NationStates Jolt Archive

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

No, I have actually argued from the stance of "even if it is murder".

THIS is why you are worthy of my contempt.

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.
Please, repeat for me this supposed argument because I never saw it once. I mostly saw things about invented dictionaries.

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

SO STOP MAKING IT.

Leave Forgottenlands alone. You two are not going to agree; it is pointless. Forget murder, and everything else, and concentrate on a proposal that focuses on how practical is it for there to be a blanket legalisation of abortion.

No, I have actually argued from the stance of "even if it is murder".

THIS is why you are worthy of my contempt.
If it is murder, then how can you say the government can allow it.

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

Nope.

This whole argument is you misrepresenting my statements or asking questions I've already answered.

This whole argument and how we are getting nowhere shows in itself exactly why some people believe voters should be tested to prove they know the different positions of the candidates before they vote

SO STOP MAKING IT.

Leave Forgottenlands alone. You two are not going to agree; it is pointless. Forget murder, and everything else, and concentrate on a proposal that focuses on how practical is it for there to be a blanket legalisation of abortion.
What I have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

What I have been saying since the beginning of this thread.

Ok. So my suggestion? Don't respond to Forgottenlands. Just move on. It's not helping, and you're getting far too worked up. Ignore the argument; if you don't want to argue it, don't.

Nope.

This whole argument is you misrepresenting my statements or asking questions I've already answered.

This whole argument and how we are getting nowhere shows in itself exactly why some people believe IQ tests are needed for elections.
Um, let's see why this thread was started in the first place, how you started calling me names and I tried to defend myself and at the same time make an argument why arguing abortion was pointless and should be left up to the individual nations.

Please, repeat for me this supposed argument because I never saw it once. I mostly saw things about invented dictionaries.

If I thought you worth my time, I would.

Instead, I'll let you dig for it. Believe me, it is there.

Ok. So my suggestion? Don't respond to Forgottenlands. Just move on. It's not helping, and you're getting far too worked up. Ignore the argument; if you don't want to argue it, don't.
You're probably right, I have better things to do.

Well' I've looked and I have found numerous times where you say you think it's legitimate but not once where you said why.

Well' I've looked and I have found numerous times where you say you think it's legitimate but not once where you said why.

I'm talking about the ethnic minority post, not the Nazi debate

So, how about that local sports team?

I'm talking about the ethnic minority post, not the Nazi debate
I'm not talking about that question, I'm talking about the proposal. Why do you think the majority should force their OPINION onto the minority? I say they shouldn't and the decision should be left to each person.

So, how about that local sports team?
Just won the world series.

This thing has done wonders for my post count.

So where are we on the redraft?

This thing has done wonders for my post count.

So where are we on the redraft?
I think we are pretty far. I hope we will not have to continue this argument.

*snip*We do not understand the hysteria over this proposal. As we have already pointed out, this resolution does nothing. All it states is 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.That's all she wrote. The government cannot interfere with the "woman's right." It says nothing about the doctors. We can prosecute them for performing illegal medical procedures, while leaving the woman untouched. We can allow the woman's family members to sue the doctor for wrongful death, while leaving the woman untouched. We can heavily tax, regulate and impose all sorts of liability burdens for performing abortions, to the point that most doctors simply cannot afford to provide the option of abortion. All this, and the woman is still free to do whatever the hell she pleases. She still has the right to seek an abortion; it don't mean we have to protect the opportunity to have one. And she still has every right to traverse to another nation where abortions are easier to acquire.

So, in reality, this resolution does nothing but allow the UN majority to grandstand over reproductive "rights." And while we would prefer that such a law (no matter how ineffectual) not remain on the books, your behavior in this discussion makes it increasingly less likely that we will support this particular repeal.

Thank you.

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.Whatever you think you may have read "somewhere" is immaterial. The fact remains that you can choose whatever options you like even after relevant UN legislation has passed. The stats change is a one time deal. It only changes your stats once, leaving you to change it back via daily issues whenever you like. You can even avoid the stat change by resigning from the UN before a certain resolution is passed, and rejoining right after. Sounds like more trouble than it's worth to me, but it is an apparent option.

We do not understand the hysteria over this proposal. As we have already pointed out, this resolution does nothing. All it states is this:

That's all she wrote. The government cannot interfere with the "woman's right." It says nothing about the doctors. We can prosecute them for performing illegal medical procedures, while leaving the woman untouched. We can allow the woman's family members to sue the doctor for wrongful death, while leaving the woman untouched. We can heavily tax, regulate and impose all sorts of liability burdens for performing abortions, to the point that most doctors simply cannot afford to provide the option of abortion. All this, and the woman is still free to do whatever the hell she pleases. She still has the right to seek an abortion; it don't mean we have to protect the opportunity to have one. And she still has every right to traverse to another nation where abortions are easier to acquire.

So, in reality, this resolution does nothing but allow the UN majority to grandstand over reproductive "rights." And while we would prefer that such a law (no matter how ineffectual) not remain on the books, your behavior in this discussion makes it increasingly less likely that we will support this particular repeal.

Thank you.
And thank you. However, I am a little troubled by your post for some reasons. First, I do not quite understand your position on this issue. Two, why do you choose to see me as the bad guy? How have my arguments been any more intense than any of my opponents? I'm sorry that the thread may have got heated, but I get frustrated when people name-call and avoid my questions. Thirdly, your personal opinion of me should never interfere with the purpose of what issue you vote on.

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.

1. Member-state determination only exists where international legislation remains silent. So your argument is itself DE-BUGGED.

2. "But it is still possible that one can do that"... No, it is not, not by the wording of the resolution.

I'll post this arugment, till it makes it through the 50,000 kilometers of solid granite that tries to pass itself off as your skull...

[You're lucky I didn't bring up the blanket illegalities that were rife in your repeal]...

Again, I'm sure the U.N. would be happy to learn that you are violating its mandates.

No, he's not...

Let me show you something:

"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."

Several things this resolution does not say:

1. It mentions nothing about member-states actually facilitating abortion clinics, or any other type of medical location that may provide abortions.

2. It does not say doctors are forced to provide services to women seeking abortions. In fact, it does not mention doctors [or other such medical practitioners] anywhere in the document.

3. It does not say that any national government has to pay for abortion services.

So, if a state does not facilitate abortion clinics; it is not violating this resolution.

If a state does not prosecute doctors for refusing to perform elective surgeries [such as abortion], if they do not want to. So not prosecuting them for it, in no way places the state in violation of this resolution.

If a state does not pay for abortion services, it also is not violating any provision of this resolution.

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.

"NOT INTERFERE" means not interfereing... Not providing facilities, funds or such like is in no way "interference".... "Interfering" with a woman's right, as such in this, would be passing laws which either mandate, or create illegality over the medical procedure involved...

Law is explicit... You're creating an implicit interpretation, and "reading" into the text, something which is not there... You may think that not providing is a form of "interference"; however, no one else in here is forced to stipulate to your non-implicit interpretations, as only that which explicitly exists in the text, is necessary for us to act upon.

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.

What NSUN law specifically states that NSUN member-governments are required to compel private medical practitioners to perform elective surgeries upon patients? I want the Resolution Title, number, and full text of the specific part which mentions such explicit necesity.

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.

Comply with the letter of the law...

No letter of the law necessitates nations to fund the medical industry...

No letter of the law necessitates the punishment of doctors who refuse to perform elective surgeries....

They may be "interferance" by your implicit interpretations; but the NSUN does not make implicit interpretations, it can only make explicit ones. And providing no funds, and providing for no punishment upon doctors exercizing their rights, is in no way an explicit case of the NSUN government "interfering"... If the resolution wantes to include forcing doctors and mandating state funding; it needs to have mentioned such. Since it didn't, there isn't.

"NOT INTERFERE" means not interfereing... Not providing facilities, funds or such like is in no way "interference".... "Interfering" with a woman's right, as such in this, would be passing laws which either mandate, or create illegality over the medical procedure involved...

Law is explicit... You're creating an implicit interpretation, and "reading" into the text, something which is not there... You may think that not providing is a form of "interference"; however, no one else in here is forced to stipulate to your non-implicit interpretations, as only that which explicitly exists in the text, is necessary for us to act upon.What if I want to pass laws which illegalize abortion? According to the resolution now, no nation can do that.

No, he's not...

Let me show you something:

"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."

Several things this resolution does not say:

1. It mentions nothing about member-states actually facilitating abortion clinics, or any other type of medical location that may provide abortions.

2. It does not say doctors are forced to provide services to women seeking abortions. In fact, it does not mention doctors [or other such medical practitioners] anywhere in the document.

3. It does not say that any national government has to pay for abortion services.

So, if a state does not facilitate abortion clinics; it is not violating this resolution.

If a state does not prosecute doctors for refusing to perform elective surgeries [such as abortion], if they do not want to. So not prosecuting them for it, in no way places the state in violation of this resolution.

If a state does not pay for abortion services, it also is not violating any provision of this resolution.You are apparently not seeing the true content of my repeal. I want for nations to be able to illegalize it if they want, not just hinder it.

Isn't this going at cross purposes? I think The English Union has acknowledged his earlier comments were off; he's focussing his efforts on a repeal to allow nations to illegalise abortion. That's definitely something they can't do under Abortion Rights.

Isn't this going at cross purposes? I think The English Union has acknowledged his earlier comments were off; he's focussing his efforts on a repeal to allow nations to illegalise abortion. That's definitely something they can't do under Abortion Rights.
Thank you Gruenberg, and I would the English Union would now like to post its revised proposal for discussion:

RECOGNISING the intense divisiveness of the abortion issue,

REALISING that neither side of the argument can be proven as fact and thus, by definition, to take either side of the abortion issue is to take an opinion,

ACKNOWLEDGING the presence of a sizeable number of member nations who openly and indisputably oppose United Nations Resolution #61 for various reasons and wish to illegalise such an act within their state,

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

Namely, United Nations Resolution #61 is unjust as it imposes an opinionated decision onto member nations who are unwilling to allow such an act as abortion inside their own state as they deem the act to be immoral for various reasons. That some member nations see abortion as a severe act, it is only reasonable, then, to ban a resolution which compels the international community to allow such a deed, a deed which has no absolute ethical classification, while there are members of that community who have moral apprehensions pertaining to the performance of such a deed.

This repeal in no way bans abortion for any member nation, nor does it deem abortion to be an immoral or wicked act. Rather, it allows for each member nation to decide for themselves whether or not abortion should be performed in their own state rather than having that decision forced upon them.

RECOGNIZING the intense divisiveness of the abortion issue,

How about 'RECOGNISING that the morality of abortion is a hugely divisive issue'?

REALIZING that neither side of the argument can be proven as fact and thus, by definition, to take either side of the abortion issue is to take an opinion,

Interesting idea. However, I'm not sure this is worded as well as it could be. Maybe 'REALIZING that enforcement on an international level of one particular view constitutes a moral judgement'.

ACKNOWLEDGING the presence of a sizeable number of member nations who openly and indisputably oppose United Nations Resolution #61 for various reasons and wish to illegalize such an act within their state,

This isn't really enough, is it? Every resolution has its opponents. And not all opponents of Abortion Rights wish to illegalise abortion. Me, for example. Could you simply point to the fact that this is one of the closest resolutions, and hence the minority is especially sizeable? Perhaps link this with your first IC.

Namely, United Nations Resolution #61 is unjust as it imposes an opinionated decision onto member nations who are unwilling to allow such an act as abortion inside their own state as they deem the act to be immoral for various reasons. That some member nations see abortion as a severe act, it is only reasonable, then, to ban a resolution which compels the international community to allow such a deed, a deed which has no absolute ethical classification, while there are members of that community who have moral apprehensions pertaining to the performance of such a deed.

You're repeated yourself. Your introductory should spell out your case...you don't need to rehash them as an essay. I would suggest dropping this in its entirety as you have already said everything in it.

This repeal in no way bans abortion for any member nation, nor does it deem abortion to be an immoral or wicked act. Rather, it allows for each member nation to decide for themselves whether or not abortion should be performed in their own state rather than having that decision forced upon them.

'CONFIRMING that a repeal of Abortion Rights would not force any member nation to change its laws or policies regarding abortion' is a bit more succinct.

You could even try 'NOTING that the author of the repeal makes no comment on the morality of abortion'. Except you clearly do.

I still wouldn't support it in its present form. But it's looking more likely.

How about 'RECOGNISING that the morality of abortion is a hugely divisive issue'?



Interesting idea. However, I'm not sure this is worded as well as it could be. Maybe 'REALIZING that enforcement on an international level of one particular view constitutes a moral judgement'.



This isn't really enough, is it? Every resolution has its opponents. And not all opponents of Abortion Rights wish to illegalise abortion. Me, for example. Could you simply point to the fact that this is one of the closest resolutions, and hence the minority is especially sizeable? Perhaps link this with your first IC.



You're repeated yourself. Your introductory should spell out your case...you don't need to rehash them as an essay. I would suggest dropping this in its entirety as you have already said everything in it.



'CONFIRMING that a repeal of Abortion Rights would not force any member nation to change its laws or policies regarding abortion' is a bit more succinct.

You could even try 'NOTING that the author of the repeal makes no comment on the morality of abortion'. Except you clearly do.

I still wouldn't support it in its present form. But it's looking more likely.
Thank you for your suggestions. I will revise again and come back later.

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


This is why the UN should not legislate on laws pertaining to controversal moral arguments, and stick to widely accepted issues.

This is why the UN should not legislate on laws pertaining to controversal moral arguments, and stick to widely accepted issues.

What about non-controversial moral arguements?

And, forgive me if I am misquoting you, but you seem to be saying the UN should only legislate stuff on which everyone agrees? Cause there would be no laws passed at all then

Example :- Someone wants to repeal "Outlaw Pedophillia" on the grounds that it discriminates against children who willingly consent to sex, just for an example. And most people would think that you could get total agreement on banning child molestation, but apparently that isn't the case.

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

How qualified is a government to decide when an abortion is murder? You ask different people and you will have a range of differing answers, with the most extreme answers being from conception till pre-birth (with the majority of answers in between).

I'm not saying the UN is any more qualified to decide either - the fact this conversation has dragged for so long is a testiment to that. The people best qualified are the induvidual citizens. Sure governments and religons and other groups can influence that through education, but ultimately if someone thinks they are okay to have an abortion because they think it's legitimate, then there is a good chance they will ignore the law and get it done.

if this repeal was passed, I'd be looking to rewrite abortion once again, with some of these factors. Although I would not force governments to comply neccessarily.....I have a few ideas on a proposal I need to think through fully.

if this repeal was passed, I'd be looking to rewrite abortion once again, with some of these factors. Although I would not force governments to comply neccessarily.....I have a few ideas on a proposal I need to think through fully.

We'd be interested to hear about that. A concern is obviously that were Abortion Rights to be repealed, a stronger resolution might spring up in its stead. Were someone to produce a proposal that would guarantee that the decision regarding a complex moral issue was to be decided on the lowest possible level, then I'd be in favour of it.

We'd be interested to hear about that. A concern is obviously that were Abortion Rights to be repealed, a stronger resolution might spring up in its stead.

Thanks for the interest - at least while repeals were forbidden we never had to plough through old resolutions and try and improve them - we had a resolution and we didn't need to worry about have huge debates after something was decided. <sigh>

Don't get me wrong, I quite like having the chance to replace bad resolutions with good ones, but it's so depressing sometimes having to wade through old topics :)

Were someone to produce a proposal that would guarantee that the decision regarding a complex moral issue was to be decided on the lowest possible level, then I'd be in favour of it.

I suspect my lowest possible level would be too low for most - I'd rather the decision of abortions was taken by the induvidual. I'd give doctors the right to refuse to perform abortions, but would try and forbid from governments from arresting everyone who was involved in the process (although would not force governments to fund abortion clinics). At a minimum I'd like governments to allow citizens to travel to another country to get the process done, and also permit abortion on grounds of rape or medical grounds regardless.

I'd also urge governments to promote and endorse safe sex campaigns and education to try and cut down on unwanted pregnancies.

I've got to think how I'm going to express those thoughts in a proposal, but it's early days yet.

I still have the replacement Abortion Rights proposal that I wrote ages ago on my computer. If a repeal of the original ever passes, I fully intend to put it up and do the hard work required to get it passed.

Every woman has the right to bodily integrity and control over her own fertility. If that includes her getting an abortion, so be it. No state, in my opinion, has the right to poke its nose into a womans reproductive business, impose its own version of morality on her, and they certainly dont have any right to oppress half their population, no matter what the excuse.

I still have the replacement Abortion Rights proposal that I wrote ages ago on my computer. If a repeal of the original ever passes, I fully intend to put it up and do the hard work required to get it passed.

I would be interested in assisting on this project - I can't remember the text, but I do remember agreeing with the majority of it. I'd like to see it, suggest changes (although I doubt they are needed) and then work with you on a TG campaign.

Every woman has the right to bodily integrity and control over her own fertility. If that includes her getting an abortion, so be it. No state, in my opinion, has the right to poke its nose into a womans reproductive business, impose its own version of morality on her, and they certainly dont have any right to oppress half their population, no matter what the excuse. I don’t particularly think the UN has any more right to mandate upon it either, but if we do legislate on it within the UN, at least we are giving the freedom to the individual, which is the important thing rather than allowing the nation to deny them the freedom to choose.

Thanks for the interest - at least while repeals were forbidden we never had to plough through old resolutions and try and improve them - we had a resolution and we didn't need to worry about have huge debates after something was decided. <sigh>

Don't get me wrong, I quite like having the chance to replace bad resolutions with good ones, but it's so depressing sometimes having to wade through old topics :)

For a second there, I was getting scared that you were those who actually opposed making NSUN laws potentially "non" permanate..


I suspect my lowest possible level would be too low for most - I'd rather the decision of abortions was taken by the induvidual. I'd give doctors the right to refuse to perform abortions, but would try and forbid from governments from arresting everyone who was involved in the process (although would not force governments to fund abortion clinics). At a minimum I'd like governments to allow citizens to travel to another country to get the process done, and also permit abortion on grounds of rape or medical grounds regardless.

Agreed, I find it ironic that those arguing "lowest possible level" generally do not mean "lowest possible level"... Rather, their argument is to shift it to the "next-to-highest level"... Since the ARR itself sets the decision at the "lowest possible level" [the individual].[/QUOTE]

I would be interested in assisting on this project - I can't remember the text, but I do remember agreeing with the majority of it. I'd like to see it, suggest changes (although I doubt they are needed) and then work with you on a TG campaign.
It will only see the light of day if a repeal ever passes, but I will certainly welcome your input and assistance if I ever do need to drag it out of mothballs.

A post with the final replacement draft is here.
Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9577618&postcount=40)


I don’t particularly think the UN has any more right to mandate upon it either, but if we do legislate on it within the UN, at least we are giving the freedom to the individual, which is the important thing rather than allowing the nation to deny them the freedom to choose.
I don't think the UN should mandate it either, but do believe the UN does have the right to force states to place such a decision in the hands of the only person such a decision concerns. The pregnant woman.

You've just convinced me. I rescind my previous statements.

It will only see the light of day if a repeal ever passes, but I will certainly welcome your input and assistance if I ever do need to drag it out of mothballs.

A post with the final replacement draft is here.
Click Me (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9577618&postcount=40)

<copies URL into ever expanding notes folder>

Thanks, that might be useful in the future :) It looks good

I don't think the UN should mandate it either, but do believe the UN does have the right to force states to place such a decision in the hands of the only person such a decision concerns. The pregnant woman.It sounds like our objectives are virtually identical then.

What about non-controversial moral arguements?

And, forgive me if I am misquoting you, but you seem to be saying the UN should only legislate stuff on which everyone agrees? Cause there would be no laws passed at all then

Example :- Someone wants to repeal "Outlaw Pedophillia" on the grounds that it discriminates against children who willingly consent to sex, just for an example. And most people would think that you could get total agreement on banning child molestation, but apparently that isn't the case.

On child molestation and pedophillia you would get an overwhelming majority to ban it, but on issues like abortion the gap is much smaller. The UN is fine passing laws about the environment, and education, and civil rights such as slavery. Killing is a moral judgement which isn't controversial. Most people view murder as bad, and genocide is considered bad, but issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and uthenasia are all issues which i believe should be legislated on the National level and not the world level because there is such a wide range of oppinion on these issues. Until later down the road some scientific evidence or advancement might be made which will bring these issues to a more widely accepted point of view.

On child molestation and pedophillia you would get an overwhelming majority to ban it, but on issues like abortion the gap is much smaller. The UN is fine passing laws about the environment, and education, and civil rights such as slavery. Killing is a moral judgement which isn't controversial. Most people view murder as bad, and genocide is considered bad, but issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and uthenasia are all issues which i believe should be legislated on the National level and not the world level because there is such a wide range of oppinion on these issues. Until later down the road some scientific evidence or advancement might be made which will bring these issues to a more widely accepted point of view.

A lot of nations see the right to keep slaves as sacrosanct. A lot of people think that the UN has no business telling them how they run their education system. And a number of nations will tell you they oppose the genocide resolution not because they condone genocide, but because of the text of the resolution (it does not enforce the death penalty, it overides national sovereignty, it allows double jeopardy and so forth). A lot of people say the UN has no business interfering in the environment because each nation can run it's own affairs.

Some people say killing is bad, but some think it is necessary. People voted against the Eon Convention because it would not permit them to use genocide in self-defence. But EON actually enshrines that right in its wording - you can wipe out an entire species in self-defence if it is necessary. So if the UN has actually agreed to condone genocide in certain circumstances - which it has done by passing EON - then I think you will agree that your arguement about widely held morals is a pretty poor one.

You will not get any issue that does not generate some controversy - passing the Solar Panels resolution was, it appears, one of the most contraversial ones and that was on the environment - not even remotely related to death or murder.

The truth (as I see it, obviously) is that the UN can rule on, pass laws on and legislate on what ever it damn well pleases, as long as it has the will of the majority at the time the laws are being voted on. And just because some people think that it is okay to enslave a woman and force her to have kids against her will doesn't mean that that should actually be the case.

It was voted on, it passed and it has yet to see a repeal reach the floor of the house. So what does that tell you about the UN's (or its members) position on abortion?

On child molestation and pedophillia you would get an overwhelming majority to ban it, but on issues like abortion the gap is much smaller. The UN is fine passing laws about the environment, and education, and civil rights such as slavery. Killing is a moral judgement which isn't controversial. Most people view murder as bad, and genocide is considered bad, but issues such as abortion, the death penalty, and uthenasia are all issues which i believe should be legislated on the National level and not the world level because there is such a wide range of oppinion on these issues. Until later down the road some scientific evidence or advancement might be made which will bring these issues to a more widely accepted point of view.

Oh, I see, so we should just legislate when we get overwhelming majorities? What is an overwhelming majority? 70%? 80%? 90%? Please, give us a good number and a justification for it!

Perhaps we legislate on these matters because some nations will be infinitely obscenely backwards in their beliefs and level of advancement compared to those "more developed" societies. Why should we wait for other nations who remain scientifically and socially backwards to realize the failings of their ridiculous beliefs?

Perhaps we legislate on these matters because some nations will be infinitely obscenely backwards in their beliefs and level of advancement compared to those "more developed" societies. Why should we wait for other nations who remain scientifically and socially backwards to realize the failings of their ridiculous beliefs?

What gives you the ability to determine development of morality, when these cultures are clearly so different? And 'socially backwards' don't hold back your progression; why try to enforce your particular morals on them?

I hate to interrupt the Argument that Never Ends, but for a discussion worthy of the UN's consideration, come and check out the thread "Proposed: Free Trade Zone for the Automotive Industry".

You shan't be disappointed.


Steve Perry
President

I hate to interrupt the Argument that Never Ends, but for a discussion worthy of the UN's consideration, come and check out the thread "Proposed: Free Trade Zone for the Automotive Industry".

You shan't be disappointed.


Steve Perry
President

Please don't advertise an irrelevant proposal in other threads. Thank you.

What gives you the ability to determine development of morality, when these cultures are clearly so different? And 'socially backwards' don't hold back your progression; why try to enforce your particular morals on them?

The fun part is that "progressive" nations call nations that disagree with them "socially backwards" and the "socially backwards" nations call the other nations immoral. Funny how things like that works :D

What about non-controversial moral arguements?

And, forgive me if I am misquoting you, but you seem to be saying the UN should only legislate stuff on which everyone agrees? Cause there would be no laws passed at all then

Example :- Someone wants to repeal "Outlaw Pedophillia" on the grounds that it discriminates against children who willingly consent to sex, just for an example. And most people would think that you could get total agreement on banning child molestation, but apparently that isn't the case.
But there are certain arguments that can be made to show the immorality of pedophilia while no has or can yet come to a consensus on the morality of abortion.

How qualified is a government to decide when an abortion is murder? You ask different people and you will have a range of differing answers, with the most extreme answers being from conception till pre-birth (with the majority of answers in between).

I'm not saying the UN is any more qualified to decide either - the fact this conversation has dragged for so long is a testiment to that. The people best qualified are the induvidual citizens. Sure governments and religons and other groups can influence that through education, but ultimately if someone thinks they are okay to have an abortion because they think it's legitimate, then there is a good chance they will ignore the law and get it done.

if this repeal was passed, I'd be looking to rewrite abortion once again, with some of these factors. Although I would not force governments to comply neccessarily.....I have a few ideas on a proposal I need to think through fully.Well, I would say that someone has to make a final decision about the abortion issue, the buck has to stop somewhere. Individual national governments are much smaller and more set to their own nations then the U.N. is and so I would say that the decision should be left to them.

I still have the replacement Abortion Rights proposal that I wrote ages ago on my computer. If a repeal of the original ever passes, I fully intend to put it up and do the hard work required to get it passed.

Every woman has the right to bodily integrity and control over her own fertility. If that includes her getting an abortion, so be it. No state, in my opinion, has the right to poke its nose into a womans reproductive business, impose its own version of morality on her, and they certainly dont have any right to oppress half their population, no matter what the excuse.Not to get back into the morality of the abortion argument, but some nations would vehemently argue against that. That statement is one of opinion, which is why I believe you cannot impose it on nations, it just is unfair.

The fun part is that "progressive" nations call nations that disagree with them "socially backwards" and the "socially backwards" nations call the other nations immoral. Funny how things like that works :D

Ok, well, I'm not calling anyone names. But I do not understand why perceived social backwardness in one country is your concern, unless it directly affects you. The scientific point, presumably a reference to environmentalism, I can accept. But social structures and moral codes? Can't see why it matters.

Well, I would say that someone has to make a final decision about the abortion issue, the buck has to stop somewhere. Individual national governments are much smaller and more set to their own nations then the U.N. is and so I would say that the decision should be left to them.

If individual governments are much smaller and much more set to their own nations than the UN, wouldn't you agree that individuals are much smaller than governments, and much more set to their own needs than the governments would be?

If individual governments are much smaller and much more set to their own nations than the UN, wouldn't you agree that individuals are much smaller than governments, and much more set to their own needs than the governments would be?
Yes, but here is the argument against leaving it up to the citizens. Namely, if the government sees abortion as murder, why would they allow it in their state?

Next revision:
RECOGNISING the intense divisiveness of the abortion issue,

REALISING that neither side of the argument can be proven as fact, demonstrated by the passionate debate spurred by this issue, and thus, by definition, any international enforcement of either side of this issue would be the enforcement of an opinionated issue,

ACKNOWLEDGING the presence of a sizeable number of member nations who openly and indisputably oppose United Nations Resolution #61 for various reasons and wish to impose sanctions upon or illegalise such an act within their state,

The United Nations hereby declares #61 to be rendered null and void.

This repeal in no way bans abortion for any member nation, nor does it deem abortion to be an immoral or wicked act. Rather, it allows for each member nation to decide for themselves whether or not abortion should be performed in their own state rather than having that decision forced upon them.

Yes, but here is the argument against leaving it up to the citizens. Namely, if the government sees abortion as murder, why would they allow it in their state.

So really, you just want to enforce your own morals. It's not about the UN. I really wasted my time here.

Yes, but here is the argument against leaving it up to the citizens. Namely, if the government sees abortion as murder, why would they allow it in their state?

That would be my point - you decide to leave it up to the individual as to whether it is murder or not, not the government. Because surely the individual knows their own beliefs better than the government does?

The English Union: the replacements being suggested by Hirota and Waterana would be far more likely to impose restrictions on you. At present, Abortion Rights doesn't do much; if you don't like abortion, you're best leaving it in place.

So really, you just want to enforce your own morals. It's not about the UN. I really wasted my time here.

You didn't figure that out ten pages ago? I kind of already knew what his arguement was - there are very few people who would repeal abortion simply on the basis of national sovereignty alone (I am not saying there are none, just very few), and almost everyone who does want it repealed wants it so that they can ban it.

(Again - I am generalising, but like I said - there are some nations who do honestly think the principal of National Sovereignty is worth repealing it, but generally - not so much the case)

That would be my point - you decide to leave it up to the individual as to whether it is murder or not, not the government. Because surely the individual knows their own beliefs better than the government does?
That would not matter to a government who sees it as murder, hence my ethnic cleansing example, which I know does not completely address the situation fully. If a portion of the population does not see killing that ethnicity as murder but the government does, what should the government do? It should ban the ethnic killings.

I do not subscribe to a principle of national sovereignty. At times, he appeared to making a point about the way the UN enforces a moral code: insensitively. That clearly is not the issue, though. And, if you spotted all this ten pages ago, why are you still here?

That would not matter to a government who sees it as murder, hence my ethnic cleansing example, which I know does not completely address the situation fully. If a portion of the population does not see killing that ethnicity as murder but the government does, what should the government do? It should ban the ethnic killings.

So it goes back to whether the moment a sperm and an egg join together (well - in most cases that is the way it works. Not so much in my nation, but eh) is actually creating a life or just two cells that now work together.


Ok - give me an honest answer to these two questions, and I will leave you alone.

1) If this is repealed, do you intend to ban it?

2) If the resolution said "abortion is banned throughout the UN cause it's baby killing and wrong" would you be attempting to repeal it?

Ok, well, I'm not calling anyone names. But I do not understand why perceived social backwardness in one country is your concern, unless it directly affects you. The scientific point, presumably a reference to environmentalism, I can accept. But social structures and moral codes? Can't see why it matters.

Arguably, morality exists in every belief out there. Only pure facts are free from morality - and often that isn't true. If you talk about rights, values, beliefs, etc - it's all morality.

Even the concept of NatSov and International Federalism are based around morality. It matters a lot, and a lot more that we like to give credit to it.

I can't speak for him. But for me: 1. no, 2. yes.

Not to get back into the morality of the abortion argument, but some nations would vehemently argue against that. That statement is one of opinion, which is why I believe you cannot impose it on nations, it just is unfair.

But you don't seem to have problems with any national government imposing its opinions on their population?

Thats why I fully support, and will fight for, the right of the individual woman herself to be the only one who's opinions matter in the case of abortion. She knows within herself how she feels about the procedure and if its right for her or not, she is the only one who knows her own personal circumstances. A government knows nothing of this and therefore is not qualified to be making decisions on her behalf that she is quite capable of making herself.

I will do whatever I can to protect the right of all women, world wide, to have control over their own bodies and reproduction, no matter what their governments opinions on the subject. National soveringety be dammed, the human rights of individuals are way more important.

Arguably, morality exists in every belief out there. Only pure facts are free from morality - and often that isn't true. If you talk about rights, values, beliefs, etc - it's all morality.

Even the concept of NatSov and International Federalism are based around morality. It matters a lot, and a lot more that we like to give credit to it.

I do not subscribe to a universal view of morality, but a relativist one. I strongly suspect we will not agree on this, so I won't labour it.

Not to get back into the morality of the abortion argument, but some nations would vehemently argue against that. That statement is one of opinion, which is why I believe you cannot impose it on nations, it just is unfair.

*bets it will pass with a comfortable majority

I can't speak for him. But for me: 1. no, 2. yes.

I kind of figured you would say that. I am more interested in those who want the repeal :}

I do not subscribe to a universal view of morality, but a relativist one. I strongly suspect we will not agree on this, so I won't labour it.

Actually, I suspect we already do. I was not really stating my opinions - but it is an interesting argument, and one that shouldn't be ignored. The original post you noted was, in fact, coming from that position. I'm uncertain whether it conveys my beliefs (originally I didn't think so, but then I had to think about it)

So it goes back to whether the moment a sperm and an egg join together (well - in most cases that is the way it works. Not so much in my nation, but eh) is actually creating a life or just two cells that now work together.


Ok - give me an honest answer to these two questions, and I will leave you alone.

1) If this is repealed, do you intend to ban it?

2) If the resolution said "abortion is banned throughout the UN cause it's baby killing and wrong" would you be attempting to repeal it?
You don't have to leave me alone, you are posing good arguments. In answer to your queries:
1. I am not going to lie, I am going to ban abortion within my nation.
2. I am not going to lie here either, if the resolution banned abortion I would probably not be trying to ban it because I am a selfish person. However, if a proposal had come up trying to give the decision back to the nations, I would fully support it. I realize now that if a repeal came in banning abortion and it was passed, I would use all my power to try to repeal any such act that woudl fully ban abortion over the international community.

*bets it will pass with a comfortable majority
Actually to tell the truth I do not think it will pass under any circumstances. Honestly, I am about 75% okay with the present resolution as it is because it leaves the decision up to the individual citizen. However, I am making this proposal more for the principle of the matter.

Actually to tell the truth I do not think it will pass under any circumstances. Honestly, I am about 75% okay with the present resolution as it is because it leaves the decision up to the individual citizen. However, I am making this proposal more for the principle of the matter.

I'm talking about Waterana's replacement

You don't have to leave me alone, you are posing good arguments.

(smirk)



In answer to your queries:
1. I am not going to lie, I am going to ban abortion within my nation.
2. I am not going to lie here either, if the resolution banned abortion I would probably not be trying to ban it because I am a selfish person.


And you feel comfortable enforcing your will, your judgement and your morals on the rest of your nation, regardless of how the actual people of your nation feel about it?


However, if a proposal had come up trying to give the decision back to the nations, I would fully support it. I realize now that if a repeal came in banning abortion and it was passed, I would use all my power to try to repeal any such act that woudl fully ban abortion over the international community.

See - this is the main reason I don't want this repeal. Not because I fear the nations will ban abortion - I am pretty much resigned to that - but that a proposal will come up and pass to ban abortion throughout the UN. There have been such proposals in the past, and proposals come up all the time about this. They are all declared invalid because of the current resolution protecting the right in all nations, but once you remove that protection.....

I fear what would happen if the repeal went through, and as such I will do everything in my power to stop it.

See - this is the main reason I don't want this repeal. Not because I fear the nations will ban abortion - I am pretty much resigned to that - but that a proposal will come up and pass to ban abortion throughout the UN. There have been such proposals in the past, and proposals come up all the time about this. They are all declared invalid because of the current resolution protecting the right in all nations, but once you remove that protection.....

I fear what would happen if the repeal went through, and as such I will do everything in my power to stop it.My government shares the position of our kindred member state, and hopes Waterana's draft beats any pro-life legislation.

(smirk)




And you feel comfortable enforcing your will, your judgement and your morals on the rest of your nation, regardless of how the actual people of your nation feel about it?



See - this is the main reason I don't want this repeal. Not because I fear the nations will ban abortion - I am pretty much resigned to that - but that a proposal will come up and pass to ban abortion throughout the UN. There have been such proposals in the past, and proposals come up all the time about this. They are all declared invalid because of the current resolution protecting the right in all nations, but once you remove that protection.....

I fear what would happen if the repeal went through, and as such I will do everything in my power to stop it.Yes, I would agree with you and I would do everything in my power to prevent an international ban although I would disagree with your statement that the current resolution is such a strong protection against one such ban.

Yes, I would agree with you and I would do everything in my power to prevent an international ban although I would disagree with your statement that the current resolution is such a strong protection against one such ban.

That takes the cake.....

It will prevent such a ban because the moderators have set up rules that explicitly make it impossible to duplicate or contradict passed resolutions. Oh, yes, that would mean that any attempt to actually ban abortion shall be struck down by the gods before it reaches the floor of the UN. No, it'll work quite nicely for protecting against bans of abortion.

But you don't seem to have problems with any national government imposing its opinions on their population?

Thats why I fully support, and will fight for, the right of the individual woman herself to be the only one who's opinions matter in the case of abortion. She knows within herself how she feels about the procedure and if its right for her or not, she is the only one who knows her own personal circumstances. A government knows nothing of this and therefore is not qualified to be making decisions on her behalf that she is quite capable of making herself.

I will do whatever I can to protect the right of all women, world wide, to have control over their own bodies and reproduction, no matter what their governments opinions on the subject. National soveringety be dammed, the human rights of individuals are way more important.

What about the rights of the unborn baby? Why must the unborn baby be killed because the woman was stupid and can't own up to her mistakes (except in times of rape, and medical emergencys which are very rare). As science advances we can grow babies outside of the whomb, when does life start. The UN should protect the unborn baby, the voiceless victim, not the person who is irresponsible.

What about the rights of the unborn baby? Why must the unborn baby be killed because the woman was stupid and can't own up to her mistakes (except in times of rape, and medical emergencys which are very rare). As science advances we can grow babies outside of the whomb, when does life start. The UN should protect the unborn baby, the voiceless victim, not the person who is irresponsible.

1. It's impossible for the UN to agree on when a foetus can be considered alive. But whilst we are not the best qualified, neither are governments. So I feel the right to decide comes down to the other person involved (the mother).

2. In high-tech sci-fi nations they will obviously be more advanced than a prehistoric nation and more likely to be able to support a premature birth. Science does not advance at a universal rate in NS

3. As for being irresponsible - a woman can take all the precautions, and still get pregnant. With the exception of abstinance of course. To label all women with unplanned pregnancies irresponsible is failing to consider the broad spectrum of scenarios.

1. It's impossible for the UN to agree on when a foetus can be considered alive. But whilst we are not the best qualified, neither are governments. So I feel the right to decide comes down to the other person involved (the mother).


And I would like to add that while the UN might not agree on the life of the foetus, I think everyone can be pretty much sure that the woman carrying it is alive :}

What about the rights of the unborn baby? Why must the unborn baby be killed because the woman was stupid and can't own up to her mistakes (except in times of rape, and medical emergencys which are very rare). As science advances we can grow babies outside of the whomb, when does life start. The UN should protect the unborn baby, the voiceless victim, not the person who is irresponsible.

I love the way all the blame is being put on the woman here. Unless it was an immaculate conception, she is only half responsible. What about the male involved. If you expect a woman to be saddled with a child she doesn't want as punishment for daring to have sex, then what happens to him, castration?

Until that foetus can survive independantly of the woman, its just a parasite dependant on her for its very existance and in that cirucmstance, she, the existing born person, has priority over it, an unborn potential person. If you want to make the parasite a priority over the woman carrying it then you are opening a whole different can of worms.

The UN protects human rights. As an unborn foetus isn't yet a person, it has no rights to protect. The born existing woman does.

I love the way all the blame is being put on the woman here. Unless it was an immaculate conception, she is only half responsible. What about the male involved. If you expect a woman to be saddled with a child she doesn't want as punishment for daring to have sex, then what happens to him, castration?

Until that foetus can survive independantly of the woman, its just a parasite dependant on her for its very existance and in that cirucmstance, she, the existing born person, has priority over it, an unborn potential person. If you want to make the parasite a priority over the woman carrying it then you are opening a whole different can of worms.

The UN protects human rights. As an unborn foetus isn't yet a person, it has no rights to protect. The born existing woman does.


1. I would mention the guy, but since he has no rights or say on whether or not an abortion should take place, he will be left out of the argument

2. A new born baby can not survive without care outside the woman. Some babys can now be grown outside a person completely in a dish. Because the scientific difference in nations, the legislation should be enacted by the nation itself.

3. That all depends on your definition of a person. There is no universial definition of a person.

1. I would mention the guy, but since he has no rights or say on whether or not an abortion should take place, he will be left out of the argument
The man is half responsible for the pregnacy happening in the first place. If the woman is going to be slagged off, then punished for having sex and getting pregnant by being forced by her government to carry the child to term, then he should be equally punished too. It takes two to start a pregnacy. Thats another thing right to lifers seem to forget. While the woman makes the abortion decision, the man makes half the problem she has to make the decision to solve. He's just as much to blame for the abortion as the woman is, because he's just as much to blame for the pregnacy.

Amazing how it seems that its ok for the male to just walk away from the whole thing with a smile on his face. I wonder how many abortions preformed are the result of the male bullying the woman into it because he doesn't want to be saddled with a kid or child support?

2. A new born baby can not survive without care outside the woman. Some babys can now be grown outside a person completely in a dish. Because the scientific difference in nations, the legislation should be enacted by the nation itself.
A new born baby can be cared for by anyone. Its not totally dependant on the woman carrying it for everything it needs to survive being delivered to it through a tube. A new born can breath on its own and swallow on its own. It is its own independant person, not just an extension of the womans body.

I suspect nations capable of the above are few and far between.

The only reason most opponants of this resolution want it repealed is because they want to ban abortion in their nations and send their female population back to the dark ages, pure and simple.

3. That all depends on your definition of a person. There is no universial definition of a person.
I am a person. You are a person. Everyone else typing away on this site is an independant, thinking, living, breathing person. A foetus, incapable of survival outside the womb isn't yet a person. It may become one, hence my way of calling a foetus a potential person, but until it is capable of independant survival outside the body its attached to and living off, it doesn't qualify.

The man is half responsible for the pregnacy happening in the first place. If the woman is going to be slagged off, then punished for having sex and getting pregnant by being forced by her government to carry the child to term, then he should be equally punished too. It takes two to start a pregnacy. Thats another thing right to lifers seem to forget. While the woman makes the abortion decision, the man makes half the problem she has to make the decision to solve. He's just as much to blame for the abortion as the woman is, because he's just as much to blame for the pregnacy.

Amazing how it seems that its ok for the male to just walk away from the whole thing with a smile on his face. I wonder how many abortions preformed are the result of the male bullying the woman into it because he doesn't want to be saddled with a kid or child support?


A new born baby can be cared for by anyone. Its not totally dependant on the woman carrying it for everything it needs to survive being delivered to it through a tube. A new born can breath on its own and swallow on its own. It is its own independant person, not just an extension of the womans body.

I suspect nations capable of the above are few and far between.

The only reason most opponants of this resolution want it repealed is because they want to ban abortion in their nations and send their female population back to the dark ages, pure and simple.


I am a person. You are a person. Everyone else typing away on this site is an independant, thinking, living, breathing person. A foetus, incapable of survival outside the womb isn't yet a person. It may become one, hence my way of calling a foetus a potential person, but until it is capable of independant survival outside the body its attached to and living off, it doesn't qualify.

1. If a man gets a woman pregnant and she wants an abortion, but he wants to take care of the baby then it doesnt matter because she can get an abortion without his consent. Untill he is given equal rights over the abortion, he stays out of the argument. If you want to let him have a say over the abortion then by all means pass a law, and we can enter him into the argument.

2. Many nations are advanced in stem cell research and many nations are developing the technology to clone human beings. Nations will be able to grow babies in a petry dish. It varies among nations where the earliest age a child can survive outside the womb. How can we legislate on something in which the whole world varies so much on.

3. When a baby is born pre-mature and can only live hooked up to machines for a couple of weeks to help it breathe and take in food, is it not a person? Can we kill it say a week after being on life support, before it is fully capable of living on its own?

Ok, I'll concede the point about the male involvement and stop bringing it up. I guess its just another part of this whole issue we disagree about :).

The current resolution only says nations cannot interfere with a womans right to have an abortion if she wants one. It doesn't say the foetus must be delivered dead.

If nations have the technology to remove a feotus and grow it in a dish, there is nothing in the resolution that would interfere in any way with them doing that. I can't see why those nations would care about the resolution because it wouldn't apply to them.

They would be a minority however. There are many, many more nations that don't have the ability to do that, and the basic right of women in those nations to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies, reproduction and fertility must be protected from intrusive, controlling, interfering governments.

I'm increasingly coming round to believing the current resolution is about the best one anti-choice nations can hope to get. It doesn't obligate any nation or any doctor to do anything. It forces governments to implicitly condone a moral decision...but that's really it. The only people I can see wanting to repeal it now are ardent anti-lifers who want to spread their message. So I'm not going to get involved in a repeal of this one.

3. When a baby is born pre-mature and can only live hooked up to machines for a couple of weeks to help it breathe and take in food, is it not a person? Can we kill it say a week after being on life support, before it is fully capable of living on its own?

I missed this point in my last post so will answer it now.

This arguement is just plain silly. Of course a born premature baby is a person, just as an adult attached to life giving machines in an intensive care unit is a person. There is a heck of a big difference between a foetus living off someone elses body and a born infant needing outside assistance to survive.

Aren't y'all done with this yet? Ambassadors are trying to sleep in here.:cool:

We have changed our position on Abortion Rights. Our Creative UN Solutions Agency has advised us that we could drive a bigrig through all the loopholes in the standing resolution, and that repealing it may well result in all them nifty loopholes being slammed shut.

We oppose the repeal of Resolution #61.

I missed this point in my last post so will answer it now.

This arguement is just plain silly. Of course a born premature baby is a person, just as an adult attached to life giving machines in an intensive care unit is a person. There is a heck of a big difference between a foetus living off someone elses body and a born infant needing outside assistance to survive.I have a slightly different opinion on these matters - there is no rule on how long a premature can stay on life support, but these things need to be put into context. A few weeks or whatever is fine, but if we have someone who needs to survive on these things indefinately, then further thought needs to be put into the matter. Moreover, the primary consideration has to be quality of life for the induvidual.

However, none of this has anything to do with abortion.

Aren't y'all done with this yet? Ambassadors are trying to sleep in here.:cool:
May I recommend the UNSC debate?

I missed this point in my last post so will answer it now.

This arguement is just plain silly. Of course a born premature baby is a person, just as an adult attached to life giving machines in an intensive care unit is a person. There is a heck of a big difference between a foetus living off someone elses body and a born infant needing outside assistance to survive.

Why do we consider the foetus a baby (person) if it is outside the womb but on intensive life support for 2-3 weeks, but not a baby(person) if at that same period it is in the womb, on natures life support.

Why do we consider the foetus a baby (person) if it is outside the womb but on intensive life support for 2-3 weeks, but not a baby(person) if at that same period it is in the womb, on natures life support.

Because it is dependant upon another sole human being. The baby/fetus on an incubator can be cared for by any one of a number of health care professionals. The baby in the womb can only be cared for by that woman.

That's the difference.

Why do we consider the foetus a baby (person) if it is outside the womb but on intensive life support for 2-3 weeks, but not a baby(person) if at that same period it is in the womb, on natures life support.

Because the two different situations are as different as chalk and cheese. A woman isn't a machine. I know some right to lifers see a female as little more than an incubator but believe it or not she isn't one.

Once a child leaves the womb, whether its premature or not, its a born human being and has all the rights and protection of any other human being, be they 10 mins old or 100 years.

The womb isn't owned by the foetus, its owned by the woman who's anatomy it is a part of and the choice of whether to share it or not is hers, and hers alone.

I think its time I bowed out of this debate. We have both made our positions perfectly clear, we won't change each others minds and to be honest I think the debate is getting into silly arguements now ;).

It was great to debate this subject with you though. I haven't had this much fun on the UN forum for ages, thanks :).

Because the two different situations are as different as chalk and cheese. A woman isn't a machine. I know some right to lifers see a female as little more than an incubator but believe it or not she isn't one.

Once a child leaves the womb, whether its premature or not, its a born human being and has all the rights and protection of any other human being, be they 10 mins old or 100 years.
The womb isn't owned by the foetus, its owned by the woman who's anatomy it is a part of and the choice of whether to share it or not is hers, and hers alone.

I think its time I bowed out of this debate. We have both made our positions perfectly clear, we won't change each others minds and to be honest I think the debate is getting into silly arguements now ;).

It was great to debate this subject with you though. I haven't had this much fun on the UN forum for ages, thanks :).

Please don't leave yet...you are making good points and i am taking them into consideration, but i have a few more questions to ask you...lets have a socratic dialogue...According to what i bolded it seems that you consider a feotus to be a human being once it leaves the womb whether premature or not. Does that mean that you could abort a child all the way up to birth. Lets say, could a doctor (with the mothers permission) hours before the baby is born, abort the baby? I just want to make sure that this is how you want to define a human being.

Please don't leave yet...you are making good points and i am taking them into consideration, but i have a few more questions to ask you...lets have a socratic dialogue...According to what i bolded it seems that you consider a feotus to be a human being once it leaves the womb whether premature or not. Does that mean that you could abort a child all the way up to birth. Lets say, could a doctor (with the mothers permission) hours before the baby is born, abort the baby? I just want to make sure that this is how you want to define a human being.

Ok, I'll answer, but as this has taken a turn from a UN discussion to something that belongs more in the general forum (in my opinion), I'll be brief :).

In my opinion, a person is a legal human being (as in has rights) from the minute he/she takes his/her first independant breath. Whether the baby does it by itself, or by respirator. Think about it. We celebrate and judge our age from birthdays, not conception or viable days.

I cannot imagine why any woman would want a viable late term child aborted, as in killed. I also can't imagine any doctor agreeing to performing such an operation unless it was essential for the health of the mother. As I've said in other threads, if a woman has gone 7 or 8 months, if not more, into her pregnacy, then its pretty obvious she wants the child.

No, I don't think viable foetus's should be killed unless removing them alive would endanger the mother. Removed from the womb if the mother wants it to be yes, but by induced labor or ceaserian section.

So much for being brief :D.

Ok, I'll answer, but as this has taken a turn from a UN discussion to something that belongs more in the general forum (in my opinion), I'll be brief :).

In my opinion, a person is a legal human being (as in has rights) from the minute he/she takes his/her first independant breath. Whether the baby does it by itself, or by respirator. Think about it. We celebrate and judge our age from birthdays, not conception or viable days.

I cannot imagine why any woman would want a viable late term child aborted, as in killed. I also can't imagine any doctor agreeing to performing such an operation unless it was essential for the health of the mother. As I've said in other threads, if a woman has gone 7 or 8 months, if not more, into her pregnacy, then its pretty obvious she wants the child.

No, I don't think viable foetus's should be killed unless removing them alive would endanger the mother. Removed from the womb if the mother wants it to be yes, but by induced labor or ceaserian section.

So much for being brief :D.

1. Is a breathe independent even though it is being caused by a respirator?

2. Not all cultures celebrate birthdays.

3. A woman can go through 7 or 8 months of her pregnancy, and find out in the last month that the kid will be retarded or have some sort of disease, and because of that she decides at the last minute that she doesn't want to take care of the baby. There can even be a father present, and together they don't want a sick baby, so because it is legal, they have a late term abortion.


4. So do you encourage babies to be removed in abortions (if scientifically possible in the nation) and grown somewhere else, and kept alive. Even if the mother doesn't want it?

1. Is a breathe independent even though it is being caused by a respirator?
The oxygen is entering the childs lungs which are inflating and deflating with each breath, not being delivered via a tube in the abdomen and directly entering the bloodstream bypassing the lungs which don't work until the child is born and takes its first breath, whether on its own or with outside assistance, so yes, its an independant breath.

2. Not all cultures celebrate birthdays.
True, but I've never heard of any western culture that celebrates conception day. A child is considered part of society at and after its birth, not while its in the womb.

3. A woman can go through 7 or 8 months of her pregnancy, and find out in the last month that the kid will be retarded or have some sort of disease, and because of that she decides at the last minute that she doesn't want to take care of the baby. There can even be a father present, and together they don't want a sick baby, so because it is legal, they have a late term abortion.
The scenario you have presented here is a very, very rare event. I know some anti-abortion groups like to spread false information that late term abortion is common, but thats just not true. In most of these sort of cases, the woman has the child normally, then gives it up for adoption. I simply cannot believe women or doctors would just kill a viable foetus on a whim.

As I've said before the current Abortion Rights resolution simply states a woman can't be denied one. It doesn't say the child has to be delivered dead.

Having said that though, its up to the parents, in consultation with their doctor to decide the best course for not only themselves, but the child as well. If the choice is an abortion that results in a dead baby, or a deformed child that has only a short time to live, in pain, with no quality of life and who will never leave the hospital, which would you choose?

4. So do you encourage babies to be removed in abortions (if scientifically possible in the nation) and grown somewhere else, and kept alive. Even if the mother doesn't want it?
If thats technologically possible, by all means yes, as long as the removal operation doesn't endanger the womans health. I do doubt there are many nations in NS that have the technology to do that though.

I support a womans rights to control what does and doesn't use her womb. That doesn't mean I want all the removed foetus's dead. If a foetus can be transplanted elsewhere or delivered alive, then of course that is preferable to killing it. At the moment though my nation is one of those that doesn't have that sort of transplantation technology.

The scenario you have presented here is a very, very rare event. I know some anti-abortion groups like to spread false information that late term abortion is common, but thats just not true. In most of these sort of cases, the woman has the child normally, then gives it up for adoption. I simply cannot believe women or doctors would just kill a viable foetus on a whim.

As I've said before the current Abortion Rights resolution simply states a woman can't be denied one. It doesn't say the child has to be delivered dead.

Having said that though, its up to the parents, in consultation with their doctor to decide the best course for not only themselves, but the child as well. If the choice is an abortion that results in a dead baby, or a deformed child that has only a short time to live, in pain, with no quality of life and who will never leave the hospital, which would you choose?


If thats technologically possible, by all means yes, as long as the removal operation doesn't endanger the womans health. I do doubt there are many nations in NS that have the technology to do that though.

I support a womans rights to control what does and doesn't use her womb. That doesn't mean I want all the removed foetus's dead. If a foetus can be transplanted elsewhere or delivered alive, then of course that is preferable to killing it. At the moment though my nation is one of those that doesn't have that sort of transplantation technology.

I never said that the scenerio i stated is common, but it does happen. Like you said, the resolution doesnt force but allows with no restrictions. So, in fact, a woman could technically get an abortion up to the last minute of birth, and i garuntee you there will be doctors that would do it for money. That scenerio is just as rare as getting raped. The People of Burn1Love also believe that there should be set limits on the amount of abortions. Our proposal is: The first abortion is taxed 10 percent, the second one is taxed 20 percent and the third one is 30 percent. No abortions after the third (unless a medical emoergency or cases of rape or incest). The money from the texes will then be spent on sex education and awareness, to help lower unwanted pregnancies, and also help stop the spread of STD's. Minors should need legal consent before abortions, because the fact that they are legally still under control of their parents, and finally there should be limits set on when an abortion may take place. For example, no abortions during the third trimester (except for medical emergencies)

I Our proposal is: The first abortion is taxed 10 percent, the second one is taxed 20 percent and the third one is 30 percent. No abortions after the third (unless a medical emoergency or cases of rape or incest).

That is, by far and away, the sickest and most repulsive idea I have ever heard.

I never said that the scenerio i stated is common, but it does happen. Like you said, the resolution doesnt force but allows with no restrictions. So, in fact, a woman could technically get an abortion up to the last minute of birth, and i garuntee you there will be doctors that would do it for money. That scenerio is just as rare as getting raped. The People of Burn1Love also believe that there should be set limits on the amount of abortions. Our proposal is: The first abortion is taxed 10 percent, the second one is taxed 20 percent and the third one is 30 percent. No abortions after the third (unless a medical emoergency or cases of rape or incest). The money from the texes will then be spent on sex education and awareness, to help lower unwanted pregnancies, and also help stop the spread of STD's. Minors should need legal consent before abortions, because the fact that they are legally still under control of their parents, and finally there should be limits set on when an abortion may take place. For example, no abortions during the third trimester (except for medical emergencies)
If in a very rare instance a woman wants a late term abortion, for whatever reason, then that is a decision between her and her doctor. If she owns her womb at 8 weeks of pregnacy, then she also owns it at 8 months. Again, there is no reason the child has to be delivered dead at that late stage. If doctors in your nation are doing late term abortions, and killing the foetus, for money, then maybe thats something you should sort out yourself.

You want the UN to force nations to tax women, in effect punish them, for having abortions? I doubt this will fly with the majority of nations. In fact under the two passed tax resolutions, I'm not sure you can do it.

Banning abortions after the third certainly won't fly. Our nation keeps no records of who has had abortions or how many. Its none of our business. We do keep generic numbers for satistic puposes but no information that could identify the woman concerned is included, nor are doctors forced to give such information. We believe our citizens have a right to medical privacy. You want us to violate that too.

If a minor is old enough to give consent to sex, then she is old enough to make her own decisions concerning abortion. We don't see any reason to involve parents unless the girl wants them included. Again, she is the patient and has a right to medical privacy.

If in a very rare instance a woman wants a late term abortion, for whatever reason, then that is a decision between her and her doctor. If she owns her womb at 8 weeks of pregnacy, then she also owns it at 8 months. Again, there is no reason the child has to be delivered dead at that late stage. If doctors in your nation are doing late term abortions, and killing the foetus, for money, then maybe thats something you should sort out yourself.

You want the UN to force nations to tax women, in effect punish them, for having abortions? I doubt this will fly with the majority of nations. In fact under the two passed tax resolutions, I'm not sure you can do it.

Banning abortions after the third certainly won't fly. Our nation keeps no records of who has had abortions or how many. Its none of our business. We do keep generic numbers for satistic puposes but no information that could identify the woman concerned is included, nor are doctors forced to give such information. We believe our citizens have a right to medical privacy. You want us to violate that too.

If a minor is old enough to give consent to sex, then she is old enough to make her own decisions concerning abortion. We don't see any reason to involve parents unless the girl wants them included. Again, she is the patient and has a right to medical privacy.

Is a minor old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions on her own. If she is still under the legal and financial responsibility of her parents then her parents should be responsible for her abortion too.

Is a minor old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions on her own. If she is still under the legal and financial responsibility of her parents then her parents should be responsible for her abortion too.

Burn1Love, we live in a world where some people want to have children and for whom it's very difficult to have some; a good friend of mine had 2 miscarriage and an already-dead born baby in 3 years.

And many others people get pregnant without desiring it.

Nature is unfair with all these people, and embryos in womb don't qualify as humans

Is a minor old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions on her own. If she is still under the legal and financial responsibility of her parents then her parents should be responsible for her abortion too.

We aren't talking 12 year olds here, not in my nation anyway. The age of sexual consent in Waterana is 15. We think a 15, 16 and 17 year old is quite capable of making their own medical decisions. They are considered old enough and responsible enough to make the decision to consent to sex. Of course they are old enough to decide what to do about an unwanted pregnacy.

If you want parents to have the last word, then you not only open the door to parents stopping their girl aborting, but also open the door to them demanding their pregnant girls have abortions whether the girl wants one or not.

A doctors first responsibility is to his/her patient, not a parent/guardian and anything discussed ect between a doctor and patient is confidential and should remain so.

Is a minor old enough and responsible enough to make those decisions on her own. If she is still under the legal and financial responsibility of her parents then her parents should be responsible for her abortion too.

And if the parents are responsible for the fact she needs one? Should they be involved then?

And if the parents are responsible for the fact she needs one? Should they be involved then?

Yes, they should be. Ultimately, in most cases the parents will be the ones financially supporting the baby. A 15-17 year old girl could not get an education, work and take care of her baby. If her parents want her to have an abortion then they will sign a waiver and she will have one, but if they don't want her to have one then they won't sign it and will help take care of the baby. As legal guardians they are responsible for all her actions. If they pay for her, then they have some say in what she does. Personally, I don't think 15-17 year olds should be having sex due to the fact that they wouldn't be able to care for a baby, but I realize that we have no control over that, so at least let the parents know their underage daughter is having sex, and making mistakes.


*edit* After re-reading your statement, I think you are talking about cases of incest. Of course in that situation there should be an exemption, and there would also be an exemption if it is a medical emergency, but those cases are vary rare compared to the other reasons for abortion.

Yes, they should be. Ultimately, in most cases the parents will be the ones financially supporting the baby. A 15-17 year old girl could not get an education, work and take care of her baby. If her parents want her to have an abortion then they will sign a waiver and she will have one, but if they don't want her to have one then they won't sign it and will help take care of the baby. As legal guardians they are responsible for all her actions. If they pay for her, then they have some say in what she does. Personally, I don't think 15-17 year olds should be having sex due to the fact that they wouldn't be able to care for a baby, but I realize that we have no control over that, so at least let the parents know their underage daughter is having sex, and making mistakes.


The kid is not their slave. The kid at 15-17 is their own person, not an extention of them. Just cause tehy are legal guardians doesn't give them the right to invade her privacy.

Should they be involved? Of course. But if the girl has a reason not to involve them, then ultimately it is her decision


*edit* After re-reading your statement, I think you are talking about cases of incest. Of course in that situation there should be an exemption, and there would also be an exemption if it is a medical emergency, but those cases are vary rare compared to the other reasons for abortion.


(smirk) at least you re-read it :}

And your arguement that these cases are rare invalidates the rest of it - all a girl would need to do would be to say "my daddy did it" and she would qualify.

Further more there might be other reasons she doesn't want her parents involved. Supposing her daddy has a gun, and has been known to have a temper sometimes. She tells her daddy she's knocked up by her boyfriend (even though they both agree to have an abortion) and the next thing you know, Daddy is lose with the gun shooting at the boyfriend.

So - is tha tsomething you want on your concience? The death of a teenager who just made a mistake? Or does he deserve to pay for the mistakes he has made as well?

Yes, they should be. Ultimately, in most cases the parents will be the ones financially supporting the baby. A 15-17 year old girl could not get an education, work and take care of her baby. If her parents want her to have an abortion then they will sign a waiver and she will have one, but if they don't want her to have one then they won't sign it and will help take care of the baby. As legal guardians they are responsible for all her actions. If they pay for her, then they have some say in what she does. Personally, I don't think 15-17 year olds should be having sex due to the fact that they wouldn't be able to care for a baby, but I realize that we have no control over that, so at least let the parents know their underage daughter is having sex, and making mistakes.

Umm, not all nations have paid by the custome health care. We have universal health care that is free to and covers all citizens. We also have a very good welfare system. No parent in our nation would have to pay for the abortion, or pay to raise the child. I think you are insulting 15 - 17 year olds by stating they can't look after a child. Many can and do it very well.

No parent should have the right to force a girl to have a child against her will, anymore that a nations government should. I don't know what family structure is like in your nation, but in ours, parents don't "own" their children. They support, teach and guide them but thats it. If parents have total control over their older teens, then they would also be allowed to demand their girls be given sterilisation procedures ect as well. It falls under the same umbrella.

This is not the General Forum.