.
Excuse me?

if you take a look at repeals that other delegates have written you'll notice all they ask for a UNR to be repealed.

you can't mix legislation and a repeal but if a repeal is sucessful you can submit a new proposal to replace the old resolution.

then it has to be reach quorum, be debated and be voted on.

if you take a look at repeals that other delegates have written you'll notice all they ask for a UNR to be repealed.

you can't mix legislation and a repeal but if a repeal is sucessful you can submit a new proposal to replace the old resolution.

then it has to be reach quorum, be debated and be voted on.
If you note in the final paragraph, we do not enact new legislation. We simply are stating that we plan enacting a new piece of legislation if in fact U.N. Resolution #61 is repealed.

Excuse me?

I mean, you've called it The Fair Abortion Argument. It should be called Repeal 'Abortion Rights'.

I mean, you've called it The Fair Abortion Argument. It should be called Repeal 'Abortion Rights'.
We are sincerely sorry about that. If the proposal fails, we will make the proper revisions for the next proposal.

No, what I mean is, you can't submit proposals that are repeals. You need to find the Abortion Rights resolution, and click the 'repeal this resolution' link.

I do not think it matters what the majority thinks.


Then the Democractic Body known as The NationStates UN is going to be a bit of a letdown for you.

If a sizeable minority believes abortion to be murder, which I believe there is judging by the numbers of proposals to repeal the act,


None of which has passed, or even made it to the floor to be voted on.

There are also proposals to force homosexual contact on people. So if a sizable minority believes in that, would you think it right to do it?


then why should the United Nations impose a law on someone forcing them to commit an action which they see as murder?

A) UN -> Democratic -> Majority Rule -> If (Sizable Minority < Majority) then (Nothing happens)
B) The Abortion Rights resolution gives people a choice. It does not, I repeat DOES NOT force women to have abortions left, right and center against their will. It gives women a choice - a choice that can only be made by them, since it is their life and their decision.
C) The UN can impose the law because the majority of people at the time it was passed said it could. That was approximately 18 months ago now and since then I can't remember a single instance of repeal coming to the floor to be voted on, let alone any indication that the UN (as a whole) plans to overturn it.

Let me turn it around - why should the rest of the world, who think that the right should remain with the woman, not the government - listen to you? And no moral, religious or emotive arguments (if possible) - only logical ones.

edit
For those of you who find it amusing to see me arguing that the will of the majority should be imposed over the minority (given my stance on gay rights, marriage and so forth), I am not unware of the comedy of this :}

I do not think it matters what the majority thinks. If a sizeable minority believes abortion to be murder, which I believe there is judging by the numbers of proposals to repeal the act, then why should the United Nations impose a law on someone forcing them to commit an action which they see as murder?

A sizeable minority submit proposals that want marijuana either legalized or outlawed, guns regulated or allowed to be carried on the streets, or capital punishment banned or mandated. There's a sizeable minority that think the UN should be dissolved outright, or that past resolutions should all be put through a referendum.

I'm sorry, the sizeable minority has a lot of positions, and I cannot support any of them just because they exist.

I support abortion because it is a matter of human rights, and I refuse to let a nation take away a woman's right to have an abortion. I don't care whether they consider it murder or not - if their citizens believe that, then their citizens won't have an abortion. However, those that don't believe that should have the right to have an abortion.

TC) The UN can impose the law because the majority of people at the time it was passed said it could. That was approximately 18 months ago now and since then I can't remember a single instance of repeal coming to the floor to be voted on, let alone any indication that the UN (as a whole) plans to overturn it.

Waterana tried to get it overturned so a much better abortion resolution could get passed. Her TG campaign produced enough people saying "I can't risk it" that she ended up having to stop - and her proposal still didn't make quarom.

edit
For those of you who find it amusing to see me arguing that the will of the majority should be imposed over the minority (given my stance on gay rights, marriage and so forth), I am not unware of the comedy of this :}

Meh.....it seems to be your style.

Meh.....it seems to be your style.

Wow. I must be presenting the wrong image :}

The Fair Abortion Argument

We, the English Union:

RECOGNIZING the United Nations to be the premier organization among the realm of NationStates,

Cool, we are?

APPRECIATING the intense divisiveness of the abortion issue,

I appreciate it. Doesn't change my opinion

JUDGING, the fundamental argument of the abortion issue, being that in which the decision over whether a foetus at any moment in its development is in fact an actual and full human life, cannot come to a definite conclusion.

Hardly the fundamental argument, but it is ONE argument. There are a LOT of people that say it's simply a matter of women's rights - and believe that these rights trump that of the fetus whether it's alive or not.

Regardless, I pull it out. Can it survive? no? NOT ALIVE

REALIZING to decide such a discordant issue in one manner or the other to be an instance among all nations of the paradigm for the tyranny of the majority,

Funny, it's a tyranny of the majority to protect the minority's rights. Oh right, that concept is only know as minority rights. So yeah, I'll go with that.

Oh, BTW, Tyranny of the majority as you attempted to apply it is merely Democracy in action. We gave people rights, I don't give a damn what rights a nation has, only what its people have.

Hereby declare United Nations Resolution #61 to be rendered null and void on the following grounds:

There are some that claim the UN is hell, and there are certainly a lot of resolutions where a repeal to that resolution might as well be a snowball.....

Namely, we find the argument stating a case for the inherent and natural right of a woman to have full control over her body to be superfluous for the specific reason that if in fact the foetus is a life, which as many member nations would argue, this argument is then in direct violation of United Nations Resolution #25 which demands the full protection of minors and of United Nations Resolution #26 which demands full and basic human rights. One must heed the fact that the previous statement is only true if one believes that life begins at conception, as some member nations certainly do. We, the English Union,

Branding violation. Your nation name cannot appear in any location within the text

DO NOT maintain that the previous statement is necessarily true. We avow that this is a matter of serious significance which neither science nor considerable debate has definitely proclaimed a solution to.

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

That fetus isn't really in the care of anyone. Regardless, there is NOTHING in here that says they can't be killed. They are not to be abused, or to suffer from violence (there is no agression in abortion so that doesn't count), nor is it maltreatment or exploitation. At best, you could argue Article 3.1.

However, you'll note that 61 did NOT decide to determine where life starts, so you contradict two resolutions if you try and define life starting any time before birth. Isn't it wonderful? We've practically defined where life begins for you....almost.

Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,


The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

The list does not include right to life whatsoever, nor does it call for "full and basic human rights". It calls calls for protecting of THOSE rights.

Additionally, how the heck you came to the conclusion that the two statements combined mean that life begins at conception is beyond me. It doesn't, and I leave it to you to prove otherwise.

IN RESPONSE, considering these violations to be of serious concern to all member states, we, the English Union, propose to enact a new law requiring that ALL member states be given the choice for themselves to enact laws restricting or allowing the action of abortion in the dominion of their own nation.

This is legislating beyond the scope of a repeal. This is illegal. Your law is only one thing: "Repeal Resolution XX". You have to make a new resolution to protect a nation's right to choose on the matter.

On such an issue where there is no definite solution, we find Resolution #61 to be extremely dictatorial. We do not believe the tyranny of the majority should ever press a decision where there is NO DEFINITE moral or ethical answer upon any member nation.

Morals are irrelevant. Rights is everything.

Originally Posted by Resolution 25
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)



Regardless, there is NOTHING in here that says they can't be killed.


(really, really ooc) Does anyone else find that really funny? That a resolution to protect children protects from violence, injury, abuse, neglect, neglicence, maltreatment or exploitation, but not death? Cause I couldn't stop laughing at the implications of it :}

(really, really ooc) Does anyone else find that really funny? That a resolution to protect children protects from violence, injury, abuse, neglect, neglicence, maltreatment or exploitation, but not death? Cause I couldn't stop laughing at the implications of it :}

It's about special treatments towards children because they're children. Homocide laws are not special treatment, nor should there be any special laws for them.

The others normally fall under domestic abuse or aren't issues, but we often consider children special cases, because they:
A) can't really defend themselves
B) don't know about the alternatives or sanctuaries
C) don't even know that it's wrong
D) need special care and are unable to support themselves

Then the Democractic Body known as The NationStates UN is going to be a bit of a letdown for you.



None of which has passed, or even made it to the floor to be voted on.

There are also proposals to force homosexual contact on people. So if a sizable minority believes in that, would you think it right to do it?



A) UN -> Democratic -> Majority Rule -> If (Sizable Minority < Majority) then (Nothing happens)
B) The Abortion Rights resolution gives people a choice. It does not, I repeat DOES NOT force women to have abortions left, right and center against their will. It gives women a choice - a choice that can only be made by them, since it is their life and their decision.
C) The UN can impose the law because the majority of people at the time it was passed said it could. That was approximately 18 months ago now and since then I can't remember a single instance of repeal coming to the floor to be voted on, let alone any indication that the UN (as a whole) plans to overturn it.

Let me turn it around - why should the rest of the world, who think that the right should remain with the woman, not the government - listen to you? And no moral, religious or emotive arguments (if possible) - only logical ones.

edit
For those of you who find it amusing to see me arguing that the will of the majority should be imposed over the minority (given my stance on gay rights,
marriage and so forth), I am not unware of the comedy of this :}
What I am saying is abortion is DIFFERENT than most other issues because some people believe it is murder. Why should some people be forced to commit an act which they believe to be murder?

A sizeable minority submit proposals that want marijuana either legalized or outlawed, guns regulated or allowed to be carried on the streets, or capital punishment banned or mandated. There's a sizeable minority that think the UN should be dissolved outright, or that past resolutions should all be put through a referendum.

I'm sorry, the sizeable minority has a lot of positions, and I cannot support any of them just because they exist.

I support abortion because it is a matter of human rights, and I refuse to let a nation take away a woman's right to have an abortion. I don't care whether they consider it murder or not - if their citizens believe that, then their citizens won't have an abortion. However, those that don't believe that should have the right to have an abortion.

Again, I say that abortion is on a different level than all those issues you mentioned.

Cool, we are?



I appreciate it. Doesn't change my opinion



Hardly the fundamental argument, but it is ONE argument. There are a LOT of people that say it's simply a matter of women's rights - and believe that these rights trump that of the fetus whether it's alive or not.

Regardless, I pull it out. Can it survive? no? NOT ALIVE



Funny, it's a tyranny of the majority to protect the minority's rights. Oh right, that concept is only know as minority rights. So yeah, I'll go with that.

Oh, BTW, Tyranny of the majority as you attempted to apply it is merely Democracy in action. We gave people rights, I don't give a damn what rights a nation has, only what its people have.



There are some that claim the UN is hell, and there are certainly a lot of resolutions where a repeal to that resolution might as well be a snowball.....



Branding violation. Your nation name cannot appear in any location within the text





That fetus isn't really in the care of anyone. Regardless, there is NOTHING in here that says they can't be killed. They are not to be abused, or to suffer from violence (there is no agression in abortion so that doesn't count), nor is it maltreatment or exploitation. At best, you could argue Article 3.1.

However, you'll note that 61 did NOT decide to determine where life starts, so you contradict two resolutions if you try and define life starting any time before birth. Isn't it wonderful? We've practically defined where life begins for you....almost.



The list does not include right to life whatsoever, nor does it call for "full and basic human rights". It calls calls for protecting of THOSE rights.

Additionally, how the heck you came to the conclusion that the two statements combined mean that life begins at conception is beyond me. It doesn't, and I leave it to you to prove otherwise.



This is legislating beyond the scope of a repeal. This is illegal. Your law is only one thing: "Repeal Resolution XX". You have to make a new resolution to protect a nation's right to choose on the matter.



Morals are irrelevant. Rights is everything.

How is it not the fundamental argument? The argument is not about women's choice because a pro-lifer would say that the foetus is a life and thus the woman does not have the right to choose whether to let another human live or die. I realize that I have to revise the repeal. I REALISE THAT. However, if one believes the foetus is a life, how is #61 not in violation of those two laws for human rights. It is a medical fact that abortion IS ABUSE after a certain stage. It is a scientific fact that the foetus can feel pain after the third month. Second, I have no idea where you are getting the notion that the tyranny of the majority PROTECTS the rights of the minority, that's absolutely ridiculous. Third, how do you know what a certain nation's people want? It is the government who makes the final say for them. If a government wants to ban abortion because they believe it to be murder, you believe they shouldn't? You believe they shouldn't outlaw murder, because that is what they see abortion as?

It's about special treatments towards children because they're children. Homocide laws are not special treatment, nor should there be any special laws for them.

The others normally fall under domestic abuse or aren't issues, but we often consider children special cases, because they:
A) can't really defend themselves
B) don't know about the alternatives or sanctuaries
C) don't even know that it's wrong
D) need special care and are unable to support themselvesAgain, as I pointed out earlier, there is scientific PROOF that at certain stages of foetal development, it would be torture and abuse if one considers the foetus to be a life, exactly what that law was designed to PREVENT.

A woman is an independant, intelligent, living breathing person, not an incubator or baby factory. Its her body, and her choice if she wants to share it for nine months with another being. Not the governments, not societys, not anyone elses but hers and hers alone. No government has the right to force women to bear babies they don't want, end of story. That is little more than slavery in my opinion.

If a woman finds abortion to be wrong, immoral or murder, then she does not have to have one. Thats the beauty of choice. If a government thinks abortion is wrong, then tough cookies. The rights of half the population to make a free choice are more important than their governments right to oppress them.

The right to abortion is a very important right for all women. The fact a lot of people try to repeal the abortion rights resolution using many different arguements, including the same one you are, and none have ever made it to the floor shows the majority tend to agree.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, there is scientific PROOF that at certain stages of foetal development, it would be torture and abuse if one considers the foetus to be a life, exactly what that law was designed to PREVENT.Ahh, but when is a foetus a life?At conception? At birth? Somewhere in between? The general concensus on this topic (and I've seen a lot of these topics) which almost everyone can agree on is a foetus can be considered alive if it can be proven to be viable outside of the womb with a reasonable standard of life. So if junior is born a couple of months early, and is not still born - then it's alive.

Given advances in science, births 3 months early have reasonable standards of life. Which should mean that late term abortions should be made illegal in member states. Before that time the rights of the female override national interests. After that time, the rights of the female do not override the rights of the child.

Thats just it though, the current resolution just states that a woman has a right to abortion if she demands it, which means the foetus must be removed from the womb. It doesn't state the foetus must be delivered dead ;).

I agree with you that if a child is viable outside the womb, and live birth won't endanger the woman, then doctors should be required to make every effort to deliver the child safely. Whether the woman keeps it or not is up to her :).

It's about special treatments towards children because they're children. Homocide laws are not special treatment, nor should there be any special laws for them.

The others normally fall under domestic abuse or aren't issues, but we often consider children special cases, because they:
A) can't really defend themselves
B) don't know about the alternatives or sanctuaries
C) don't even know that it's wrong
D) need special care and are unable to support themselves

(grin) I know. It' just when you phrased it the way you phrased in your other post, I really couldn't stop laughing :}

What I am saying is abortion is DIFFERENT than most other issues because some people believe it is murder. Why should some people be forced to commit an act which they believe to be murder?

Do you know why the UN hasn't voted in a 'verse wide death penatly? Because no one thinks that the right to take a life is something the UN can mandate on.

So the fact that it mandated on this should give you an idea of the majority opinion about whether it is murder or not.

What I am saying is abortion is DIFFERENT than most other issues because some people believe it is murder. Why should some people be forced to commit an act which they believe to be murder?

And - for those of you who didn't listen the first 2000000000 times - it does not FORCE people to do anything. No where does it say "ALL WOMEN MUST HAVE ABORTIONS WHEN THEY GET PREGNANT" cause that would be lunacy, and would never have passed.

This gives individuals the choice, and takes it out of the hands of the "moral majority" who appear to think they have a goddess given right to run everyone's lives to their own moral code.

We The People of Burn1Love think that there should be laws regulating abortion in areas such as: repeat abortions, government funding of abortions, stages in which a woman can have an abortion and other important areas.

We The People of Burn1Love think that there should be laws regulating abortion in areas such as: repeat abortions,


A girl is molested by her father, and ends up pregnant. So she has an abortion (as is her right). 25 years later she is raped and.... denied one cause she had one already?

Seems a touch moralistic and preachy....


government funding of abortions,


They have to fund them, or they don't have to?

and other important areas.

Like..... (To some people whether or not one is permitted, whether they have parental consent, whether they have spousal consent/partner consent/etc is important. To others they are not serious issues)

Parental consent as a minor is a big issue we believe, and spousal rights are important too. For instance, A father wants to take care of the child and raise it, but the mother wants an abortion.

What I am saying is abortion is DIFFERENT than most other issues because some people believe it is murder. Why should some people be forced to commit an act which they believe to be murder?

Nobody is being forced to have abortions. If you believe it's murder, then don't get one.

Parental consent as a minor is a big issue we believe, and spousal rights are important too. For instance, A father wants to take care of the child and raise it, but the mother wants an abortion.

Then may I put it to you that requing either of those would set a dangerous precedent that would ruin a whole boat load of lives?

What I am saying is abortion is DIFFERENT than most other issues because some people believe it is murder. Why should some people be forced to commit an act which they believe to be murder?
Nobody is being forced to have abortions. If you believe it's murder, then don't get one.
Surely I don't have to explain the fallacy of this argument. If it's murder, there's a very, very strong argument that the government should disallow it (as it would regular homicide)--whether it's in the woman's body or not, whether people are being forced to do it or not. Venue has never before changed (at least not in PC) the severity of murder's illegality. If it's murder, it should be outlawed.

I feel it's up to the pro-abortion camp to prove that abortion is not murder, rather than skirt the issue with flowery attempts to make it an issue of choice. Every murder is a choice. If abortion is not a murder it must be proven. Or, thinking on it, I'll even take it the other way around. I'm fine with it being up to the pro-life crowd having to prove (far beyond reasonable doubt) that abortion is murder. In fact, that makes more sense, that the activity is innocent until proven guilty.

I just think we need to discuss it in that context, rather than irrelevant discussions on venue and "if I'm doing it, it doesn't mean you're doing it" (or even the "I feel it's murder so you must stop doing it" that inspires the previous thought). I haven't really developed an opinion one way or another (at least not one that is beyond a reasonable doubt) for it being murder or not. And I likely never will.

EDIT: well, I have an opinion (which will likely be further developed in the future) about whether abortion's murder or not. What I should have said, though, is that I don't have an argument which will concretely prove to other's one way or another. And I likely never will.

Surely I don't have to explain the fallacy of this argument. If it's murder, there's a very, very strong argument that the government should disallow it (as it would regular homicide)--whether it's in the woman's body or not, whether people are being forced to do it or not. Venue has never before changed (at least not in PC) the severity of murder's illegality. If it's murder, it should be outlawed.

I feel it's up to the pro-abortion camp to prove that abortion is not murder, rather than skirt the issue with flowery attempts to make it an issue of choice. Every murder is a choice. If abortion is not a murder it must be proven. Or, thinking on it, I'll even take it the other way around. I'm fine with it being up to the pro-life crowd having to prove (far beyond reasonable doubt) that abortion is murder. In fact, that makes more sense, that the activity is innocent until proven guilty.

I just think we need to discuss it in that context, rather than irrelevant discussions on venue and "if I'm doing it, it doesn't mean you're doing it" (or even the "I feel it's murder so you must stop doing it" that inspires the previous thought). I haven't really developed an opinion one way or another (at least not one that is beyond a reasonable doubt) for it being murder or not. And I likely never will.

EDIT: well, I have an opinion (which will likely be further developed in the future) about whether abortion's murder or not. What I should have said, though, is that I don't have an argument which will concretely prove to other's one way or another. And I likely never will. This guy gets it, if a government believes abortion to be murder, why should they be FORCED to fund it?

Then may I put it to you that requing either of those would set a dangerous precedent that would ruin a whole boat load of lives?

I don't see why parental consent for minors shouldn't be required. If the parents are legal guardians of the child then they have rights over her. For example, if she does something wrong her parents CAN take responsibility in some cases. Also, say her parents tell her they will fund and take care of the baby because they want her to learn a life lesson, and own up to her irresponsibility. Make our youth more accountable today so that when they are older they will be responsible adults. If the parents sign a waiver or say ok then the abortion can happen, but if they are a minor then the parents have rights over her, seeing that they still fund her and have a legal responsibility to care for her.

This guy gets it, if a government believes abortion to be murder, why should they be FORCED to fund it?

Who says the government ARE forced to fund it? Show me in the resolution where it says that.

Who says the government ARE forced to fund it? Show me in the resolution where it says that.

He won't be able to, because it doesn't say that. A fair point.

I don't see why parental consent for minors shouldn't be required. If the parents are legal guardians of the child then they have rights over her. For example, if she does something wrong her parents CAN take responsibility in some cases. Also, say her parents tell her they will fund and take care of the baby because they want her to learn a life lesson, and own up to her irresponsibility. Make our youth more accountable today so that when they are older they will be responsible adults. If the parents sign a waiver or say ok then the abortion can happen, but if they are a minor then the parents have rights over her, seeing that they still fund her and have a legal responsibility to care for her.

You appear to be overlooking one fact - sometimes the one of the parents of the minor who wants the abortion is the reason the minor needs an abortion. I think in that case there might be a damn good reason why the minor might not want to involve the parents.

How is it not the fundamental argument? The argument is not about women's choice because a pro-lifer would say that the foetus is a life and thus the woman does not have the right to choose whether to let another human live or die.

You see, the very names of the two sides shows that there isn't ONE fundamental argument, there's two.

Pro-LIFE - fundamental argument about life
Pro-CHOICE - fundamental argument about the right to choose

To claim that life is THE fundamental issue is to be totally blind to the other side. THAT was my point.

I realize that I have to revise the repeal. I REALISE THAT. However, if one believes the foetus is a life, how is #61 not in violation of those two laws for human rights.

Life is mentioned in neither of the resolutions. Murder is mentioned in neither of the resolutions.

It is a medical fact that abortion IS ABUSE after a certain stage.

Abuse? Killing is abuse? Murder, homicide, one could even perhaps claim genocide. Abuse is none of these:

a·buse Audio pronunciation of "abuse" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-byz)
tr.v. a·bused, a·bus·ing, a·bus·es

1. To use wrongly or improperly; misuse: abuse alcohol; abuse a privilege.
2. To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.
3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest.
4. To assail with contemptuous, coarse, or insulting words; revile.
5. Obsolete. To deceive or trick.


n. (-bys)

1. Improper use or handling; misuse: abuse of authority; drug abuse.
2. Physical maltreatment: spousal abuse.
3. Sexual abuse.
4. An unjust or wrongful practice: a government that commits abuses against its citizens.
5. Insulting or coarse language: verbal abuse.


Point out where killing something constitutes abuse!

Note: not claiming that the fetus is alive, just stating that even if the child is deemed alive, it is not contradictory.

It is a scientific fact that the foetus can feel pain after the third month.

Just because it can feel pain doesn't mean killing it constitutes abuse.

Second, I have no idea where you are getting the notion that the tyranny of the majority PROTECTS the rights of the minority, that's absolutely ridiculous.

The tyranny of the majority of nations protects the minority of citizens IN YOUR SOCIETY that do not agree with the stance of your government.

Third, how do you know what a certain nation's people want?

As a majority, I don't care what they want. However, if one woman in your entire country wants an abortion, I want her to be able to have it - regardless of what your nation wants.

It is the government who makes the final say for them. If a government wants to ban abortion because they believe it to be murder, you believe they shouldn't?

ABSOLUTELY! My beliefs on abortion have gotten to the point where the woman's right to body comes before the questionable right to life of the fetus. Right to life is FAR from being the most important right, because to live a life of suffering is WORSE than never having lived a life.

There is a reason why we have JUSTIFIED MURDER

You believe they shouldn't outlaw murder, because that is what they see abortion as?

Like I said, it's a matter of justified murder. We justify muder in certain instances - generally because someone else's rights would have been infringed upon if the murder wasn't committed and the murder was THE only way to stop it, and the right (often right of "body" - I can't remember the proper term) is considered to be GREATER than that of the other person's life.

All people are equal before and under the law, so you can't claim otherwise.

-------------------------------

Again, as I pointed out earlier, there is scientific PROOF that at certain stages of foetal development, it would be torture and abuse if one considers the foetus to be a life, exactly what that law was designed to PREVENT.

Torture and abuse is to subjugate to physical suffering. Murder is not suffering. You don't suffer when you're dead.

This guy gets it, if a government believes abortion to be murder, why should they be FORCED to fund it?

They aren't forced to fund it. They're forced to provide the means to have an abortion. How you fund your medical system is an issue for your own government. The UN has not legislated on that.

Surely I don't have to explain the fallacy of this argument. If it's murder, there's a very, very strong argument that the government should disallow it (as it would regular homicide)--whether it's in the woman's body or not, whether people are being forced to do it or not. Venue has never before changed (at least not in PC) the severity of murder's illegality. If it's murder, it should be outlawed.

Please. We have justified murder because there are some cases where murder IS considered acceptable. That's why pro-choice CAN turn this into a rights argument. There are some rights that are held above the right to life, and we consider murder justified if its because it is protecting one of those rights.

They aren't forced to fund it. They're forced to provide the means to have an abortion. How you fund your medical system is an issue for your own government. The UN has not legislated on that.

No, they're not. They're barred from interfering.

No, they're not. They're barred from interfering.

Point taken. Regardless, they don't have to fund it.

Point taken. Regardless, they don't have to fund it.

Agreed.

Surely I don't have to explain the fallacy of this argument. If it's murder, there's a very, very strong argument that the government should disallow it (as it would regular homicide)--whether it's in the woman's body or not, whether people are being forced to do it or not. Venue has never before changed (at least not in PC) the severity of murder's illegality. If it's murder, it should be outlawed.

I feel it's up to the pro-abortion camp to prove that abortion is not murder, rather than skirt the issue with flowery attempts to make it an issue of choice. Every murder is a choice. If abortion is not a murder it must be proven. Or, thinking on it, I'll even take it the other way around. I'm fine with it being up to the pro-life crowd having to prove (far beyond reasonable doubt) that abortion is murder. In fact, that makes more sense, that the activity is innocent until proven guilty.

I just think we need to discuss it in that context, rather than irrelevant discussions on venue and "if I'm doing it, it doesn't mean you're doing it" (or even the "I feel it's murder so you must stop doing it" that inspires the previous thought). I haven't really developed an opinion one way or another (at least not one that is beyond a reasonable doubt) for it being murder or not. And I likely never will.

EDIT: well, I have an opinion (which will likely be further developed in the future) about whether abortion's murder or not. What I should have said, though, is that I don't have an argument which will concretely prove to other's one way or another. And I likely never will.

All I was saying is that his statement, that people "are forced to commit an act they believe is murder" or something to that effect, is false. No one is forced to have an abortion, no one is forced to administer one.

As others have said, nobody is forcing the government to fund it, either. They just can't prevent a woman from getting one.

Who says the government ARE forced to fund it? Show me in the resolution where it says that.
We are forced to give the opportunity, sorry, but in the same manner why should a government be forced to allow murder?

We are forced to give the opportunity, sorry, but in the same manner why should a government be forced to allow murder?

Because, I can only assume, the UN feels that the murder is justified by the fact that things might be even worse were they to ban it. You're spouting rhetoric, which clearly isn't working. How about showing us why abortion is practically bad? Or expounding a more logical moral argument?

Because, I can only assume, the UN feels that the murder is justified by the fact that things might be even worse were they to ban it. You're spouting rhetoric, which clearly isn't working. How about showing us why abortion is practically bad? Or expounding a more logical moral argument?
What is a more logical argument than preventing abortion is preventing murder? The U.N. is essentially forcing governments to perform holocausts, if they see it as a life.

I'm sure Hitler or Stalin would be pleased at your lack of compassion for human life.

Careful...that sort of talk could be considered flamebait.

He is arguing that by banning abortion, many women's lives will be made much worse. Furthermore, unloved children with no means with which to be cared for will be brought into the world. As such, Forgottenlands is arguing that allowing abortion is showing a good deal of compassion for human life.

What is a more logical argument than preventing abortion is preventing murder? The U.N. is essentially forcing governments to perform holocausts, if they see it as a life.

No, it's not.

In Gruenberg, we provide no state abortion facilities. Men who kill their wives for having abortions routinely escape justice. The government doesn't stop women having abortions...but we do nothing to stop citizens stopping fellow citizens from having abortions. We do not feel compelled into any form of 'holocaust'.

Careful...that sort of talk could be considered flamebait.

He is arguing that by banning abortion, many women's lives will be made much worse. Furthermore, unloved children with no means with which to be cared for will be brought into the world. As such, Forgottenlands is arguing that allowing abortion is showing a good deal of compassion for human life.
Ok, ok, I understand that argument. However, that is in no way the final answer. One could argue that he or she believes it to be morally wrong to allow those children to die. The bottom line is there is NO RIGHT ANSWER. Therefore, why should any government be FORCED to make that decision.

No, it's not.

In Gruenberg, we provide no state abortion facilities. Men who kill their wives for having abortions routinely escape justice. The government doesn't stop women having abortions...but we do nothing to stop citizens stopping fellow citizens from having abortions. We do not feel compelled into any form of 'holocaust'.
But why should you have to be forced to be even allowed to let it happen?

But why should you have to be forced to be even allowed to let it happen?

Because I'm a member of the UN. I fight for my nation's sovereignty down to the fucking wire, but I ultimately accept there are areas where membership of an international means embracing certain cultural ideas I have to accept, as price of membership. And I see my only way to fight against them as being to keep UN membership.

What is a more logical argument than preventing abortion is preventing murder? The U.N. is essentially forcing governments to perform holocausts, if they see it as a life.

Actually, abortion rates tend not to drop very much when it is made illegal.

Deaths from abortions, however, skyrocket.

Ok, ok, I understand that argument. However, that is in no way the final answer. One could argue that he or she believes it to be morally wrong to allow those children to die. The bottom line is there is NO RIGHT ANSWER. Therefore, why should any government be FORCED to make that decision.

If there is no right answer - if the only person who can decide is the woman in question - then why shouldn't SHE make the decision? No government is forced to make a decision - only the citizens of the nation.

Why must you act as the moral guardian for everyone in your nation, when they can make up their own minds?

Why are you happy to condem women to bear children they don't want? To have a reminder of the rape they suffered?

Why are you happy to condem women to being virtual slaves to the government and to men? Why are you so happy to make women second class citizens?

What is a more logical argument than preventing abortion is preventing murder? The U.N. is essentially forcing governments to perform holocausts, if they see it as a life.

Yes. Because one woman having an abortion is exactly the same as genocide. How did I miss that before? What was I thinking?

(Yes - this is sarcasm)


And - (and this is less sarcastic) - abortion is not murder, except in the minds of those who think they are morally superior to those who just want to decide their own future.

Yes. Because one woman having an abortion is exactly the same as genocide. How did I miss that before? What was I thinking?

(Yes - this is sarcasm)


And - (and this is less sarcastic) - abortion is not murder, except in the minds of those who think they are morally superior to those who just want to decide their own future.That is just being ignorant of others' beliefs.

If there is no right answer - if the only person who can decide is the woman in question - then why shouldn't SHE make the decision? No government is forced to make a decision - only the citizens of the nation.

Why must you act as the moral guardian for everyone in your nation, when they can make up their own minds?

Why are you happy to condem women to bear children they don't want? To have a reminder of the rape they suffered?

Why are you happy to condem women to being virtual slaves to the government and to men? Why are you so happy to make women second class citizens?Whoa, who said anything about making women second class citizens. Do you believe that one person should be able to choose over another person whether they live or die? That is against every basic human right ever pronounced. What ever happened to adoption? Lastly, I had considered that argument about the woman making the decision. In fact, for a long time I thought that the right answer was to leave it up to the women. If they had no moral qualms about abortion, why shouldn't they have the right to get an abortion? But then I thought, if in fact the fetus is a life, if in fact abortion is murder, which NO ONE can prove either way if it is or not, a government should never allow that to happen. Essentially, it may be a decision made choosing that certain people's lives are not as worty, they are expendable. This decision is against all human rights.

This entire arguement is just retreading old ground thats been brought up again and again on the UN forum whenever the subject of abortion is raised. We've heard just about every arguement that can be levelled against this resolution, including its murder, national soverignety, the current resolution is too vague (my arguement when I tried to replace it), restrictions, late term abortions and the list goes on.

If you want to attempt a repeal and think you can get it passed, then go for it. I wish you the best of luck.

In all seriousness though, I don't like your chances. Like the Gay Rights resolution, this one has proven itself to be a stayer just by the number of repeal attempts it has survived. I've only ever seen one repeal attempt get anywhere near the number of endorsements needed to get to the floor, and in the end, it didn't.

Lack of compassion for human life? Pfft. There are 3 amazing reasons why abortion should be legal, and my personal favorite is the lives of the women.

However, that isn't where this thread has been going on lately. My statements were not placing moral value on abortion, nor do they actually state where my personal stance is. They explain the fallacies in your arguments. We don't punish all murderers equally, so why do you plaster the label murder on this act without concern for qualification? I also explained why there is absolutely no contradiction to resolutions 25 and 26. Basically, I have gutted your entire proposal because it is entirely based upon flawed logic, and uses emotional appeals for a national sovereignty argument and false statements that reek of misunderstanding of both the rules of the UN and the implementation of passed resolutions.

My opinions:
-A fetus isn't alive until it can be supported outside the womb. Most things that are that dependant fall under the category of parasite
-After the fetus has reached that point, I think it is a better alternative to go with an early delivery and then sustain the baby medically. Unless this is required by the doctor, I would also require that the baby is to go for adoption. Admittedly, the first part of this I can't force on my people, but I'm willing to go with the abortion requirement since I can still request the patient to do so, she just has a right to refuse.

-Making abortions illegal is a failure to understand the entire reality of mothers who want abortions. Historically, when abortion was first legalized, the actual abortion rate practically didn't move whatsoever. Why? Because the mothers were having abortions illegally. You still hear about ships in Europe that will take patients out to International Waters and perform an abortion.

-These methods, of course, benefit the rich - another ludicrous policy. The rich will have the money to go to somewhere that has legalized abortions and have their abortions there. As such, they don't get affected whatsoever. The poor, however, are in a much more dire situation. They can't fly out so they have to go to a chop-shop where a generally unlicense "physician" will perform the operation, often with a shockingly high mortality rate for the mother. I remind you that abortion rates didn't go up significantly, which says something about how much these women are willing to sacrifice.

-I believe in the person's right to "body" per-se. They have the right not to have something physically forced upon them. As such, I consider a fetus to infringe upon that right - and I consider it acceptable for that fetus to infringe upon that right ONLY AS LONG as the woman allows it to. Currently, I have yet to find a right that I think is more important that this right. That's part of the reason why I would put rape as the most henious crime one could commit to a single person. BTW - that right also gives that person to choose to harm their own body.

--------------------------
If that makes me a monster, then may I be feared across the land. I have decided what I believe in, and until I am convinced that one of my beliefs are wrong through reasoned (not emotional) debate, I shall continue to believe it.

This entire arguement is just retreading old ground thats been brought up again and again on the UN forum whenever the subject of abortion is raised. We've heard just about every arguement that can be levelled against this resolution, including its murder, national soverignety, the current resolution is too vague (my arguement when I tried to replace it), restrictions, late term abortions and the list goes on.

If you want to attempt a repeal and think you can get it passed, then go for it. I wish you the best of luck.

In all seriousness though, I don't like your chances. Like the Gay Rights resolution, this one has proven itself to be a stayer just by the number of repeal attempts it has survived. I've only ever seen one repeal attempt get anywhere near the number of endorsements needed to get to the floor, and in the end, it didn't.Thank you, at least you are being reasonable.

Lack of compassion for human life? Pfft. There are 3 amazing reasons why abortion should be legal, and my personal favorite is the lives of the women.

However, that isn't where this thread has been going on lately. My statements were not placing moral value on abortion, nor do they actually state where my personal stance is. They explain the fallacies in your arguments. We don't punish all murderers equally, so why do you plaster the label murder on this act without concern for qualification? I also explained why there is absolutely no contradiction to resolutions 25 and 26. Basically, I have gutted your entire proposal because it is entirely based upon flawed logic, and uses emotional appeals for a national sovereignty argument and false statements that reek of misunderstanding of both the rules of the UN and the implementation of passed resolutions.

My opinions:
-A fetus isn't alive until it can be supported outside the womb. Most things that are that dependant fall under the category of parasite
-After the fetus has reached that point, I think it is a better alternative to go with an early delivery and then sustain the baby medically. Unless this is required by the doctor, I would also require that the baby is to go for adoption. Admittedly, the first part of this I can't force on my people, but I'm willing to go with the abortion requirement since I can still request the patient to do so, she just has a right to refuse.

-Making abortions illegal is a failure to understand the entire reality of mothers who want abortions. Historically, when abortion was first legalized, the actual abortion rate practically didn't move whatsoever. Why? Because the mothers were having abortions illegally. You still hear about ships in Europe that will take patients out to International Waters and perform an abortion.

-These methods, of course, benefit the rich - another ludicrous policy. The rich will have the money to go to somewhere that has legalized abortions and have their abortions there. As such, they don't get affected whatsoever. The poor, however, are in a much more dire situation. They can't fly out so they have to go to a chop-shop where a generally unlicense "physician" will perform the operation, often with a shockingly high mortality rate for the mother. I remind you that abortion rates didn't go up significantly, which says something about how much these women are willing to sacrifice.

-I believe in the person's right to "body" per-se. They have the right not to have something physically forced upon them. As such, I consider a fetus to infringe upon that right - and I consider it acceptable for that fetus to infringe upon that right ONLY AS LONG as the woman allows it to. Currently, I have yet to find a right that I think is more important that this right. That's part of the reason why I would put rape as the most henious crime one could commit to a single person. BTW - that right also gives that person to choose to harm their own body.

--------------------------
If that makes me a monster, then may I be feared across the land. I have decided what I believe in, and until I am convinced that one of my beliefs are wrong through reasoned (not emotional) debate, I shall continue to believe it.
I respect your opinion, but it is your opinion, there are thousands of people who would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

What I would like to point out is I do NOT want to illegalize abortion. All I want is for the decision to be up to the individual nations rather than having a huge organization push the decision down forcibly down some nations' throats who disagree with it.

Why are you happy to condem women to being virtual slaves to the government and to men? Why are you so happy to make women second class citizens?

They have the choice not to have intercourse in the first place.

That aside, the UN has no business deciding an issue like this for all nations. Some may believe a fetus is a human life. Others may not. Without any firm scientific answer either way -- and there isn't one --the UN should not be laying down a mandate on either side of this issue. Again, absent any firm scientific conclusion one way or the other, the UN should not and cannot force its opinion on this issue on all nations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

They have the choice not to have intercourse in the first place.

That aside, the UN has no business deciding an issue like this for all nations. Some may believe a fetus is a human life. Others may not. Without any firm scientific answer either way -- and there isn't one --the UN should not be laying down a mandate on either side of this issue. Again, absent any firm scientific conclusion one way or the other, the UN should not and cannot force its opinion on this issue on all nations.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from ScybalaTHANK YOU, this is exactly what I am trying to say. I know there are a lot of revisions that have to be made to my proposal. My honourable friend here from Cluichstan has hit the nail on the head. I am not advocating in any way the ban of abortion. All I want is for every nation to decide this issue for itself. Again, much thanks to the Honourable Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich.

That aside, the UN has no business deciding an issue like this for all nations. Some may believe a fetus is a human life. Others may not.Do you think member states have any greater right to decide such an issue for their citizens?

The UN forces governments to comply so that citizens have the freedom to choose. If the national perspective is really pro-life, then that should come from the populace, not the government telling the populace.

Sure, we are telling governments what to do in this instance, but only so that they can't tell citizens what to do with their own bodies.

I agree the UN cannot decide when a foetus is a living person, but I also think governments are even less capable of making informed decisions on this matter. So I say leave it to the populace. At least with the UN legislating upon it there is no chance of reprisal by the nations legal system.

Without any firm scientific answer either way -- and there isn't one --the UN should not be laying down a mandate on either side of this issue. Again, absent any firm scientific conclusion one way or the other, the UN should not and cannot force its opinion on this issue on all nations.Just like how a government should not and cannot force it's opinion on it's citizens.

I know I shouldn't laugh, but this is all pretend. No one really has any citizens. Mine are a bunch of teenagers who are selling lemonade. If you are just using this as a way to get your opinions across wouldn't it be better done in an arena where you could be heard by real people in charge. Just a thought.

They have the choice not to have intercourse in the first place.


Tell that to the woman who is held down and raped at knife point.

Tell that to the daughter who is raped by her father.

Tell that to all the other women who "have a choice" about being raped.

I respect your opinion, but it is your opinion, there are thousands of people who would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

And there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who would agree with him/her wholeheartedly.

What's your point?

What I would like to point out is I do NOT want to illegalize abortion. All I want is for the decision to be up to the individual nations rather than having a huge organization push the decision down forcibly down some nations' throats who disagree with it.

Ok. There are almost no abortions performed in Pallatium. Why? Because it takes a specific procedure to get pregnant and a have a child, and consequently accidental pregnancy and forced pregnancy (rape) are nigh on impossible, and the only reason abortion is legal is for medical/health reasons - if there is a serious danger to the life of the mother (for example).

But the thing is - everyone I have spoken to in my nation (which, I admit, is no where near the whole population) does not want to see it banned. Because of the medical reasons, and because of the fact it would mean I am putting my morals above theirs. They elected me, and they trust me to rule their country, and govern them in what I think is the best way, but they don't think that my morals, my religious view point and my dogmatic beliefs should dictate how they live their lives. And, despite my position as Queen and Sole Ruler of Pallatium, the lives of my people ar *their* lives, not mine. If they were all my slaves and my bound subjects it would be different, but it's not.

They are people, each capable of making decisions on their own that affect themselves. They know what is best for them in their life, and if - on the very small chance they end up pregnant without going through the procedure - they feel they can't look after the child, then who am I to force them?

And who are you to force a woman who has been raped to carry the child to term? To be reminded day after day of what happened, to be forced to go through labour, against her will and through no fault of her own?

Who are you to force a twelve year old girl to have a child forced on her by her father?

The larger arguement is that if a woman who is pregnant loses control of her body (which - by forcing her to remain pregnant against her will - she does), then does that not make her less than everyone else? Does it not also mean, however unlikely, that a woman who is raped and forced to have the kid has been treated a lot more harshly than the man who raped her, who is merely sent to jail? A sad, lonely man who can't get a date, and is a little mentally disturbed, might connect the fact that women can't have an abortion with the idea that he could have a child.

People espouse equal rights for men and women, but if you are willing to take control of her body away from her because of something she didn't ask for, then you are condemming her to be a slave for that period in her life. And since slavery is not only outlawed but also morally repugnant, then I say it is a bad thing if you do that.


I know - what about all the women who go out, get knocked up cause they had consensual sex, then decide on abortion? Well - condoms, sponges - all types of birth control - are not 100% foolproof. But I would argue if you take every precaution against getting pregnant, then yes, you bear some responsibility, but that doesn't mean you should be punished for something that was totally out of your control for the rest of your life.

Unless compassion is a lost art.

I know I shouldn't laugh, but this is all pretend. No one really has any citizens. Mine are a bunch of teenagers who are selling lemonade. If you are just using this as a way to get your opinions across wouldn't it be better done in an arena where you could be heard by real people in charge. Just a thought.

Well, firstly, we're not just using it to get our opinions across. We're also having fun. You may not like it. Personally, there's things, like karaoke and Christianity and paedophilia, that some people find fun, but which I hate. We each like different things. Some of us enjoy the RP aspect of the UN.

And, secondly, having been involved in local and student politics, I can attest the people on the UN forum are a hell of a lot more likely to listen to other people's arguments than 'real people'. I've written letters to Tony Blair and George Bush and the Chinsese government. Do they give a shit? I sincerely doubt it. Do people listen to my debating on here, whether they agree or not, or think I'm doing a good job or not? Absofuckinglutely.

So, thanks, but I'll stick to this for now. Doesn't proclude me from talking to 'real people' as well, as a Liberal Democrat. But on here, the NSUN forum is among the best debate forums (at times, and not all times) I've encountered with regards to this kind of policy, and I don't intend on shrugging it off because you're stifling giggles at how sad we all are.

Tell that to the woman who is held down and raped at knife point.

Tell that to the daughter who is raped by her father.

Tell that to all the other women who "have a choice" about being raped.

Again with the emotional arguments...

Do you think member states have any greater right to decide such an issue for their citizens?

In reply to my Hirotan friend, the people of Cluichstan simply believe it is not the role of the UN to decide such an issue for governments or their citizens. As a primarily libertarian nation, we, of course, would prefer it be up to every individual citizen, but that is just our preference, and our preference should not be forced down the throats of others.

In reply to my Hirotan friend, the people of Cluichstan simply believe it is not the role of the UN to decide such an issue for governments or their citizens. As a primarily libertarian nation, we, of course, would prefer it be up to every individual citizen, but that is just our preference, and our preference should not be forced down the throats of others.

I agree - but we have not decided for the citizens. The citizens decide for the citizens. If they want an abortion, they can. If they don't want an abortion they don't. All we have done is given them that freedom to choose rather than give member states the power to deny that choice.

It would be nice if we did not have to force the legislation down the throats of member states, but <arrogance> sadly the majority of the UN is simply not as intelligent as we are </arrogance>

I'd rather avoid forcing the issue, but it's for the greater good, IMO.

Again with the emotional arguments...


I'm sorry - but just because you don't have a reasonable argument ("KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN IS MURDER" is in no way emotive), don't knock one that is.

You and the other one were arguing that everyone has a choice as to whether they have sex or not. I was pointing out that that was bollocks and stupid arguement, since sometimes women who are pregnant don't have a choice, having been raped.

Are you going to respond to that point, or just brush of women being forced to have a child as a result of rape as not worthy of your time, simply because you don't actually have any type of sensible arguement to counter act it?

Please.
...
We have justified murder because there are some cases where murder IS considered acceptable. That's why pro-choice CAN turn this into a rights argument. There are some rights that are held above the right to life, and we consider murder justified if its because it is protecting one of those rights.
Actually, I believe you're referring to "killing", or "inducing death" rather than "murder". "Murder", I believe, connotes a more absolute "we musn't do this" than "killing" or such (which is why the pro-life group uses "murder", as it implies that it is unjust). So, the use of the word "murder" implicitly excludes any other rights from making "murder" justified (again, since murder connotes an unjustified killing).

Anyway, I still feel it should be a frame of discussion that people, pro-choice or pro-life (or pro- and anti- abortion, however one wants to think of it) sort out the fetus's right to live and attempt to prove, definitively, one way or the other, it's importance or negligibility. I mean, focusing on a woman's right to choose and determining/'proving' it to be "x importance units" is irrelevant if it's later decided/'proven' that a fetus's right to life is "x+1 importance units".

Oh, BTW, Tyranny of the majority as you attempted to apply it is merely Democracy in action. We gave people rights, I don't give a damn what rights a nation has, only what its people have. ... The tyranny of the majority of nations protects the minority of citizens IN YOUR SOCIETY that do not agree with the stance of your government.You all seem to be forgetting one little thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6711757#post6711757) ...

#136: Much Ado About Abortion [Aquilla; ed:Sirocco]

The Issue
A monstrous debate between pro-life groups and pro-choice groups has erupted as a @@NAME@@ citizen launches an high-court appeal to overturn an ancient law prohibiting all abortions. Pressure groups have demanded the government step in to make a ruling.

The Debate
1. @@RANDOMNAME@@, lawyer for the woman known only as Miss X, says, "It is Miss X's right to choose! It's her body; she can do whatever she wants with it. In the interest of women's rights, abortion MUST be legalised throughout the country!'

2. "I most vehemently disagree," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a pro-life activist. "I'm all for women's rights in general, but what about the child? Does it have no rights either? Abortion is totally immoral an I insist that we outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, or when the mother's life is in danger."

3. "You're not going far enough! Abortion is murder!" shouts Reverend @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving a placard with a picture of a foetus on it. "God decides which babies live and which will die, not us! The government must maintain a stern anti-abortion stance to preserve the morality of @@NAME@@!"

4. "Abortion has to be legal if we're going to last as a nation," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, President of the Society of Bitter Old People. "Have you ever thought that with @@NAME@@'s growing population of @@POPULATION@@ million, we soon aren't going to be able to squeeze any more people within our borders? If we use abortion to control the population, we'll make great savings and can spend the money elsewhere. One child per family should just about do it I think. Extraneous ones can be sold to other countries."Nothing is stopping anyone from choosing options #2 or #3. (I always elect option #2, and I haven't been kicked out of the UN yet!) Therefore, whatever the "tyrannical" majority decides is irrelevant, the "rights of nations" remain inviolable, and Resolution #61 does nothing.

In Gruenberg, ... Men who kill their wives for having abortions routinely escape justice. The government doesn't stop women having abortions...but we do nothing to stop citizens stopping fellow citizens from having abortions.Nathan Lane, "The Birdcage": [discussing the murders of abortion doctors] Well, that's ridiculous. The doctors are only doing their jobs. If you're going to kill someone, kill the mothers, that'll stop 'em! ... Oh, I know what you're going to say. "If you kill the mother, the fetus dies too." But the fetus is going to be aborted anyway, so why not let it go down with the ship?

...

Actually, I believe you're referring to "killing", or "inducing death" rather than "murder". "Murder", I believe, connotes a more absolute "we musn't do this" than "killing" or such (which is why the pro-life group uses "murder", as it implies that it is unjust). So, the use of the word "murder" implicitly excludes any other rights from making "murder" justified (again, since murder connotes an unjustified killing).


The killing of someone is judged basically by whether or not the death did more good than the life. Self-defence works on that basis, the death penalty works on that basis and so forth.

In this case I (if no one else) would argue that the mother believes that the abortion (of something that is not a living being) does more good than not having one.

Nathan Lane, "The Birdcage": [discussing the murders of abortion doctors] Well, that's ridiculous. The doctors are only doing their jobs. If you're going to kill someone, kill the mothers, that'll stop 'em! ... Oh, I know what you're going to say. "If you kill the mother, the fetus dies too." But the fetus is going to be aborted anyway, so why not let it go down with the ship?

Do executioners get killed for carrying out their duty? A duty which some people consider murder (the death is premeditated and in cold blood with malice aforethought)? No - they get paid for it.

And you know - I think that quote might just be a tad out of context (according to a number of sources), so it kind of defeats your arguement.

And remember - "Always look on the bright side of life" :}

You all seem to be forgetting one little thing (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6711757#post6711757) ...

Nothing is stopping anyone from choosing options #2 or #3. (I always elect option #2, and I haven't been kicked out of the UN yet!) Therefore, whatever the "tyrannical" majority decides is irrelevant, the "rights of nations" remain inviolable, and Resolution #61 does nothing.

You have it the wrong way round - if you chose #2 or #3, the UN rewrites your law after you make that choice, so you only think you have a choice.

Do you think member states have any greater right to decide such an issue for their citizens?

The UN forces governments to comply so that citizens have the freedom to choose. If the national perspective is really pro-life, then that should come from the populace, not the government telling the populace.

Sure, we are telling governments what to do in this instance, but only so that they can't tell citizens what to do with their own bodies.

I agree the UN cannot decide when a foetus is a living person, but I also think governments are even less capable of making informed decisions on this matter. So I say leave it to the populace. At least with the UN legislating upon it there is no chance of reprisal by the nations legal system.

Just like how a government should not and cannot force it's opinion on it's citizens.A government can most definitely tell our citizens what to do with their own bodies if a government believes it prevents murder.

And there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who would agree with him/her wholeheartedly.

What's your point?
My point is that no one should make that decision for them, let it be up to the nations THEMSELVES to decide what they want on this issue.

A government can most definitely tell our citizens what to do with their own bodies if a government believes it prevents murder.

Trouble is, unwanted babies in Gruenberg are often drowned. Or eaten. Both are murder. By allowing abortion, the government is preventing murder.

And Pallatium: there's an 'edit post' button.

Trouble is, unwanted babies in Gruenberg are often drowned. Or eaten. Both are murder. By allowing abortion, the government is preventing murder.

And Pallatium: there's an 'edit post' button.In essence, it is the principle of the ban which is the importance. I completely agree with you that there will be "murders" either way.

And Pallatium: there's an 'edit post' button.

(ooc) I know. But sometimes I get so wound up and annoyed by arguements I find contemptable and foolish I tend to just respond when things come up, and not actually go back and add what I said previously :}

You have it the wrong way round - if you chose #2 or #3, the UN rewrites your law after you make that choice, so you only think you have a choice.Not if you know how to read (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450853).

Do executioners get killed for carrying out their duty? A duty which some people consider murder (the death is premeditated and in cold blood with malice aforethought)? No - they get paid for it.

And you know - I think that quote might just be a tad out of context (according to a number of sources), so it kind of defeats your arguement.

And remember - "Always look on the bright side of life" :}Forgive me, but what the fuck are you talking about??

My point is that no one should make that decision for them, let it be up to the nations THEMSELVES to decide what they want on this issue.

But your point is contradictory.

I think the UN should force national governments to accept it, so that it remains in the hands of the people themselves.

However you think it should remain in the hands of the national governments because you don't think people should tell you what to do.

But by putting it in the hands of the government, you are basically saying *you* have the right to tell people what to do - regardless if there is a HUGE minority in your nation that wants abortion to be legal you will make it illegal if the majority say it is so.

I think the choice should be made by the woman who is pregnant. If she thinks that abortion is murder, she won't have an abortion. If however she doesn't think that, then she will consider having one. No one is oppressed by anyone - everyone choses on their own.

Not if you know how to read (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=450853).


I do know how to read, I just don't accept the premise.

Plus I remember reading somewhere that the Gnomes rewrite your laws, so if you ban anything that you can't ban, it just unbans it. It doesn't affect stats or national details, I guess it would be an honnour thing :}


Forgive me, but what the fuck are you talking about??

Never mind.

In essence, it is the principle of the ban which is the importance. I completely agree with you that there will be "murders" either way.

And one would argue that if you are willing to screw over the rights of thousands of thousands of people for a principle then you should consider the needs of your people better and offer your resignation.

THE FACTS:
1. The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day.

2. Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.

3. twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum for how long before a fetus can survive outside the whomb However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.

4. Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion. But we must approach the victim of rape or incest with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion? Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape. But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation.

5. Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being.

Why not kill the burdensome? They are, after all, burdensome.

But your point is contradictory.

I think the UN should force national governments to accept it, so that it remains in the hands of the people themselves.

However you think it should remain in the hands of the national governments because you don't think people should tell you what to do.

But by putting it in the hands of the government, you are basically saying *you* have the right to tell people what to do - regardless if there is a HUGE minority in your nation that wants abortion to be legal you will make it illegal if the majority say it is so.

I think the choice should be made by the woman who is pregnant. If she thinks that abortion is murder, she won't have an abortion. If however she doesn't think that, then she will consider having one. No one is oppressed by anyone - everyone choses on their own.The point is not contradictory. If a government sees it as a murder, that trumps the option to leave it up to the citizens.

Let me put it this way. Take a society where there is a small ethnic minority. Many people see that ethnic minority as less than human. Thus, they go out and begin a program of systematically killing that ethnic minority. You would say that the government should not intervene and leave it up to the citizens to decide whether that ethnic minority is less than human or not and deserves to be killed. I would disagree and would say that the government has an obligation as a representative of that ethnic minority to protect it if they saw that minority as having full and equal rights as anyone else.

But your point is contradictory.

I think the UN should force national governments to accept it, so that it remains in the hands of the people themselves.

However you think it should remain in the hands of the national governments because you don't think people should tell you what to do.

But by putting it in the hands of the government, you are basically saying *you* have the right to tell people what to do - regardless if there is a HUGE minority in your nation that wants abortion to be legal you will make it illegal if the majority say it is so.

I think the choice should be made by the woman who is pregnant. If she thinks that abortion is murder, she won't have an abortion. If however she doesn't think that, then she will consider having one. No one is oppressed by anyone - everyone choses on their own.


No one is oppresed but the baby with the beating heart at one month. (which is about the time a woman finds out she is pregnant, if not later)

I respect your opinion, but it is your opinion, there are thousands of people who would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

I'm well aware of that. However, the reason I noted this is because you decided to go after me personally. While I note you retracted it, that doesn't mean I'm not going to change my position.

Regardless of what you or anyone else may believe, you brought in a technicality proposal, and I've disproven the technicalities for most of your proposal. The only matter that's left is National Sovereignty, which I don't care about and I shall continue to berate your proposal and your arguments until it dies off or another person brings the next round foreward.

----------------------------

Again with the emotional arguments...

Doesn't mean she didn't have a point. Those are arguments that prove your general statement doesn't apply to all cases.

---------------------------------------------

I'm sorry - but just because you don't have a reasonable argument ("KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN IS MURDER" is in no way emotive), don't knock one that is.

He didn't say anything about murder. Just because one person used that argument doesn't mean they all do. His argument was also reasonable (his original one), and you do have an issue with being a bit too emotionally driven

------------------------------

Actually, I believe you're referring to "killing", or "inducing death" rather than "murder". "Murder", I believe, connotes a more absolute "we musn't do this" than "killing" or such (which is why the pro-life group uses "murder", as it implies that it is unjust). So, the use of the word "murder" implicitly excludes any other rights from making "murder" justified (again, since murder connotes an unjustified killing).

You used the term murder. It does apply to cases I stated. And there is a such thing "justified murder"

Anyway, I still feel it should be a frame of discussion that people, pro-choice or pro-life (or pro- and anti- abortion, however one wants to think of it) sort out the fetus's right to live and attempt to prove, definitively, one way or the other, it's importance or negligibility. I mean, focusing on a woman's right to choose and determining/'proving' it to be "x importance units" is irrelevant if it's later decided/'proven' that a fetus's right to life is "x+1 importance units".

The thing is that you can't prove that, and the decision is quite clear that the woman's right to choose is being held above the questionable right to life by this body. At best we can convince people.

---------------------------------

Nothing is stopping anyone from choosing options #2 or #3. (I always elect option #2, and I haven't been kicked out of the UN yet!) Therefore, whatever the "tyrannical" majority decides is irrelevant, the "rights of nations" remain inviolable, and Resolution #61 does nothing.

Actually, that's irrelevant. Issues are gameplay realm. The headers (category, strength) are gameplay realm. The text of the resolution is roleplay, and many mod rulings have shown that gameplay and RP are quite distinct. There's a few crossovers, but issues and resolutions aren't one of them, simply because of what you have shown.

-----------------------------

Let me put it this way. Take a society where there is a small ethnic minority. Many people see that ethnic minority as less than human. Thus, they go out and begin a program of systematically killing that ethnic minority. You would say that the government should not intervene and leave it up to the citizens to decide whether that ethnic minority is less than human or not and deserves to be killed. I would disagree and would say that the government has an obligation as a representative of that ethnic minority to protect it if they saw that minority as having full and equal rights as anyone else.

Let's see.....

No one's rights are being violated by the existance of that ethnic minority. No right to body is being infringed upon by that ethnic minority .... normally (if they are, I'll get to that). As such, their own right to body trumps anyone else's interest in killing them, and thus, the murders are illegal.

If they are infringing upon someone else's right to body, then they can be arrested instead to solve this problem. As such, murder is not the only way to stop it - though there may be cases where it is necessary which will be analyzed on a case by case basis. If other alternatives exist within reason, then that should be the path taken instead of murder so I would count that as illegal, for the most part.

And yep, it follows everything I stated previously

THE FACTS:
1. The heartbeat begins between the eighteenth and twenty-fifth day.


Chickens have been known to run around after their heads have been cut off.


2. Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.


Computers can generate as many electrical waves, and have been shown to be capable of indepednent reasoning.


3. twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum for how long before a fetus can survive outside the whomb However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.


Supposition about the future.


4. Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare.


That will, of course, serve as comfort to the women whose lives you are hell bent on ruining.


As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion.


Congratulations on that stiring display of compassion. But you ask the average person if rape victims should be forced to give birth, then ask an average person about a picture of an aborted fetus, covered in blood and gore, and then ask them which is more effective.


But we must approach the victim of rape or incest with great compassion. The woman has been subjected to an ugly trauma, and she needs love, support and help. But she has been the victim of one violent act. Should we now ask her to be a party to a second violent act -that of abortion?


Are you actually this stupid? Seriously - I am not trying to be rude, but I really want to know if you are as utterly brainless as you are coming across to be.

NO ONE IS FORCED TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

The women can chose to have on - it is HER choice. No one forces it on her. No one puts a gun to her head. No one says "DO IT OR WE WILL RAPE YOU AGAIN".

It's their choice - no one is forced in to it.

Once you get that in to your head then you will at least be capable of presenting suitable and non-moronic arugements.



Unquestionably, many would return the violence of killing an innocent baby for the violence of rape.


And unquestionably a lot of people believe that someone who is raped, who had NO CHOICE in the conception, might not want to be forced to have the kid. It's not a question of violence - it's a question of compassion.

Or does a rape victim not deserve compassion in your ideal world of wonderfulness where no one ever gets pregnant against their will?


But, before making this decision, remember that most of the trauma has already occurred. She has been raped. That trauma will live with her all her life. Furthermore, this girl did not report for help, but kept this to herself. For several weeks or months, she has thought of little else. Now, she has finally asked for help, has shared her upset, and should be in a supportive situation.


So when I use emotive arguements, I am a bad person. But when you do it - to justify forcing her to have a kid she doesn't want and didn't ask for, it's perfectly acceptable?


5. Do you believe the new "ethic" should be that we kill the suffering or burdensome? Some of these cases are tragic, some are also inspirational. We cannot assume the responsibility for killing an unborn child simply because the child has not yet been seen in public. The child's place of residence does not change what abortion does - kill a human being.

It's not a human being except in the warped tiny minds of those who think they they have a god-given right to run everyone elses life.

Let me put it this way. Take a society where there is a small ethnic minority. Many people see that ethnic minority as less than human. Thus, they go out and begin a program of systematically killing that ethnic minority. You would say that the government should not intervene and leave it up to the citizens to decide whether that ethnic minority is less than human or not and deserves to be killed. I would disagree and would say that the government has an obligation as a representative of that ethnic minority to protect it if they saw that minority as having full and equal rights as anyone else.

And since you are happy to equate one woman having an abortion with a nation committing genocide, your support for the repeal suddenly begins to make sense.

What I am saying is abortion is DIFFERENT than most other issues because some people believe it is murder. Why should some people be forced to commit an act which they believe to be murder?

Except, nothing in the Abortion Rights Resolution forces anyone to commit an act which they believe to be murder.

Except, nothing in the Abortion Rights Resolution forces anyone to commit an act which they believe to be murder.
But it is still possible that one can do that, and for the last time I will debug this argument by saying again that a nation shouldn't even allow it to be possible if it sees it as murder. Stop posting this argument, it doesn't work.

I'm well aware of that. However, the reason I noted this is because you decided to go after me personally. While I note you retracted it, that doesn't mean I'm not going to change my position.

Regardless of what you or anyone else may believe, you brought in a technicality proposal, and I've disproven the technicalities for most of your proposal. The only matter that's left is National Sovereignty, which I don't care about and I shall continue to berate your proposal and your arguments until it dies off or another person brings the next round foreward.Actually, you have not disproven any of the technicalities. If the foetus is a life, it is then a CHILD and a HUMAN, which would then follow under the protection of children act and basis human rights act. You do not think sucking the brains out of one's skull is abuse (partial-birth abortion), I think that is a deranged way of thinking.

But it is still possible that one can do that, and for the last time I will debug this argument by saying again that a nation shouldn't even allow it to be possible if it sees it as murder. Stop posting this argument, it doesn't work.

Just what I was thinking about you. I want to put the freedom of the mother over the "death" of something I don't consider alive. You appear to want to make women in to nothing more than breeding machines.

But it is still possible that one can do that, and for the last time I will debug this argument by saying again that a nation shouldn't even allow it to be possible if it sees it as murder. Stop posting this argument, it doesn't work.

WE are not forcing any CITIZEN to COMMIT an act that THAT CITIZEN sees as murder, or to REQUEST an act that THAT CITIZEN sees as murder. IF YOU MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT, EXPECT IT TO BE REBUKED.

Actually, you have not disproven any of the technicalities. If the foetus is a life, it is then a CHILD and a HUMAN, which would then follow under the protection of children act and basis human rights act. You do not think sucking the brains out of one's skull is abuse (partial-birth abortion), I think that is a deranged way of thinking

1) Sucking the brains out of one's skull? Your blatant exaggeration of the procedure behind partial birth abortion is disgusting (it constitutes of draining the blood from the brain).
2) Partial Birth abortions are still bannable, so long as every woman can have an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy by this resolution. There is no qualification about what procedures are to be legal
3) No, it's not abuse. Inhumane, perhaps, but not abuse. READ THE DEFINITIONS I POSTED.

Just what I was thinking about you. I want to put the freedom of the mother over the "death" of something I don't consider alive. You appear to want to make women in to nothing more than breeding machines.
Or you could put it this way, I want to protect the rights of the unborn while you would provide for the systematic killing of innocent children.

Or you could put it this way, I want to protect the rights of the unborn while you would provide for the systematic killing of innocent children.

The English Union: please understand that 'putting it this way' and 'putting it that way' simply constitutes rhetorical word-play. We are interest in fact-based definitions, not these sort of meaningless generalisations.

WE are not forcing any CITIZEN to COMMIT an act that THAT CITIZEN sees as murder, or to REQUEST an act that THAT CITIZEN sees as murder. IF YOU MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT, EXPECT IT TO BE REBUKED.



1) Sucking the brains out of one's skull? Your blatant exaggeration of the procedure behind partial birth abortion is disgusting (it constitutes of draining the blood from the brain).
2) Partial Birth abortions are still bannable, so long as every woman can have an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy by this resolution. There is no qualification about what procedures are to be legal
3) No, it's not abuse. Inhumane, perhaps, but not abuse. READ THE DEFINITIONS I POSTED.You would say murder is not abuse? I respectfully disagree. Second, for the pure fact that you mentioned that partial-birth abortions are bannable, that is exactly why resolution #61 should be revised. AND YOU ARE STILL FORCING A GOVERNMENT WHO SEES IT AS MURDER TO ALLOW SOMEONE ACCESS WHO DOESN'T SEE IT AS MURDER. IS IT NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT MURDER IN ALL FORMS?

The English Union: please understand that 'putting it this way' and 'putting it that way' simply constitutes rhetorical word-play. We are interest in fact-based definitions, not these sort of meaningless generalisations.
Out of context.

Or you could put it this way, I want to protect the rights of the unborn while you would provide for the systematic killing of innocent children.

Firstly - systematic?

Secondly - I think it's safe to say we disagree. But - to get back to your very, very first post - the majority agree to appear with me, so it appears that (as in all democracies) "vox populi, vox dei"

You would say murder is not abuse? I respectfully disagree. Second, for the pure fact that you mentioned that partial-birth abortions are bannable, that is exactly why resolution #61 should be revised. AND YOU ARE STILL FORCING A GOVERNMENT WHO SEES IT AS MURDER TO ALLOW SOMEONE ACCESS WHO DOESN'T SEE IT AS MURDER. IS IT NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT MURDER IN ALL FORMS?

No, it's not. It's the job of the government to collect taxes and represent the people. If it chooses to spend its money on policing, so be it. Not an ideological necessity.

Firstly - systematic?

Secondly - I think it's safe to say we disagree. But - to get back to your very, very first post - the majority agree to appear with me, so it appears that (as in all democracies) "vox populi, vox dei"
yes, legalized abortion would be by definition systematic. second, "...an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.... ...there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next." - James Madison

No, it's not. It's the job of the government to collect taxes and represent the people. If it chooses to spend its money on policing, so be it. Not an ideological necessity.
So you are saying it is not the job of the government to protect its citizens? That is absolutely ridiculous.

yes, legalized abortion would be by definition systematic.


Systematic - to me - means the planned process of doing something. Genocide is the systematic extermination of a people (for example).

Women chosing, at random times, with no real conspiratorial plan behind it, to have abortions is NOT systematic killing of children, and if this were a more official debate, I would request an apology for suggesting such a thing.


second, "...an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.... ...there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next." - James Madison

blah blah blah blah biddy blah

So you are saying it is not the job of the government to protect its citizens? That is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, I am saying that. It is the job of the government not to interfere with people's ability to protect themselves.

Systematic - to me - means the planned process of doing something. Genocide is the systematic extermination of a people (for example).

Women chosing, at random times, with no real conspiratorial plan behind it, to have abortions is NOT systematic killing of children, and if this were a more official debate, I would request an apology for suggesting such a thing.




blah blah blah blah biddy blahOk, the fact that you will not even recognize my arguments shows your utter ignorance. Secondly, I believe any medical organization in a country would be considered a system. It is that country's medical system. I believe that medical system has plans how it will carry out abortions. They don't just do it willy-nilly. Therefore, it IS SYSTEMATIC.

So you are saying it is not the job of the government to protect its citizens? That is absolutely ridiculous.

This International Government doesn't protect its citizens

Governments of past didn't protect their citizens.

The job of the government is what it defines for itself, ruled by those who have the power in it and funding itself mostly through taxes. Most governments CHOOSE to go beyond that, but that doesn't mean they have to. That is the entire concept of Anarchy, which is a perfectly valid form of government.

Ok, the fact that you will not even recognize my arguments shows your utter ignorance. Secondly, I believe any medical organization in a country would be considered a system. It is that country's medical system. I believe that medical system has plans how it will carry out abortions. They don't just do it willy-nilly. Therefore, it IS SYSTEMATIC.

The Gruenberger Medical Association voted 8-3 not to perform abortions. Most abortions in Gruenberg are carried out in dimly lit back-alley hovels, often using only a coat-hanger and a car vac. Your medical system is not obliged to carry out abortions.

Yes, I am saying that. It is the job of the government not to interfere with people's ability to protect themselves.That simply is not true, maybe for yours or any other anarchy. You apparently haven't read Hobbes, Locke, Weber, Socrates, etc. and are willing to throw their works out the window.

Again, you can make the non-protection argument only for anarchies. But last time I checked, not all nations in the United Nations are anarchies, are they?

That simply is not true, maybe for yours or any other anarchy. You apparently haven't read Hobbes, Locke, Weber, Socrates, etc. and are willing to throw their works out the window.

IC: I do not know who you're talking about.

OOC: Read all 4. Think they're pretty good, in places. Especially Weber: big fan.

...and? You can't base your repeal on 'but...but...these philosophers say this!' You might want to bear in mind the 'ideological ban' ruling in the Hackian laws.

The Gruenberger Medical Association voted 8-3 not to perform abortions. Most abortions in Gruenberg are carried out in dimly lit back-alley hovels, often using only a coat-hanger and a car vac. Your medical system is not obliged to carry out abortions.
If a woman walks into one of your medical establishments in Gruenberg and demands an abortion, you MUST comply according to resolution #61.

If a woman walks into one of your medical establishments in Gruenberg and demands an abortion, you MUST comply according to resolution #61.

Not true. We can refuse it.

If you interpret that we must, then you should note that no doctors have ever been prosecuted in Gruenberg for refusing to perform an abortion.

If a woman walks into one of your medical establishments in Gruenberg and demands an abortion, you MUST comply according to resolution #61.

No we are not.

IC: I do not know who you're talking about.

OOC: Read all 4. Think they're pretty good, in places. Especially Weber: big fan.

...and? You can't base your repeal on 'but...but...these philosophers say this!' You might want to bear in mind the 'ideological ban' ruling in the Hackian laws.
I believe a great number of the governments in the United Nations would base their systems on the theories of those men. So just because you personally disagree with them doesn't mean your theories must be forced upon someone else who disagrees.

No we are not.
Then you are violating international law.

I believe a great number of the governments in the United Nations would base their systems on the theories of those men. So just because you personally disagree with them doesn't mean your theories must be forced upon someone else who disagrees.

...are you blind or something? It doesn't mean your theories must be forced on us either.

Then you are violating international law.

No he's not.

Not true. We can refuse it.

If you interpret that we must, then you should note that no doctors have ever been prosecuted in Gruenberg for refusing to perform an abortion.Again, I'm sure the U.N. would be happy to learn that you are violating its mandates.

...are you blind or something? It doesn't mean your theories must be forced on us either.



No he's not.
RIGHT EXACTLY, YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT! Thus, don't force it on anyone, leave it up to the individual governments to decide. And second, how is he not violating res. #61. YOU MUST PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ABORTION.

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.

'Not interfering with' does not equate to 'providing'.

RIGHT EXACTLY, YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT! Thus, don't force it on anyone, leave it up to the individual governments to decide. And second, how is he not violating res. #61. YOU MUST PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ABORTION.

NO WE MUST NOT. Show me the text where it says that.

Ok, the fact that you will not even recognize my arguments shows your utter ignorance.


Firstly - everything that James Madison said I could apply to you as easily as you apply it to me. You are willing to throw away one of the greatest advances in human rights in history - certainly one of the major advances in women's rights in history - because "there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men" - you are trying to gain an advantage through what I would consider "irregular passion" (your total and utter faith in abortion being murder) and you are trying to misrepresent your position (and my position) in order to get your interests heard, rather than mine.

I am not ignoring your arguements - I read the entire quote by the way - I just found that it applied equally to you as to me, hence my reaction. It was hot air, more rhetoric that had no real impact on it.


Secondly, I believe any medical organization in a country would be considered a system. It is that country's medical system. I believe that medical system has plans how it will carry out abortions. They don't just do it willy-nilly. Therefore, it IS SYSTEMATIC.

Yeah - this is why I ignore your arguements. The way a single abortion is carried out might be systematic - infact most medical procedures are, and that is something I think we can all be grateful for - but that doesn't mean it is a systematic killing of innocent children. Cause that implies a Herod type thing, not a woman being able to chose.

By the way - why do you not want a woman to chose? A woman has sex with a sponge (with a man, using a sponge) and a condom that, overall, has a 99.999% chance of not letting her get pregnant. But the gods above (being the feckless thugs they are) decide to pick up the 0.001% chance and make her pregnant. She realises that she can't bring it up, and decides - with her partner - to have an abortion.

Why are you so against her making that choice? It doesn't hurt you - it doesn't hurt anyone else in the nation - and the foetus is only two weeks in to its existance.

So why are you against it? Why do you think you have the right to put her through nine months of misery, and the pain and suffering of labour, and then have to deal with the knowledge there is a child of hers in the world for the rest of her life - that the child might come looking for her in the future - that her whole life is going to change for something that was totally and utterly out of her control. Why do you think you have the right?

I am really asking.

NO WE MUST NOT. Show me the text where it says that.
NOT INTERFERE, I don't know how much clearer it can be. If you refuse that woman who walks into that medical establishment, you are interfering. She can't do it herself and anything else would be unsafe or abusive, violating basic human rights resolution. I cannot comprehenf how you are not understanding this.

Firstly - everything that James Madison said I could apply to you as easily as you apply it to me. You are willing to throw away one of the greatest advances in human rights in history - certainly one of the major advances in women's rights in history - because "there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men" - you are trying to gain an advantage through what I would consider "irregular passion" (your total and utter faith in abortion being murder) and you are trying to misrepresent your position (and my position) in order to get your interests heard, rather than mine.

I am not ignoring your arguements - I read the entire quote by the way - I just found that it applied equally to you as to me, hence my reaction. It was hot air, more rhetoric that had no real impact on it.



Yeah - this is why I ignore your arguements. The way a single abortion is carried out might be systematic - infact most medical procedures are, and that is something I think we can all be grateful for - but that doesn't mean it is a systematic killing of innocent children. Cause that implies a Herod type thing, not a woman being able to chose.

By the way - why do you not want a woman to chose? A woman has sex with a sponge (with a man, using a sponge) and a condom that, overall, has a 99.999% chance of not letting her get pregnant. But the gods above (being the feckless thugs they are) decide to pick up the 0.001% chance and make her pregnant. She realises that she can't bring it up, and decides - with her partner - to have an abortion.

Why are you so against her making that choice? It doesn't hurt you - it doesn't hurt anyone else in the nation - and the foetus is only two weeks in to its existance.

So why are you against it? Why do you think you have the right to put her through nine months of misery, and the pain and suffering of labour, and then have to deal with the knowledge there is a child of hers in the world for the rest of her life - that the child might come looking for her in the future - that her whole life is going to change for something that was totally and utterly out of her control. Why do you think you have the right?

I am really asking.Number one, she is not going to know two weeks into it she is pregnant, more like a month. Second, I do care because I am protecting the natural and inherent rights of that child. Third, it was not out of her control, she could NOT HAVE SEX. Your Herod argument makes absolutely no sense.

NOT INTERFERE, I don't know how much clearer it can be. If you refuse that woman who walks into that medical establishment, you are interfering. She can't do it herself and anything else would be unsafe or abusive, violating basic human rights resolution. I cannot comprehenf how you are not understanding this.

Bingo. The doctor is interfering; the national government is not. We may have just faxed him saying, "Give her an abortion." Not our fault if he flicks her off. We, the government, the only people bound by Abortion Rights, are not interfering. I cannot comprehend how you are not understanding this.

Abortion is legal, but your theocratic government can't abide it. Despite the fact that the laws are on the books, your government cannot possibly allow it. If they restrict it in any way, they will be breaking their own national law, and they will be subject to any punishments specified in the UN resolution. Since that particular resolution specifies no punishment, I'm hard-pressed to see how you could enforce compliance ... though other UN nations could intercede and attempt to force them to comply. It's as good a reason as any to bring out the diplomats and generals.

A mod statement (quoted without permission).

NOT INTERFERE, I don't know how much clearer it can be. If you refuse that woman who walks into that medical establishment, you are interfering. She can't do it herself and anything else would be unsafe or abusive, violating basic human rights resolution. I cannot comprehenf how you are not understanding this.

Ok. Imagine there is a law that says the government can not interfere with the right of someone to eat ice-cream when they want.

Now imagine the woman walks in to a government office and asks for ice-cream.

If the government can't provide it, but suggest she go down the street to an ice-cream shop, would they be interfering?

No. They would not be interfering. They would be saying "we don't actually have ice-cream here, but there is down there"

Same theory - as long as the government doesn't ban abortion, and shut down every private abortion clinic, they are not intefering.

And I realize rape is another matter, but still every nation should decide for itself what it wants to do in that case.

Bingo. The doctor is interfering; the national government is not. We may have just faxed him saying, "Give her an abortion." Not our fault if he flicks her off. We, the government, the only people bound by Abortion Rights, are not interfering. I cannot comprehend how you are not understanding this.
Yes it is YOUR FAULT, THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT, if that doctor flicks her off. You must compel him or some other doctor to give the abortion.

And I realize rape is another matter, but still every nation should decide for itself what it wants to do in that case.

Should we read this as you finally getting the point. You don't like abortion? Good for you. Just cut government funding to abortion clinics, and don't punish non-compliant doctors. Quietly fold your arms, and the UN can't touch you. So, you see, you really don't have to have abortions in your country.

Yes it is YOUR FAULT, THE GOVERNMENT'S FAULT, if that doctor flicks her off. You must compel him or some other doctor to give the abortion.

No, we must not. Where are you getting this from? Certainly not the resolution text. What if a country has no state medical facilities? It should interfere in private industry. Why are you fighting so hard to force yourself into performing abortions when you clearly oppose them?

Ok. Imagine there is a law that says the government can not interfere with the right of someone to eat ice-cream when they want.

Now imagine the woman walks in to a government office and asks for ice-cream.

If the government can't provide it, but suggest she go down the street to an ice-cream shop, would they be interfering?

No. They would not be interfering. They would be saying "we don't actually have ice-cream here, but there is down there"

Same theory - as long as the government doesn't ban abortion, and shut down every private abortion clinic, they are not intefering.One small problem with that case. They CAN provide that ice cream.

Should we read this as you finally getting the point. You don't like abortion? Good for you. Just cut government funding to abortion clinics, and don't punish non-compliant doctors. Quietly fold your arms, and the UN can't touch you. So, you see, you really don't have to have abortions in your country.
But they can touch you because the way the game works, if you legislate against the U.N. as a member of the U.N., they rewrite your legislation to make you comply, as I understand it. And cutting funding and not punishing doctors would be INTERFERING. It was the same way with Jim Crow laws.

One small problem with that case. They CAN provide that ice cream.

No, they can't. They have no ice-cream in the office. And similarly, they have no abortion equipment in the government clinic. They are not obliged to provide it.

No, we must not. Where are you getting this from? Certainly not the resolution text. What if a country has no state medical facilities? It should interfere in private industry. Why are you fighting so hard to force yourself into performing abortions when you clearly oppose them?Because when that issue comes for me to decide, if I decide to ban it, the U.N. will rewrite it as I understand. The government should interfere in private industry if it means protecting lives. According to your logic, you would not interfere into semi-legal private mafia industries.

But they can touch you because the way the game works, if you legislate against the U.N. as a member of the U.N., they rewrite your legislation to make you comply, as I understand it. And cutting funding and not punishing doctors would be INTERFERING. It was the same way with Jim Crow laws.

We are not legislating against the UN. The UN does not specify anything about abortion funding: we could increase it, decrease it, or call it Steve, and we would still be in compliance. All we can't do is actively prevent women from having an abortion by law.

No, they can't. They have no ice-cream in the office. And similarly, they have no abortion equipment in the government clinic. They are not obliged to provide it.
But if she cannot get an abortion elsewhere, that would be interfering then.

Because when that issue comes for me to decide, if I decide to ban it, the U.N. will rewrite it as I understand. The government should interfere in private industry if it means protecting lives. According to your logic, you would not interfere into semi-legal private mafia industries.

Correct. I would not.

But if she cannot get an abortion elsewhere, that would be interfering then.

Her problem, not ours. She always has the 'hoik it out with a fishing-hook option'.

We are not legislating against the UN. The UN does not specify anything about abortion funding: we could increase it, decrease it, or call it Steve, and we would still be in compliance. All we can't do is actively prevent women from having an abortion by law.Right, I want to give nations the option to decide for themselves if they want to COMPLETELY ban abortion or not.

Right, I want to give nations the option to decide for themselves if they want to COMPLETELY ban abortion or not.

Ok! That's great. I support you in that.

Correct. I would not.
I have no words.

Ok! That's great. I support you in that.Thank you, that is the ONLY object of my legislation.

I have no words, your government must not protect its citizens that well.

And I think we both agree that is my government's right.

Thank you, that is the ONLY object of my legislation.

Right. So stop trying to argue that you are forced to commit murder, or do anything to allow abortion, and let's get on with writing a reasonable draft.

Number one, she is not going to know two weeks into it she is pregnant, more like a month. Second, I do care because I am protecting the natural and inherent rights of that child. Third, it was not out of her control, she could NOT HAVE SEX.


It's not a child, it's a collection of cells that share some DNA with the parent. It's not a child, so it doesn't have inherent rights.
It's not a child, and if that is your best arguement, it's no wonder that this resolution has never been repealed or even voted to the floor.

And finally - not to get to emotive arguements (because I know how people who oppose abortion never, ever use emotive arguements, like it is the murder of a child, or the systematic killing of a child - that would be beyond such exalted debates as yourself and your co-horts) but if a woman gets screwed over by the gods when she takes so much effort not to have a child, then I think she deserves a break and should not be subjected to the fascist values of the moral majority who, for some reason seem to have appointed themselves as the moral and undeniable guardians of all those who want to actually want to live their own lives and make their own choices without having to check every single move they make with someone else.



Your Herod argument makes absolutely no sense.

If you can quote James Madison, I can reference the Biblical king who decided to murder all the children under two because he wanted to be rid of the baby Jesus. I am saying that describing abortion as "systematic killing of children" implies that.

Also


Stand firm for what you believe in, until and unless logic and experience prove you wrong; remember, when the emperor looks naked, the emperor is naked; the truth and a lie are not "sort of the same thing".


(from my Ascension Address, which, I admit, was a quote from another source)

My point is that, while I am impressed you are willing to stick to your arguement (however misguided I believe it is), I am going to stick to mine, because logic and experience has yet to prove it wrong.

And I think we both agree that is my government's right.
Yes it is, I apologize for presuming that on you.

Right. So stop trying to argue that you are forced to commit murder, or do anything to allow abortion, and let's get on with writing a reasonable draft.
I have already stated that I need to rewrite the proposal.

It's not a child, it's a collection of cells that share some DNA with the parent. It's not a child, so it doesn't have inherent rights.
It's not a child, and if that is your best arguement, it's no wonder that this resolution has never been repealed or even voted to the floor.

No, no, no, no, no. The debate over whether or not a fetus is, in fact, a full-fledged human being has not been scientifically decided. Thus, the UN cannot mandate either way on the issue.

It's not a child, it's a collection of cells that share some DNA with the parent. It's not a child, so it doesn't have inherent rights.
It's not a child, and if that is your best arguement, it's no wonder that this resolution has never been repealed or even voted to the floor.

And finally - not to get to emotive arguements (because I know how people who oppose abortion never, ever use emotive arguements, like it is the murder of a child, or the systematic killing of a child - that would be beyond such exalted debates as yourself and your co-horts) but if a woman gets screwed over by the gods when she takes so much effort not to have a child, then I think she deserves a break and should not be subjected to the fascist values of the moral majority who, for some reason seem to have appointed themselves as the moral and undeniable guardians of all those who want to actually want to live their own lives and make their own choices without having to check every single move they make with someone else.




If you can quote James Madison, I can reference the Biblical king who decided to murder all the children under two because he wanted to be rid of the baby Jesus. I am saying that describing abortion as "systematic killing of children" implies that.

Also



(from my Ascension Address, which, I admit, was a quote from another source)

My point is that, while I am impressed you are willing to stick to your arguement (however misguided I believe it is), I am going to stick to mine, because logic and experience has yet to prove it wrong.I don't know where to begin. First, again you are being completely ignorant for presuming that your opinion is fact. NO ONE has been able to prove whether its a life or not. In fact, I want to know when exactly you would say it becomes a life. I keep re-reading your last post, and I must say your logic is all over the place, namely the whole "if you can quote, then I can quote." Thirdly, you still haven't shown why a national system providing for an organizational program for killing is not systematic. Fourthly, I don't know why you presume that I think I am better than you. I mean, who knows, YOU might have the moral argument here. In fact, I think your sarcasm places yourself above me.

No, no, no, no, no. The debate over whether or not a fetus is, in fact, a full-fledged human being has not been scientifically decided. Thus, the UN cannot mandate either way on the issue.YES, thank you again.

YES, thank you again.

Thank me all you like. Reason will not, unfortunately, win out over those with an ax to grind either way.

Ok. I'm not trying to step on your toes, but how about this for a start:

DEPLORING the vagueness of Resolution #61, 'Abortion Rights';

ACKNOWLEDGING that abortion is a highly fractious issue;

WISHING to respect diverse cultural and religious heritages;

BELIEVING it is not in the best interests of the UN to micromanage national health administration policy,

REPEALS Abortion Rights.

Thank me all you like. Reason will not, unfortunately, win out over those with an ax to grind either way.
I realize that, and I would like to point out that I am in no way trying to prove the morality of abortion. All I want is for each nation to be able to decide for itself whether it is or not rather than have one big organization make the decision for them.

Ok. I'm not trying to step on your toes, but how about this for a start:
Ok sure, I would completely support such a proposal.

Ok sure, I would completely support such a proposal.

Well, it's only a start. And I can't propose legislation. But I'm sure we can work it up into something suitable.

Well, it's only a start. And I can't propose legislation. But I'm sure we can work it up into something suitable.
Sure, I can work on something and I will put it up on this thread for revision before it is proposed. I would like to wait for my previous proposal to die first so as not to clutter the proposal page. This is a compromise. Pro-choicers get what they want, pro-lifers get what they want.

And of course, I would certainly welcome any submission from Gruenberg if they so wanted to write the proposal.

He didn't say anything about murder. Just because one person used that argument doesn't mean they all do. His argument was also reasonable (his original one), and you do have an issue with being a bit too emotionally driven


(ooc - I was kind of hoping to prove you wrong, but as it turns out, while almost every other person has been banging on about murder, he did not mention it directly. So, apologies for .... well nothing cause I didn't post it here, but if I had, sorry!)

(ic) See - if it was tax rebates, dolphins, diplomatic immunity, hell - even genocide - I would not be as emotional about the subject.

But baring a few men, my nation is almost entirely female, so this repealing this resolution has a lot of resonance with the people I represent.

(this is kind of ic and ooc)
Further more it is one of those issues that just BUGS me when people try to approach it, because most people (not everyone) are quite happy to sit in judgement of a woman who has got herself in to a terrible predicament and is trying to get out of it the best she knows how. They pass judgement and dictate how her life must turn out, and then hardly ever bother to find out what the result of their judgement was. They happily screw up people's lives cause they think they know best, and never have to deal with the consequences of their moral certitude (Which might be a word I made up) in real terms - just in abstract ones. It's like watching gods juggle with atom bombs, not really caring if they drop one or two on the population below, since it won't affect the gods themselves.

So yeah - this is one of those "trigger issues" that tend to wind me up. And every time I swear I am not going to get involved - the repeal will never happen, so why argue about it? But then someone says something so unbelievably stupid that it *requires* an answer - it can not go with out one, so I get dragged back in and end up yelling at people I don't know and will never meet in a fantasy world that doesn't really exist, just because I have the (bad luck/good fortune/moral soundness/lack of judgement - delete as applicable) to believe 100% in the woman's right to chose about anything else.

To sum up - yeah, I get emotional :}

Can I suggest you post a final draft on your forums before you resubmit.

Also, it might be an idea to include something along the lines of:
'CONFIRMING that a repeal of 'Abortion Rights' would not interfere with abortion laws or practices in member nations wishing to keep abortion legal', or something less clumsy.

Can I suggest you post a final draft on your forums before you resubmit.

Also, it might be an idea to include something along the lines of:
'CONFIRMING that a repeal of 'Abortion Rights' would not interfere with abortion laws or practices in member nations wishing to keep abortion legal', or something less clumsy.
Yes, I would most certainly include that phrase and I would make sure to post any future proposals I make on this forum before submitting them.

Then you are violating international law.

Sheesh, you're arguing with two members of the UN Old Guard who are telling you that at a legality level, we are not required to do that. At what point do you step back and realize there just MAY be MORE to this argument than what you'd like to believe and that SOME of us may know more about this matter than you do.

Now, if we're done being obnoxious, you are arguing a technicality and legality resolution with a significant deficiency in understanding of both and, particularly, how they apply in the UN. And yet, you argue it with an air of arrogance that suggests you know better than us when we can keep on showing you definition and quote after another from both passed UN resolutions and various dictionaries that at the technical and fundamental level (WHICH IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING LEGALITIES - denotative meanings are all that apply in legalities, connotative meanings are only useful in arguments and have NO effect to legalities) to disprove you.

NOT INTERFERE, I don't know how much clearer it can be. If you refuse that woman who walks into that medical establishment, you are interfering. She can't do it herself and anything else would be unsafe or abusive, violating basic human rights resolution. I cannot comprehenf how you are not understanding this.

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.

You cannot tell that medical establishment that they must refuse treatment. You can't stop anyone who wants to perform an abortion on a women who asked that person to do so (assuming the person is qualified). You cannot stop any individual from agreeing to conduct an abortion in asked to do so. That individual may refuse, as he is NOT A MEMBER NATION. As such, it's legal

Number one, she is not going to know two weeks into it she is pregnant, more like a month.

Pregnancy tests can be performed within 2 weeks of conception. As such, 2 weeks is accurate. Many don't figure out until there's a reason to get suspicious. Apparently my mom didn't figure out until she was 3 months in. Regardless, the 2 weeks is an accurate statement.

Second, I do care because I am protecting the natural and inherent rights of that child.

Right to life, just like right to body, are not inherent. They are derived. There is only one natural right, and that's the right to die. Why, because no matter how hard you try, you can't take that right away from someone. At some point, they will die. They may not have the right to choose when, but they have the right to it.

Third, it was not out of her control, she could NOT HAVE SEX. Your Herod argument makes absolutely no sense

:rolleyes: Yes, because the concept of sex is that we only should be using it for propagation of the species.

And I realize rape is another matter, but still every nation should decide for itself what it wants to do in that case.

*Votes that rape should be left alone, because we are certainly debating the average case*

But they can touch you because the way the game works, if you legislate against the U.N. as a member of the U.N., they rewrite your legislation to make you comply, as I understand it.

Yes

And cutting funding and not punishing doctors would be INTERFERING. It was the same way with Jim Crow laws.

No. You need only follow the law to the letter, not the essence.

RL Laws do not operate on the same principles as UN laws. Legalities is a pretty messed up issue......and fairly vague.

No, no, no, no, no. The debate over whether or not a fetus is, in fact, a full-fledged human being has not been scientifically decided. Thus, the UN cannot mandate either way on the issue.

Apparently it can, it has and has yet to have any real support to get it to stop.

(ooc - I was kind of hoping to prove you wrong, but as it turns out, while almost every other person has been banging on about murder, he did not mention it directly. So, apologies for .... well nothing cause I didn't post it here, but if I had, sorry!)

(ic) See - if it was tax rebates, dolphins, diplomatic immunity, hell - even genocide - I would not be as emotional about the subject.

But baring a few men, my nation is almost entirely female, so this repealing this resolution has a lot of resonance with the people I represent.

(this is kind of ic and ooc)
Further more it is one of those issues that just BUGS me when people try to approach it, because most people (not everyone) are quite happy to sit in judgement of a woman who has got herself in to a terrible predicament and is trying to get out of it the best she knows how. They pass judgement and dictate how her life must turn out, and then hardly ever bother to find out what the result of their judgement was. They happily screw up people's lives cause they think they know best, and never have to deal with the consequences of their moral certitude (Which might be a word I made up) in real terms - just in abstract ones. It's like watching gods juggle with atom bombs, not really caring if they drop one or two on the population below, since it won't affect the gods themselves.

So yeah - this is one of those "trigger issues" that tend to wind me up. And every time I swear I am not going to get involved - the repeal will never happen, so why argue about it? But then someone says something so unbelievably stupid that it *requires* an answer - it can not go with out one, so I get dragged back in and end up yelling at people I don't know and will never meet in a fantasy world that doesn't really exist, just because I have the (bad luck/good fortune/moral soundness/lack of judgement - delete as applicable) to believe 100% in the woman's right to chose about anything else.

To sum up - yeah, I get emotional :}Yes, sorry if I got emotional too. I would not presume to make women second-class citizens. I absolutely abhor any form of sexism and because I see the abortion issue as one of protecting infant rights, I do not see it as a sexist argument. Yet, I do recognize how it can be construed that way. I just feel that we should let individual nations decide for themselves.

Apparently it can, it has and has yet to have any real support to get it to stop.

The UN has not decided if a fetus is a human or not. Abortion Rights makes no mention of this.

I don't know where to begin. First, again you are being completely ignorant for presuming that your opinion is fact.


When did I say it was fact? My exact words were stand firm for what you believe in until logic or experience prove you wrong. So far neither of that has happened, so I am going to keep believing what I believe. I didn't say it was undeniable fact - I don't believe in undeniable facts because the moment you do then the goddesses tend to say "oh yeah - then what about this?"


NO ONE has been able to prove whether its a life or not. In fact, I want to know when exactly you would say it becomes a life.


When it is born.


I keep re-reading your last post, and I must say your logic is all over the place, namely the whole "if you can quote, then I can quote."


Forget it. My point was obviously either lost on you, or not as well made as I had hoped. Either way it is pretty much moot.


Thirdly, you still haven't shown why a national system providing for an organizational program for killing is not systematic.


That's because you appear to have a different dictionary than I do.


Fourthly, I don't know why you presume that I think I am better than you. I mean, who knows, YOU might have the moral argument here. In fact, I think your sarcasm places yourself above me.

I don't think that you think you are better than me. I think that you think you are better placed to judge the future of someone you have never met, never will meet and would probably not give a damn about if you met her, simply because she made one single mistake that might not have even been her own fault.


And my sarcasm places me above everyone - it's the highest form of wit, don't you know? (smirk)

The people of Cluichstan would be happy to assist their Gruenberger friends with composing such a proposal.

Sheesh, you're arguing with two members of the UN Old Guard who are telling you that at a legality level, we are not required to do that. At what point do you step back and realize there just MAY be MORE to this argument than what you'd like to believe and that SOME of us may know more about this matter than you do.

Now, if we're done being obnoxious, you are arguing a technicality and legality resolution with a significant deficiency in understanding of both and, particularly, how they apply in the UN. And yet, you argue it with an air of arrogance that suggests you know better than us when we can keep on showing you definition and quote after another from both passed UN resolutions and various dictionaries that at the technical and fundamental level (WHICH IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE ARGUING LEGALITIES - denotative meanings are all that apply in legalities, connotative meanings are only useful in arguments and have NO effect to legalities) to disprove you.





You cannot tell that medical establishment that they must refuse treatment. You can't stop anyone who wants to perform an abortion on a women who asked that person to do so (assuming the person is qualified). You cannot stop any individual from agreeing to conduct an abortion in asked to do so. That individual may refuse, as he is NOT A MEMBER NATION. As such, it's legal



Pregnancy tests can be performed within 2 weeks of conception. As such, 2 weeks is accurate. Many don't figure out until there's a reason to get suspicious. Apparently my mom didn't figure out until she was 3 months in. Regardless, the 2 weeks is an accurate statement.



Right to life, just like right to body, are not inherent. They are derived. There is only one natural right, and that's the right to die. Why, because no matter how hard you try, you can't take that right away from someone. At some point, they will die. They may not have the right to choose when, but they have the right to it.



:rolleyes: Yes, because the concept of sex is that we only should be using it for propagation of the species.



*Votes that rape should be left alone, because we are certainly debating the average case*



Yes



No. You need only follow the law to the letter, not the essence.

RL Laws do not operate on the same principles as UN laws. Legalities is a pretty messed up issue......and fairly vague.
I do not understand why I cannot tell a medical establishment that I will not allow them to perform abortions. If the government feels it is an issue of protecting human rights, it is absolutely their duty to stop all abortions inside their nation. I never dismissed the truth of the two weeks argument, however what I did say is that 95% of the time a woman is not going to get it confirmed that she is pregnant within the first two weeks. The right to life IS inherent I believe, and I believe the majority of member nations would agree with me. JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUTH. You are constantly presuming that your arguments are TRUTH. They are not. They are your opinion. NOR DO I CONSIDER MY ARGUMENT TO BE TRUTH. This covers your BELIEF on sex and inherent rights. Others think differently than you. Who knows who's right? But it is absolutely rude to presume that anyone is.

The UN has not decided if a fetus is a human or not. Abortion Rights makes no mention of this.

I would argue by implication it does - there are any number of resolutions that protect human rights to the nth degree, and yet none of the ones that were passed before abortion rights made it illegal, and not one of the ones passed since have been challanged on the grounds abortion rights would make them illegal.

As such I would be forced to conclude (however misguided that conclusion might be) that the fetus/foetus (spelling is not my forte) is not protected under any of these resolutions, and so - for those purposes - is not considered a human being.

(ooc - or that all of the moderation staff in NationStates are incompetent and not paying attention to any resolution that is passed. But of the two, which is more likely?)

When did I say it was fact? My exact words were stand firm for what you believe in until logic or experience prove you wrong. So far neither of that has happened, so I am going to keep believing what I believe. I didn't say it was undeniable fact - I don't believe in undeniable facts because the moment you do then the goddesses tend to say "oh yeah - then what about this?"



When it is born.



Forget it. My point was obviously either lost on you, or not as well made as I had hoped. Either way it is pretty much moot.



That's because you appear to have a different dictionary than I do.



I don't think that you think you are better than me. I think that you think you are better placed to judge the future of someone you have never met, never will meet and would probably not give a damn about if you met her, simply because she made one single mistake that might not have even been her own fault.


And my sarcasm places me above everyone - it's the highest form of wit, don't you know? (smirk)Again, presumptions. I THINK IT IS SICK THAT YOU PRESUME I HAVE NO COMPASSION for that woman. Absolutely false. But I also have compassion for the child she is carrying. Referring to your point about when it becomes a life, do you not consider it a life one day before it is born. I mean, it has all the same faculties that it does one day later. What magical occurance happens when it is born that makes it a life? But, this argument doesn't even pertain to this thread, I don't know why we continue to argue the morality of abortion. ALL I'M ARGUING FOR IS FOR INDIVIDUAL NATIONS TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES.

sys·tem·at·ic - 1. Of, characterized by, based on, or constituting a system.
2. Carried on using step-by-step procedures. 3. Purposefully regular; methodical.

Yes, sorry if I got emotional too. I would not presume to make women second-class citizens. I absolutely abhor any form of sexism and because I see the abortion issue as one of protecting infant rights, I do not see it as a sexist argument. Yet, I do recognize how it can be construed that way. I just feel that we should let individual nations decide for themselves.

And I can't see it as anything other than a sexism and women's rights issue, both in real life and in NS as well, and I feel it should be in the hands of the women, not the nations.

And I can't see it as anything other than a sexism and women's rights issue, both in real life and in NS as well, and I feel it should be in the hands of the women, not the nations.I respectfully disagree. So do other nations. Thus, why should your opinion, which is not truth (and nor is mine), be forced upon me?

sys·tem·at·ic - 1. Of, characterized by, based on, or constituting a system.
2. Carried on using step-by-step procedures. 3. Purposefully regular; methodical.

That would be my issue - 3. Purposefully regular.

That in no way describes abortion.

To put it in computer terms (cause that's how I can describe things best, even if no one else understands them) it's like this ----

A computer does certain things when it starts up, and every so often. It scans for viruses, it archives events and it does all this without user interaction. It does it on a regular basis at set times with a specific set of instructions and so forth.

That is what I would call systematic.

But also it does things with user interaction - opens files, browses websites and so forth. That is not systematic as there is no real rhyme nor reason to it - it happens as and when the user requires it.


Does that help explain why I find the description of "systematic killing of children" to be wrong?

I do not understand why I cannot tell a medical establishment that I will not allow them to perform abortions.

Because this resolution tells you you can't. You, as the government, may not move a finger when it comes to an abortion. Everyone that is not acting on behalf of a government can do whatever they want to prevent an abortion.

If the government feels it is an issue of protecting human rights, it is absolutely their duty to stop all abortions inside their nation.

I'm talking about legalities of current legislation.

I never dismissed the truth of the two weeks argument, however what I did say is that 95% of the time a woman is not going to get it confirmed that she is pregnant within the first two weeks.

Number one, she is not going to know two weeks into it she is pregnant, more like a month.

Yeah you did. You may have retracted it in further arguments or qualified it further in further arguments, but yes you did.

The right to life IS inherent I believe, and I believe the majority of member nations would agree with me. JUST BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUTH.

·her·ent Audio pronunciation of "inherent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.

Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.


in·trin·sic (n-trnzk, -sk)
adj.

1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.
2. Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.

This right is granted because governments believe it should be granted and protected, not because it exists by default. Ever notice how no government protects right to die? Because it IS there by default. As such, it is the only inherent right

You might feel it is a fundamental, mandatory, or all important right, but that doesn't make it inherent.

You are constantly presuming that your arguments are TRUTH. They are not. They are your opinion.

When I present an opinion, I state that it is an opinion. When I present a fact, I state it as such. Every single thing I've presented as fact IS fact because it is how this realm works. Don't believe me, why are you losing a legalities debate with 2 members of the UNOG and a forum regular with Cluichstan only supporting you on the principle of your resolution, but not agreeing or debating your arguments. His attacks, thus far, have been on debating style and when someone tries to bring up issue of fetus' life.

NOR DO I CONSIDER MY ARGUMENT TO BE TRUTH.

Actually, when it comes to legalities, you have told us we're wrong so yeah, you do think your arguments are the truth.

This covers your BELIEF on sex and inherent rights. Others think differently than you. Who knows who's right? But it is absolutely rude to presume that anyone is.

I presented to you the truth. Stop misusing the English language for connotative benefit and I will stop going after you about it. Stop making false statements about UN legalities and I will stop going after you about it. If its the truth, its fair game, and it then becomes a matter of opinion.

Opinion: I don't give a damn about NatSov.

That would be my issue - 3. Purposefully regular.

That in no way describes abortion.

To put it in computer terms (cause that's how I can describe things best, even if no one else understands them) it's like this ----

A computer does certain things when it starts up, and every so often. It scans for viruses, it archives events and it does all this without user interaction. It does it on a regular basis at set times with a specific set of instructions and so forth.

That is what I would call systematic.

But also it does things with user interaction - opens files, browses websites and so forth. That is not systematic as there is no real rhyme nor reason to it - it happens as and when the user requires it.


Does that help explain why I find the description of "systematic killing of children" to be wrong?
Not really since a hospital's performance of abortions is purposefully regular

I respectfully disagree. So do other nations. Thus, why should your opinion, which is not truth (and nor is mine), be forced upon me?

Honestly? Because you chose to join a voluntary organization that is governed by democratic, majority rule.

If it were soley my choice to ensure abortion was legal throughout the UN, and I was the only person to hold that position, then this would not even be discussed. But the majority spoke, and so it was thus. And until the majority speak again in the opposite direction, you either accept it, or you quit the UN and rule your country on your own.

That is the way it is. The majority in the UN is protecting the minority in every nation because it is the only thing that can in some of those nations.

I respectfully disagree. So do other nations. Thus, why should your opinion, which is not truth (and nor is mine), be forced upon me?

Yahtzee!

(OOC: Which, by the way, is the national game of Cluichstan.)

Not really since a hospital's performance of abortions is purposefully regular

What the hell is your definition of regular? Cause to me it means something that happens in a set pattern. And since I am pretty sure that hospitals don't go out and get women, drag them in and peform abortions on people just so they can keep to the pattern, I find a flaw in your logic.

Because this resolution tells you you can't. You, as the government, may not move a finger when it comes to an abortion. Everyone that is not acting on behalf of a government can do whatever they want to prevent an abortion.[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]

Um, what happens when that woman sues the doctor for not performing the abortion? Then it would be a government matter, wouldn't it.

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]Yeah you did. You may have retracted it in further arguments or qualified it further in further arguments, but yes you did.[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]
Show me where I did.



[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]This right is granted because governments believe it should be granted and protected, not because it exists by default. Ever notice how no government protects right to die? Because it IS there by default. As such, it is the only inherent right

You might feel it is a fundamental, mandatory, or all important right, but that doesn't make it inherent.[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]
I feel it is inherent. You may not, but again, why are you imposing your OPINION on me.


[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]When I present an opinion, I state that it is an opinion. When I present a fact, I state it as such. Every single thing I've presented as fact IS fact because it is how this realm works. Don't believe me, why are you losing a legalities debate with 2 members of the UNOG and a forum regular with Cluichstan only supporting you on the principle of your resolution, but not agreeing or debating your arguments. His attacks, thus far, have been on debating style and when someone tries to bring up issue of fetus' life.



Actually, when it comes to legalities, you have told us we're wrong so yeah, you do think your arguments are the truth.[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]

I have never told anyone that their opinion is false. Again, show me one time where I did this.

[QUOTE=Forgottenlands]I presented to you the truth. Stop misusing the English language for connotative benefit and I will stop going after you about it. Stop making false statements about UN legalities and I will stop going after you about it. If its the truth, its fair game, and it then becomes a matter of opinion.

Opinion: I don't give a damn about NatSov.Get some evidence before you present an argument like this.

Get some evidence before you present an argument like this.

What, do you not read the material I quote before you hit the "QUOTE THIS POST" button? I PRESENTED YOU WITH TWO DICTIONARY ENTRIES. READ THEM.

Honestly? Because you chose to join a voluntary organization that is governed by democratic, majority rule.

If it were soley my choice to ensure abortion was legal throughout the UN, and I was the only person to hold that position, then this would not even be discussed. But the majority spoke, and so it was thus. And until the majority speak again in the opposite direction, you either accept it, or you quit the UN and rule your country on your own.

That is the way it is. The majority in the UN is protecting the minority in every nation because it is the only thing that can in some of those nations.
Hence my James Madison quote. This argument has NO RIGHT ANSWER. Therefore, why impose one theory on a group who refuses to accept it.

What, do you not read the material I quote before you hit the "QUOTE THIS POST" button? I PRESENTED YOU WITH TWO DICTIONARY ENTRIES. READ THEM.
I'm talking about the alleged times I told people they were wrong

What the hell is your definition of regular? Cause to me it means something that happens in a set pattern. And since I am pretty sure that hospitals don't go out and get women, drag them in and peform abortions on people just so they can keep to the pattern, I find a flaw in your logic.
reg·u·lar - Customary, usual, or normal
yea, I would say a steady number of women coming in for abortions would fall under this definition.

Again, presumptions. I THINK IT IS SICK THAT YOU PRESUME I HAVE NO COMPASSION for that woman.


"....until logic or experience shows you otherwise"


Referring to your point about when it becomes a life, do you not consider it a life one day before it is born.


Debatable, but you are requing life to go back to one month after it is conceived, and there is no way that


I mean, it has all the same faculties that it does one day later.


at that point.


What magical occurance happens when it is born that makes it a life?


It becomes a seperate being capable of surviving on its own. But again - you are aruging for it to be back to one month, or even before, so why can you not remove it from the womb then and let it grow, if it is alive?


But, this argument doesn't even pertain to this thread, I don't know why we continue to argue the morality of abortion. ALL I'M ARGUING FOR IS FOR INDIVIDUAL NATIONS TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES.

Because it is all about morals (of one sort or another), and if you haven't understood that yet then you probably aren't going to.

And with that, Queen Lily is leaving the building, and the thread. Don't get me wrong - you haven't convinced me, beaten me or triumphed in anyway. It's just that you are totally and utterly wrong, and are never going to be convinced of that. Just as you think I am totally and utterly wrong and will never be convinced of it. And since I am not actually immortal, I am not going to waste the rest of my life arguing with someone who has such little regard for human life they can't even see that they are doing exactly what they are accusing the other side of doing. And yes - I am aware that you can say the same about me, which is the root of the problem.

Good night, and may the love of the goddesses go with you.

I respectfully disagree. So do other nations. Thus, why should your opinion, which is not truth (and nor is mine), be forced upon me?
Stop arguing semantics and answer this question.

"....until logic or experience shows you otherwise"



Debatable, but you are requing life to go back to one month after it is conceived, and there is no way that



at that point.



It becomes a seperate being capable of surviving on its own. But again - you are aruging for it to be back to one month, or even before, so why can you not remove it from the womb then and let it grow, if it is alive?



Because it is all about morals (of one sort or another), and if you haven't understood that yet then you probably aren't going to.

And with that, Queen Lily is leaving the building, and the thread. Don't get me wrong - you haven't convinced me, beaten me or triumphed in anyway. It's just that you are totally and utterly wrong, and are never going to be convinced of that. Just as you think I am totally and utterly wrong and will never be convinced of it. And since I am not actually immortal, I am not going to waste the rest of my life arguing with someone who has such little regard for human life they can't even see that they are doing exactly what they are accusing the other side of doing. And yes - I am aware that you can say the same about me, which is the root of the problem.

Good night, and may the love of the goddesses go with you.Again your pure ignorance and self-absorption disappoints me. You have in no way convinced me you are right, nor have you even come close. Furthermore, you are avoiding my argument and trying to argue the morality of abortion. I did not come here to argue that.

Posts:
92
100
106
116
119
123
125
126

There might be others. These are posts where you tell me I'm wrong in no fashion greater than I told you you were wrong. If you disagree, prove me wrong by posting which post number I went beyond that.

BTW, I just read the post where you used the term systematic killing. While I understand that at the denotative level, it isn't an issue, in the context used, it reads like extermination and I would actually consider it borderline flaming. You might want to watch your wording because that isn't the first time

The point is not contradictory. If a government sees it as a murder, that trumps the option to leave it up to the citizens.
In all nations I know of, murder trumps a citizen's rights to him or herself. That's #92

Stop arguing semantics and answer this question.

Because I believe it is a matter of the highest body of government since it is a matter of human rights, as such it should be handled by the UN. Seeing as a majority of members seem to agree with me on that matter, then my belief trumps yours.

I'd apologize, but I'm not sorry. I don't believe in NatSov

Actually, you have not disproven any of the technicalities. If the foetus is a life, it is then a CHILD and a HUMAN, which would then follow under the protection of children act and basis human rights act. You do not think sucking the brains out of one's skull is abuse (partial-birth abortion), I think that is a deranged way of thinking.
The word IF is the operative word in this quote, I am therefore in no way telling anyone they are right or wrong. That's #100

In all nations I know of, murder trumps a citizen's rights to him or herself. That's #92

Murder, IMO, is the unjustified revoking of a person's right to body. If it is unjustified, it's illegal. If its justified (generally because someone else's right to body is being infringed upon and this person's death is the only reasonable way to remove the infringement), then I consider it legal.

Because I believe it is a matter of the highest body of government since it is a matter of human rights, as such it should be handled by the UN. Seeing as a majority of members seem to agree with me on that matter, then my belief trumps yours.

I'd apologize, but I'm not sorry. I don't believe in NatSovSo you would argue that the Nazi majority trumped the sizeable minority in Nazi Germany who had moral oppositions to the Holocaust. I see.

The word IF is the operative word in this quote, I am therefore in no way telling anyone they are right or wrong. That's #100

The first sentance was telling me I was wrong. I'm not asking you to analyze what I gave you, I'm asking you to prove that any of my posts exceeded any of your posts in claiming you're wrong.

Murder, IMO, is the unjustified revoking of a person's right to body. If it is unjustified, it's illegal. If its justified (generally because someone else's right to body is being infringed upon and this person's death is the only reasonable way to remove the infringement), then I consider it legal.
IF I consider the foetus to be a life, then it is unjustified.

The first sentance was telling me I was wrong. I'm not asking you to analyze what I gave you, I'm asking you to prove that any of my posts exceeded any of your posts in claiming you're wrong.I am merely showing that there is no evidence to your claim that I ever told someone they were flat out wrong.

Out of context.
It was, it did not see its relevance to the conversation, all apologies to Gruenberg. That's 106

So you would argue that the Nazi majority trumped the sizeable minority in Nazi Germany who had moral oppositions to the Holocaust. I see.

No, because when you look at how the Nazi's got to power in Germany, they were not even the main party. They just got the governing party banned from the legislature and passed a dictator for life act. Even if that bomb was legitamitely the Communists, I would still say that the party had voting rights.

So, no.

That simply is not true, maybe for yours or any other anarchy. You apparently haven't read Hobbes, Locke, Weber, Socrates, etc. and are willing to throw their works out the window.
Key phrase there is "maybe for yours or any other anarchy." Thus, I never said they were completely wrong. 116

No, because when you look at how the Nazi's got to power in Germany, they were not even the main party. They just got the governing party banned from the legislature and passed a dictator for life act. Even if that bomb was legitamitely the Communists, I would still say that the party had voting rights.

So, no.But the Nazi's were the legitimate governing party, so it would matter then.

If a woman walks into one of your medical establishments in Gruenberg and demands an abortion, you MUST comply according to resolution #61.
That is what the resolution says. 119

Then you are violating international law.
Again, in reference to post 119, that is what the law states. You cannot argue that. 123

Again, I'm sure the U.N. would be happy to learn that you are violating its mandates.
Same deal as 119 and 123. 125

RIGHT EXACTLY, YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT! Thus, don't force it on anyone, leave it up to the individual governments to decide. And second, how is he not violating res. #61. YOU MUST PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR AN ABORTION.
Same thing as the 119, 123, and 125. 126, that is all the quotes you posted.

The English Union: you are wrong about these, I'm afraid. We're not violating international law.

But the Nazi's were the legitimate governing party, so it would matter then.

They weren't the legitimate governing party. They got the dictator for life thing passed on a technicality. That's not democracy, that's corruption. If they had a majority in parliment, or another party voted with them, then I would certainly consider it legitamite. I may not support them, I may flat out oppose them, but I would consider it a legitamite government.

Now, we get to holocaust. Seeing as Germany didn't answer to any other International Government, then yes, I consider it legit. I may not support it, I may fight against it, but it is legit. In the UN, if that happened, we have organizations meant to fight such an issue and as such, UN members answer to our genocide laws. If we didn't have genocide laws, I may not support such a nation, I may try to push in genocide laws, I may fight against such a nation, but I will acknowledge it as their right.

Honestly, I don't see what the heck you're going on about with that.

They weren't the legitimate governing party. They got the dictator for life thing passed on a technicality. That's not democracy, that's corruption. If they had a majority in parliment, or another party voted with them, then I would certainly consider it legitamite. I may not support them, I may flat out oppose them, but I would consider it a legitamite government.

Now, we get to holocaust. Seeing as Germany didn't answer to any other International Government, then yes, I consider it legit. I may not support it, I may fight against it, but it is legit. In the UN, if that happened, we have organizations meant to fight such an issue and as such, UN members answer to our genocide laws. If we didn't have genocide laws, I may not support such a nation, I may try to push in genocide laws, I may fight against such a nation, but I will acknowledge it as their right.

Honestly, I don't see what the heck you're going on about with that.
My friend, corruption, violence, intimidation are all forms of legitimization. So you thought the Holocaust was legitimate. I strongly disagree, and that is where you and I disagree and why you can't force this opinionated legislation down on anyone's throat.

The English Union: you are wrong about these, I'm afraid. We're not violating international law.
How are you not?

Understand, when I'm telling you things about legalities here, they are not opinions, they are facts. These are rules that we abide by as a community and have set down as a community and are how the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of UN law and legalities are based upon. You, a newcomer, are claiming you know more about this stuff than two UN Old Guard members. I am not presenting opinions, nor are those definitions from an English dictionary opinions, they are facts.

How are you not?

Because we are not interfering in that right. The doctor is interfering...not the government.

Understand, when I'm telling you things about legalities here, they are not opinions, they are facts. These are rules that we abide by as a community and have set down as a community and are how the ENTIRE STRUCTURE of UN law and legalities are based upon. You, a newcomer, are claiming you know more about this stuff than two UN Old Guard members. I am not presenting opinions, nor are those definitions from an English dictionary opinions, they are facts.I am in no way claiming I know more than either one of you. Again, I understand that it can, but I am arguing that it is not right in any way to force non-factual (it's opinionated, and thus non-factual) legislation down everyone's throats when a sizeable group disagrees with it?

My friend, corruption, violence, intimidation are all forms of legitimization. So you thought the Holocaust was legitimate. I strongly disagree, and that is where you and I disagree and why you can't force this opinionated legislation down on anyone's throat.

How is the holocaust anything but legitamite? A governing party who had the full right to do whatever they wanted as a dictatorship exercised that right. That's legitamite. I suggest you take a refresher course on what the term "legitamite" means.

BTW - STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME WHEN I ARGUE SEMANTICS. You have yet to put forth a single dictionary reference disproving any of my comments. You CAN'T ARGUE LEGALITIES BY USING A DICTIONARY YOU CREATED, AND IT'S NOT AN OPINION IF A DICTIONARY SAYS IT.

Stop making stupid arguments.

Because we are not interfering in that right. The doctor is interfering...not the government.
But what happens when that woman sues the doctor for not providing? It goes to the courts and then is a government matter in which the government, according to resolution #61 must allow for the abortion.

I am in no way claiming I know more than either one of you. Again, I understand that it can, but I am arguing that it is not right in any way to force non-factual (it's opinionated, and thus non-factual) legislation down everyone's throats when a sizeable group disagrees with it?

That's a NatSov argument. I'm talking about the actual effects of individual resolutions, why they don't contradict, etc. THOSE are not opinions.

But what happens when that woman sues the doctor for not providing? It goes to the courts and then is a government matter in which the government, according to resolution #61 must allow for the abortion.

If the doctor has a general right to refuse surgery for any reason he wants, then the doctor was fully within his rights to refuse the operation. The court can easily side with the doctor.

How is the holocaust anything but legitamite? A governing party who had the full right to do whatever they wanted as a dictatorship exercised that right. That's legitamite. I suggest you take a refresher course on what the term "legitamite" means.

BTW - STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME WHEN I ARGUE SEMANTICS. You have yet to put forth a single dictionary reference disproving any of my comments. You CAN'T ARGUE LEGALITIES BY USING A DICTIONARY YOU CREATED, AND IT'S NOT AN OPINION IF A DICTIONARY SAYS IT.

Stop making stupid arguments.
It's not a dictionary I created, it's dictionary.com first off. Second, why are you still arguing the morality of abortion with me. That is never what I wanted to argue about. FOR THE LAST TIME (and unfortunately I know it won't be) I am arguing for the decision to go to the individual nations.

If the doctor has a general right to refuse surgery for any reason he wants, then the doctor was fully within his rights to refuse the operation. The court can easily side with the doctor.
How? It's international law that he cannot interfere (refusing would be interfering) with that woman's right to an abortion.

Where did I last argue morality of abortion?

How? It's international law that he cannot interfere (refusing would be interfering) with that woman's right to an abortion.

No, it's international law that the government can't interfere

We keep going in circles here, no one has yet given me a good reason why the decision should be unwillingly forced onto other nations.

No, it's international law that the government can't interfere
Right, and the courts would then be part of the government.

How? It's international law that he cannot interfere (refusing would be interfering) with that woman's right to an abortion.

No, the resolution only applies to governments: 'no member nations'.

And, if you really want to make it a law in your country that doctors can't interfere, then just don't enforce it.

No, the resolution only applies to governments: 'no member nations'.

And, if you really want to make it a law in your country that doctors can't interfere, then just don't enforce it.
By not enforcing it would still be breaking the law. Hence my reference to Jim Crow practices.

By not enforcing it would still be breaking the law. Hence my reference to Jim Crow practices.

Jim Crow is irrelevant. We're talking about NSUN law, not RL law.

There is no precedence for non-enforcement being illegal.

Jim Crow is irrelevant. We're talking about NSUN law, not RL law.

There is no precedence for non-enforcement being illegal.
If I refuse to enforce a law, such as allowing my 13 year old son to do illegal drugs in my home, I am still liable to be prosecuted for breaking the law by not enforcing it.

I have already stated, I consider it FULLY legitamite for anyone to push their beliefs upon another nation. If you'll notice, I haven't had a single argument with you regarding that so far - aside from merely stating my opinion and explaining it further. Everything else has been about your false statements, arguments, terms, claims, etc - and those are the arguments I present as facts.

Sir, you have misrepresented 3 different terms, you have proven a failure to understand the legalities behind 3 different resolutions, you have disregarded probably half of the arguments levied against you, you have shown a blatant failure to understand medical practices, you have shown a blatant failure to understand the rules of legalities, you have shown a blatant failure to understand people's arguments, you have presented absolutely ludicrous examples, started off with a ridiculous piece of text, have flamed arguably twice, and have misrepresented the opposition's arguments multiple times.

I'm sorry, but at some point I must realize when one's personality makes them absolutely blind to everything around them and too arrogant to acknowledge their mistakes or realize a flawed understanding.

You are simply not worth my time.

If I refuse to enforce a law, such as allowing my 13 year old son to do illegal drugs in my home, I am still liable to be prosecuted for breaking the law by not enforcing it.

No drugs are currently banned by the UN. I cannot speculate on the nature of your national drugs laws.

I have already stated, I consider it FULLY legitamite for anyone to push their beliefs upon another nation. If you'll notice, I haven't had a single argument with you regarding that so far - aside from merely stating my opinion and explaining it further. Everything else has been about your false statements, arguments, terms, claims, etc - and those are the arguments I present as facts.

Sir, you have misrepresented 3 different terms, you have proven a failure to understand the legalities behind 3 different resolutions, you have disregarded probably half of the arguments levied against you, you have shown a blatant failure to understand medical practices, you have shown a blatant failure to understand the rules of legalities, you have shown a blatant failure to understand people's arguments, you have presented absolutely ludicrous examples, started off with a ridiculous piece of text, have flamed arguably twice, and have misrepresented the opposition's arguments multiple times.

I'm sorry, but at some point I must realize when one's personality makes them absolutely blind to everything around them and too arrogant to acknowledge their mistakes or realize a flawed understanding.

You are simply not worth my time.Why do you consider it legitimate. That is all I have wanted to argue about and why I have largely ignored many of the other irrelevant issues posed because they are IRRELEVANT. THEY HAVE NO REASON EVEN TO BE POSED IN THIS THREAD. And I must say that it is your unwillingness to even recognize my argument which makes you the ignorant and blinded one.

No drugs are currently banned by the UN. I cannot speculate on the nature of your national drugs laws.
I meant in the real world.

I meant in the real world.

NSUN law does not equate to RL law.

Why do you consider it legitimate. That is all I have wanted to argue about and why I have largely ignored many of the other irrelevant issues posed because they are IRRELEVANT. THEY HAVE NO REASON EVEN TO BE POSED IN THIS THREAD. And I must say that it is your unwillingness to even recognize my argument which makes you the ignorant and blinded one.

Oh, I fully recognize it. I don't agree with it. I made that quite clear early on.

I consider it legitamite because I don't believe Nations SHOULD have the right to revoke certain rights from their citizens. I believe in an International Government, and actually I believe the RL UN should become an International Government instead of an International Organization - if they could force membership.

Why do you consider it legitimate. That is all I have wanted to argue about and why I have largely ignored many of the other irrelevant issues posed because they are IRRELEVANT. THEY HAVE NO REASON EVEN TO BE POSED IN THIS THREAD. And I must say that it is your unwillingness to even recognize my argument which makes you the ignorant and blinded one.
Instead of name calling, why don't you come up with a logical argument to answer why you think the minority should be have the will of the majorityforced upon them if they believe it to be morally wrong.

Oh, I fully recognize it. I don't agree with it. I made that quite clear early on.

I consider it legitamite because I don't believe Nations SHOULD have the right to revoke certain rights from their citizens. I believe in an International Government, and actually I believe the RL UN should become an International Government instead of an International Organization - if they could force membership.
You do not believe that the government should revoke the right for citizens to murder the unborn, because that is what I see abortion as.

Instead of name calling, why don't you come up with a logical argument to answer why you think the minority should be have the will of the majorityforced upon them if they believe it to be morally wrong.

I've already answered that question. You just haven't been reading.

And I already knew that too.

You do not believe that the government should revoke the right for citizens to murder the unborn, because that is what I see abortion as.

And now we get into the murder argument - again, I revoked that one.

You do not believe that the government should revoke the right for citizens to murder the unborn, because that is what I see abortion as.
To make an equivalent situation, you do not think it legitimate to stop citizens from murdering certain members of society?

And now we get into the murder argument - again, I revoked that one.
You did, cause I still see it as murder.

To make an equivalent situation, you do not think it legitimate to stop citizens from murdering certain members of society?

Revoked that argument. That's the third one in a row that you failed to see.

You did, cause I still see it as murder.

Congrats. I don't care. You'll noticed that with exception to one post, I never brought up the issue of when life begins, because I made all my arguments based around the assumption that life begins at conception.

Interesting how that works.

Revoked that argument. That's the third one in a row that you failed to see.
How did you revoke it, I still see it that way, so...obviously you didn't revoke it.

Congrats. I don't care. You'll noticed that with exception to one post, I never brought up the issue of when life begins, because I made all my arguments based around the assumption that life begins at conception.

Interesting how that works.Obviously you didn't because then abortion would be murder, and obviously you have not said that once.

How did you revoke it, I still see it that way, so...obviously you didn't revoke it.

Ok, let me rephrase

When I say I revoked it, I stated what my opinion on the matter was and disproved that your great smear mark that is "IT IS MURDER" is not the end-all, be-all argument for the entire matter. You asked me about a hypothetical situation about standard homocide and how I could differentiate it from abortion. I did so, so I revoked your argument that I can't differentiate between them. Read through my arguments previously if you don't believe me.

This whole argument, and how we are getting nowhere shows in itself exactly why this decision should be up to the individual nations.