NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I submitted this some time ago, and it probably won't pass this time as I have lost the urge for campaigning... BUT. If anyone has any ideas on how this can be improved, speak your mind.

SqR

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

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

Argument: Recognising that from the moment of conception, the resulting product of a male and female human can henceforth develop into nothing other than... human.

Extending that recognition to realize that at conception, a fetus of a human, is human.

Proud of the fact that the UN goes to great lengths to protect itself from conflicting resolutions.

Concerned that that the abortion rights resolution is a clear violation of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, which appeared on the scene before Abortion Rights was passed.

Declaring that the Abortion Rights resolution blatantly argues with the UBHR.

*Taken directly from the NSUN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights-
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Let it come to the UN body's attention that these two resolutions are in conflict, and one or the other must go. Let it be here proposed that the resolution that is repealed should be the weaker of the two.

Ok, I submitted this some time ago, and it probably won't pass this time as I have lost the urge for campaigning... BUT. If anyone has any ideas on how this can be improved, speak your mind.

SqR

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

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

Argument: Recognising that from the moment of conception, the resulting product of a male and female human can henceforth develop into nothing other than... human.

Extending that recognition to realize that at conception, a fetus of a human, is human.

Proud of the fact that the UN goes to great lengths to protect itself from conflicting resolutions.

Concerned that that the abortion rights resolution is a clear violation of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, which appeared on the scene before Abortion Rights was passed.

Declaring that the Abortion Rights resolution blatantly argues with the UBHR.

*Taken directly from the NSUN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights-
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Let it come to the UN body's attention that these two resolutions are in conflict, and one or the other must go. Let it be here proposed that the resolution that is repealed should be the weaker of the two.The premise is faulty by presuming that a foetus is human not all foetus do develop into humans <insert generic horror stories of blobs of biological matter etc etc>

There have been many posts on here which demonstrate that a foetus is not human, but has more in common with a virus or parasite.

Plus I disagree that abortion rights conflicts with UBHR.

The devout people of Wyldtree agree that life begins at the moment of conception, but considering the lack of consensus on the subject it is unlikely to pass. None the less I would support this repeal and hope for the best.

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

Argument: Recognising that from the moment of conception, the resulting product of a male and female human can henceforth develop into nothing other than... human.
Can it not? I suggest you Google the word 'miscarriage'.

Extending that recognition to realize that at conception, a fetus of a human, is human.
That is a pretty large extension. One that is not proven or believed universally. Those who do believe it are free to act upon this belief. By not having an abortion themselves.

Proud of the fact that the UN goes to great lengths to protect itself from conflicting resolutions.
Oh Lord.

Concerned that that the abortion rights resolution is a clear violation of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, which appeared on the scene before Abortion Rights was passed.

Declaring that the Abortion Rights resolution blatantly argues with the UBHR. And you'll notice it wasn't declared illegal at the time. I'm not suggesting, of course, that it will not be illegal now, only that you may want to get a moderator opinion on the matter.

*Taken directly from the NSUN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights-
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Let it come to the UN body's attention that these two resolutions are in conflict, and one or the other must go. Let it be here proposed that the resolution that is repealed should be the weaker of the two.
Let it here be said that you disagree with abortion being protected at an international level. Why make it sound anything other than it is.

You have yet to prove that a foetus qualifies as human, you have only stated that it may eventually.

As we believe that a woman's right to control her own body is more important than any 'potential' and that every child should be wanted you will not have our support. However, if you plan to submit this, I suggest that you tighten up your argument.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

Can it not? I suggest you Google the word 'miscarriage'.Technically, that would not be full development, and thus does not render his statement inaccurate.

But s/he doesn't say 'full development' s/he sayd Recognising that from the moment of conception, the resulting product of a male and female human can henceforth develop into nothing other than... human.

And it can develop into something other than human, or rather may not develop into a human at all.

And of course you can't forget the genetic experimentation in the womb and exposure to radioactive material that makes my species… Sorry, think I was channelled by DLE for a bit there. Moving on.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Sugar-filled New World

I concur with my gloriously gothic fellow ambassador.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The United Nations,

Recognising that sperm cells can develop into nothing other than a human being;

Extending that recognition to realize that sperm is human;

Bans Male Masturbation.

The United Nations,

Recognising that sperm cells can develop into nothing other than a human being;

Extending that recognition to realize that sperm is human;

Bans Male Masturbation.

I'll refrain from singing a Monthy Python song here (and for that, I'm sure you all thank me) and point out that the best basis for a repeal of this resolution is the disagreement over whether or not the fetus is, in fact, a human being.

I cannot agree with a resolution repealing abortion rights, regardless of whether or not it can be concluded that human life begins at conception or not.

Abortion Rights is a flawed resolution on so many levels. It reduces an immensely important cultural decision to a bland, sweeping sentence. Even some fairly ardent anti-sovereigntists, I'd suggest, recognise that in the case of this, and euthanasia, and little else, this approach isn't appropriate. It places no restrictions on the abortion, so late-stage abortions would be legal. For those who support abortion, it doesn't really do anything: it doesn't require any doctor to perform an operation or be punished for refusing to do so, it requires no facilities or funding for abortion clinics, no counselling, no advice before or after, it puts the nation under no obligation to prosecute people who forcibly prevent women from having abortions or who beat those who do have abortions. It doesn't even define 'abortion'. It is the worst possible kind of resolution: in many way 'well-intentioned', but which in practice says to the mother "well, at least you have a right now, doesn't that feel good?" and leaves her holding a coat-hanger and a blanket.

And this shit is all you can come up with to repeal it?

Still I don’t believe the best way to fix the problems of the resolution is to repeal it on the grounds that a foetus is a human being.

Edit: I have a plan.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

We would support a repeal on NatSov grounds. In the abortion debate, both sides have a legitimate claim to be defending human rights. The UN has no business legislating on such an issue, independently of our personal stances.

We look forward to divine intervention on this matter.

We would support a repeal on NatSov grounds. In the abortion debate, both sides have a legitimate claim to be defending human rights. The UN has no business legislating on such an issue, independently of our personal stances.

We look forward to divine intervention on this matter.The only reason my government would ever support a repeal of this proposal is to bring another into it's place which is better written and prohibits third term trimester abortions except under medical grounds.

Otherwise, my government feels that promoting personal soverignty over national soverignty in this case is throughly justified.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
I am the anti-fluff

The only reason my government would ever support a repeal of this proposal is to bring another into it's place which is better written and prohibits third term trimester abortions except under medical grounds.

Otherwise, my government feels that promoting personal soverignty over national soverignty in this case is throughly justified.
Although we agree with most of what you said I can not see the value of banning third trimester abortion.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Although we agree with most of what you said I can not see the value of banning third trimester abortion.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The reason we feel it should be banned it because by the third trimester, the foetus is viable to survive outside of the womb as an indivdual being. :)

Of course, they normally need a little assistance from modern medicine, so I suppose it would not cater for low-tech nations. As a compromise, we would suggest permitting first and second trimester abortions, and leave third trimester abortions to nations.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5876/hirota8gp.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
I am the anti-fluff

The only reason my government would ever support a repeal of this proposal is to bring another into it's place which is better written and prohibits third term trimester abortions except under medical grounds.

Otherwise, my government feels that promoting personal soverignty over national soverignty in this case is throughly justified.

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Who's personal sovereignty are you protecting? In the case of the resolution in question, clearly the mother's. But what of those nations in which the fetus is also viewed as a person. Should not the fetus then be protected as well? It then becomes an issue of deciding as to the rights of which "person" takes priority, and that is a decision this body should not be making for member states.

The reason we feel it should be banned it because by the third trimester, the foetus is viable to survive outside of the womb as an indivdual being. :)
And yet it doesn't.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

There is nothing in existing UN law preventing a state from designating a foetus as a person, even as a citizen, with rights. We may think it foolish to do so, but I'm not sure that's our call. My problem with SqR's repeal is it is equally repellant for them to force on us that a foetus is a person.

On one level Tzorsland supports a repeal. We feel that abortion is a moral wrong and a moral evil. On the other hand this repeal has, given the natural tendencies of the UN, no chance of passage. Once repealed there is no assurance an even worse abortion rights resolution would be passed in its wake.

The question of what is a fetus is more of a moral question than a scientifc one. Viability is in and of itself a nonsense argument. People with kidney failure are technically not viable without technological assistance.

The question of miscarriage is also a non issue. People die. This is a fact of life for those yet to be born and those who are already born. Consider the problem of SIDS for people who have been recently been born. Yes this is now for many nations no longer a problem, but it still points that the weak nature of people is no excuse in and of itself for the denial of rights.

But once again this is generally moot becuase it is doubtful a repeal would pass. If passed it is doubtful a better resolution would be crafted. This issue is so polarized that the people in the "happy medium" have all died from sniper attacks from both sides.

One last point. The every sperm is sacred is a nonsense argument to begin with on every level and no person who supports a right to life from conception believes in it. We know that not all sperm are designed to impregnate eggs. Some sperm are designed to keep other sperm from impregnating eggs. (Yes men are so distrusting even their own sperm are conserned with infidelity.) :eek:

Ah, but therein lies the rub. Who's personal sovereignty are you protecting? In the case of the resolution in question, clearly the mother's. But what of those nations in which the fetus is also viewed as a person. Should not the fetus then be protected as well? It then becomes an issue of deciding as to the rights of which "person" takes priority, and that is a decision this body should not be making for member states.I don't think member states are any more qualified to make that decision either - leave it down to the parents and doctors to make that decision, just don't put them in prison when they do.And yet it doesn't.<frowns>I'm not sure what you mean.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/GTT-member.png (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)
I am the anti-fluff

Even if it could survive outside the womb without medical intervention it is still inside. Still affecting the woman. And when it does come out what happens then? It's still unwanted.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

One last point. The every sperm is sacred is a nonsense argument to begin with on every level and no person who supports a right to life from conception believes in it. We know that not all sperm are designed to impregnate eggs. Some sperm are designed to keep other sperm from impregnating eggs. (Yes men are so distrusting even their own sperm are conserned with infidelity.) :eek:

You are wrong. There are people who condemn masturbation on the grounds of not leading to reproduction. Which pretty much rests on similar arguments to this proposal.

Also, your argument is disturbing. You are saying "nobody believes every sperm is sacred, because some of the sperm is not reproductive"? Then you would rephrase it to "some sperm is sacred"...

EDIT: Thinking about it, I should have added contraception to masturbation.[/threadjack]

[/threadjack]
Probably a good idea all round.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

And when it does come out what happens then? It's still unwanted.

Then it could be put up for adoption...
Presumably you wouldn't approve of allowing parents to kill their children, at any point between birth & the age of majority, if they no longer want them?

Then it could be put up for adoption...
Presumably you wouldn't approve of allowing parents to kill their children, at any point between birth & the age of majority, if they no longer want them?
Yes, that would be why I'm not talking about a child or anything capable of rationality or self-awareness.

I'm perfectly aware that it could be placed up for adoption however I would much prefer that every child that is born is wanted and no woman is put through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Yes, that would be why I'm not talking about a child or anything capable of rationality or self-awareness.

I'm perfectly aware that it could be placed up for adoption however I would much prefer that every child that is born is wanted and no woman is put through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

(Don't worry. I'll show you a way to stove in its head with a rock and make it look like cot death.)

(Don't worry. I'll show you a way to stove in its head with a rock and make it look like cot death.)
OOC: I know this comment is awful, tasteless and highly offensive to many, many people. But I just laughed so hard I was in danger of peeing myself.

Pah. Abortion. I like Hirota's suggestion of enshrining abortion rights for first and second trimesters and leaving the third semester open. That said, I'm not much bothered either way with regards to this repeal. The subject bores me nowadays, at least in relation to NSUN affairs.

I don't think member states are any more qualified to make that decision either - leave it down to the parents and doctors to make that decision, just don't put them in prison when they do.

But if individual nations aren't qualified to make that decision, how is it possibly logical to presume that this international body can or even should?

because by legalising it at this level, we give the choice to the people best placed to make such a choice. Just because it is legal to have an abortion does not mean that the populace will have abortions, merely that they have the choice to make themselves.

because by legalising it at this level, we give the choice to the people best placed to make such a choice. Just because it is legal to have an abortion does not mean that the populace will have abortions, merely that they have the choice to make themselves.

But in doing so, you are effectively making the decision regarding whether or not the fetus is a human being, a decision this austere body should not be making.

But in doing so, you are effectively making the decision regarding whether or not the fetus is a human being, a decision this austere body should not be making.So all we are arguing about is why this should be made legal then?
If we said the decision about if a foetus is a human being or not should be left to the indivdual and not the UN or member states, would that be acceptable?

So all we are arguing about is why this should be made legal then?
If we said the decision about if a foetus is a human being or not should be left to the indivdual and not the UN or member states, would that be acceptable?

Frankly, the UN should not be legislating on this issue at all.

Abortions help to limit the number of uncontrolled variables in any country. I would think that any leader would appreciate that and the benefits provided by the termination of an unwanted fetus in a carefully controlled environment.
My government will not back any attempts to repeal the Abortion Rights resolution and we will fight any attempts to do so.

I'm going to weigh in and agree completely with Gruenburg's first statement. Trying to do a NatSov argument as a sole hope has failed miserably every single time thus far (Kenny's been beaten for that on both of his repeals). Obviously, any argument saying yes or no the fetus is alive or not is hopelessly flawed and not only is it doomed, it SHOULD be doomed - especially since a large portion of the NatSov crowd will probably look at it and go "this still violates my National Sovereignty, because if the first statement is true, then UHR is forcing me to ban abortion" (of course, this is completely false due to the requirement that you can't legislate in a repeal, but you get my point).

But the resolution has a bullseye painted so big on it that the Martians are targetting their rockets at it without any special equipment. Personally, I would much rather see Waterana's replacement be enshrined into UN law, but she was seeing so much opposition to it, she had enough votes from people sending her TGs saying "please don't do this, there's too much at stake" to reach quarom.

Regarding the 'every sperm is sacred' arguement... a sperm is not comparable to a fertilized egg and forward in the development. The sperm is only half the equation. Past that all the elements of life are in effect and the full blueprint of human development is intact.

Something could go wrong in the development and cause a miscarriage, etc but that if is hardly a justification for those who terminate the pregnancy based on it being a 'mistake'. The miscarriage arguement is really only valid as far as a doctor having reason to believe the pregnancy will fail and could be damaging to the mother. So that arguement could only be used in abortion being approved for limited scenarios.

On the note of the repeal and the sovereign arguement... it is more of a valid one than the life/human rights one as that's really impossible to prove either way to satisfy everyone. I realize it has failed before, but it is the stronger arguement of the two.

Personally I don't think the UN should be involved in this issue at all. I said before that Wyldtree would support this based on our own widely held religious beliefs, but we would not seek to press them on other countries by having a resolution banning Abortion either. This sort of legislation bears such cultural and religious significance that it really should be decided by the countries themselves through their own government channels. On behalf of Wyldtree I will support most any Abortion rights repeal to let countries deal with this issue on their own terms. Banning abortion outright through the UN seems to me like overstepping the line and something that could encourage some countries not to join at all based on their cultural & religious beliefs.

Regarding the 'every sperm is sacred' arguement... a sperm is not comparable to a fertilized egg and forward in the development. The sperm is only half the equation. Past that all the elements of life are in effect and the full blueprint of human development is intact.

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a convincing argument?

After the fertilization, the fetus requires something like 5-6 months using current technology (perhaps more) before it is able to sustain itself without being permanently connected to another organism. By accepted scientific standards, it's something like 7 weeks before the baby shows the FIRST sign of life. The piece of flesh that's on the ground there has DNA, but we don't call it alive, nor do we call the blood in our veins alive so it's hard to argue that a 4 cell organism is necessarily alive because it has the formula for the greater picture.

So how can you draw the line in the sand at conception and say that's any more valid than the sperm? It's more valid to you, just as my belief that when the baby is able to sustain itself without the mother is when life begins. I remember one member suggested that the life of a person didn't begin until they were no longer dependant upon another human being (effectively, until they become an adult).

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a convincing argument?
It's a fact relating to the sperm bit having little to do with the abortion one. I didn't try to argue banning abortion on that basis. Quite the contrary if you read my full statement.

After the fertilization, the fetus requires something like 5-6 months using current technology (perhaps more) before it is able to sustain itself without being permanently connected to another organism. By accepted scientific standards, it's something like 7 weeks before the baby shows the FIRST sign of life. The piece of flesh that's on the ground there has DNA, but we don't call it alive, nor do we call the blood in our veins alive so it's hard to argue that a 4 cell organism is necessarily alive because it has the formula for the greater picture.
There are varying definitions on what constitutes the moment of life. Everyone knows that. My only point was that sperm is wholey acknowledged as not being life in and of itself where as the arguement can be made for a fertilized egg and forward. They're just not the same and I found the sperm is sacred bit coming up silly.

So how can you draw the line in the sand at conception and say that's any more valid than the sperm?
See above. Life is already being generated. It will become a human barring mishaps.

It's more valid to you, just as my belief that when the baby is able to sustain itself without the mother is when life begins. I remember one member suggested that the life of a person didn't begin until they were no longer dependant upon another human being (effectively, until they become an adult).
As I said. The moment as to when life begins is up for grabs. It is simply my reglious belief that life begins at conception. I am not trying to press that upon you. All I said is for the very reason of the different culturual, religious, and scientific perspectives that this should be handled on a national level.

I can say right now that I will not approve this proposal, let alone vote for it if it meets quorum. Our country is devoutly athiest and believes in pro-choice but does not allow late term abortions (3rd Trimester) due to research that shows the fetus may feel pain. That being said though, the "Abortion Rights" resolution is a poor one in itself and the only way I would support a repeal would be with a one two punch that, once the repeal passes, a new, much stronger resolution is brought forward by the same authors. Seeing as that is most likely not going to happen (unless someone would like to sit down with me and start one) I will deal with what we've got for now and protect "Abortion Rights" on our principles.

Here's the Deal (caps definately needed):

I will concede a woman's right to abortion, MY right to abortion, if the UN will support a proposal that state-sponsored child care be mandatory in every member nation, and that governmental and economic support for mothers and families beneath a specific economic level be increased so that every child and family is guaranteed a competitive education, access to clean, affordable, safe housing and care facilities, access to free or affordable healthcare, and affordable access to other facilities and resources necessary for a healthy and productive life.

I believe that this trade-off, if not fair to the woman, would ensure that children born to families who are unprepared will at least be provided for by the society that dictated they must be born simply because they were conceived.

As most nations would not concede to such requirements abortion is a necessary, if dirty, fact of life.

The United Nations,

Recognising that sperm cells can develop into nothing other than a human being;

Extending that recognition to realize that sperm is human;

Bans Male Masturbation.
Ummm... fortunately for a predicted 90% of the male population, most of the time you need some help from a female to make babies. I shudder to think of two million little kids running around every time some guy...

We look forward to divine intervention on this matter.
Very well... (Lightning strikes New Black World)

As we believe that a woman's right to control her own body is more important than any 'potential' and that every child should be wanted you will not have our support.
Oh, I get it now. Yes, the child to be, the truly defenseless one, has less importance than the thinking adult. You know, if you weren't against abortion, I'd say that you were a Republican. Cause you know that they are the ones who tend to favor a profitable majority.

Even if it could survive outside the womb without medical intervention it is still inside. Still affecting the woman.
Again, in 95% of the cases, who is to partially responsible for the initial conception? And yet the innocent one, who had nothing to do and no way to prevent this... Is Affecting The WOMAN????

Frankly, the UN should not be legislating on this issue at all.
Thank you. And that is why I'm trying to remove it. People get tired, however, of just hearing the regular argument, which is why I stated mine in this way. Note, all of you who are against me because of my opinions... I DIDN'T STATE ANY!! I didn't base this repeal on opinions because opinions differ! I based it on legality!

Now calming down. I shall leave you.

Speaking of sperm, in Germany there is this saying that "your better was left in the sheets." This, I know, is not related to the acceptance of an anti-abortion resolution, but I thought I'd just throw it in there because there has to be a time when all UN members just want sit down, have a beer, wine, chai, yak milk smoothie, etc. and discuss the convergence of international policy on regional colloquialisms.

Speaking of sperm, in Germany there is this saying that "your better was left in the sheets." This, I know, is not related to the acceptance of an anti-abortion resolution, but I thought I'd just throw it in there because there has to be a time when all UN members just want sit down, have a beer, wine, chai, yak milk smoothie, etc. and discuss the convergence of international policy on regional colloquialisms.
Stone the crows! We've got a live one...

Oh, I get it now. Yes, the child to be, the truly defenseless one, has less importance than the thinking adult.
A child to be is nothing. At all. So yes it does have less importance that a living, rational, self aware woman.

You know, if you weren't against abortion, I'd say that you were a Republican. Cause you know that they are the ones who tend to favor a profitable majority.
Pardon?

Again, in 95% of the cases, who is to partially responsible for the initial conception?
Right. So this is about punishing the woman for having sex. See we don't see bringing an unwanted child into the world as a punishment for having sex. Neither do we see forcing a woman to go though pregnancy and child birth as one. We see it as crule and spiteful.

And yet the innocent one, who had nothing to do and no way to prevent this... Is Affecting The WOMAN????
Yes, mentally and physically. And the 'innocent one' has no self-awareness yet. So I don't think it cares.

Very well... (Lightning strikes New Black World)
I am divine intervention. God of UNOG. The fourth half of the trinity and all that. ;)

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Stone the crows! We've got a live one...

From the website World Wide Words:

In the fifties I regularly heard the late Tony Hancock use stone me! as a term of astonished disgust in his BBC radio comedy Hancock’s Half Hour. It sounded so much part of his London character that I am surprised to find that stone the crows is attested in the dictionaries as being Australian in origin. It seems there were a number of similar expressions around in the early decades of the twentieth century, such as starve the mopokes, stiffen the crows, speed the wombats, spare the crows, and starve the bardies (mopokes is a variant of moreporks, an imitative name for a small brown native owl; bardies are a kind of edible grub). From this spread of terms, it seems they were all variations on a basic theme, fuelled by the Australian love of playing with language. The original intention may have been to suggest an action that was as exotic as the event that provoked the cry. In its popularity and speed of mutation it has parallels with the craze for catchphrases like bees knees, fashionable in America in the twenties, which also generated lots of creative variations in a short period, now mostly forgotten. But where exactly stone the crows comes from, it seems nobody can say for sure.

And I'm not the one who brought up the issue of international sperm regulation to begin with. For pity's sake, it's not like i'm the Pope or your mom or some nutter like that.

I'm not phrasing the following as specifically as I could, but it's presented as food for thought and not much more.

Speaking of sperm regulation, which all of us agree is ridiculous, and the reason it is ridiculous is because it is regulating a potential and not a fact. . . well, it seems to me that a fetus is just another stage of that potential. Closer to realization yet still a potential nonetheless. I have no definate opinions on what I'm about to say, but maybe some of you would like to weigh in: could protecting a potential human being eventually lead to prededential rational of pre-emptively supporting aggression in a potential war? If one potential can be regulated, why not another?

Just because a child has the potential to become an adult does not mean they are afforded the same rights and privledges as an adult. Just because a fetus can become a child does not mean it is the same thing. Just because an antagonistic situation can become a war does not mean it is a war and, therefore, should not be treated the same way.

I suppose it goes back the question that if you know a person will become a serial murderer why not just imprison him before the fact? Only this time the question is that you know a fetus will become a person so why not just afford them all those rights before the fact? The problem is because to do so is to infringe upon the rights of the person who is already the person, the pregnant woman.

So what takes precedence? The potential or the fact?

Just a thought...

A child to be is nothing. At all.
How do you sleep at night?

Right. So this is about punishing the woman for having sex.
Condoms, birth control. Unprotected sex is what leads to children (and disease). This has nothing to do with punishing women.

And the 'innocent one' has no self-awareness yet. So I don't think it cares.
I'm glad you took the time to ask one. I wasn't sure how I could get an interview like that. :rolleyes:


Once again, I will say. This is not about making abortion illegal. Simply killing pointless resolutions in the UN, just in a more interesting way.

SqR

OOC

Just because a child has the potential to become an adult does not mean they are afforded the same rights and privledges as an adult. Just because a fetus can become a child does not mean it is the same thing. Just because an antagonistic situation can become a war does not mean it is a war and, therefore, should not be treated the same way.

Well that part of what you said leads back to the fact that a child is also a potential adult and could be considered easy to 'abort' by the same logic (Yes I know a child can exist on it's own blah blah... we've been over it). It's all in where to draw the line and everyone's got their own opinion on that. Personally I'd rather err in the favor of life.

As to a woman's right... I consider a developing life's rights more important than a woman who knew going into sex what the consquences might be and just wants to rid herself of the inconvenient being. So in this case... the potential... which that term also kind of understates the matter. Figuring the liklihood that it will become a child as opposed to other situations like a conflict that could, maybe erupt...

Anyone who feels the need... Pro-choice flame if you like, but nobody's opinion on abortion is likely to change because of what someone said on an internet message board. It's an exercise in futility. I just thought I'd respond to the potential vs fact musing...

I'm not exactly sure when to classify a fetus as a human being. Obviously, those against abortion consider it to be the moment of conception, while most researchers put that date much later in the timeline. Personally, I've always felt it is the point at which the child could be relatively self-sufficient. Not necessarily a perfect baby being born because there are complications that can be solved relatively easily, nor do I think those that are in critical condition aren't humans, but if the child is too underdeveloped to even have a chance at living, it's not really a human in my mind but more like a miscarriage. It's hard to put in words but it's my opinion on the matter. But frankly, I don't see this thread getting anywhere because it's obvious neither side is going to give in to the other anytime soon and if this proposal reaches quorum, it will be a bitter fight when it's put up for the general assembly.

Edite: Wlydetree and I must've been on the same brainwave with our responses...

How do you sleep at night?[quote]
By knowing I am not making the lives of women miserable. And that's at best. At worst there's an unwanted child, a father, grandparents ado other people to worry about.

[quote] Condoms, birth control. Unprotected sex is what leads to children (and disease). This has nothing to do with punishing women.
Yes. Punishing her for unprotected sex. You just said that.

I'm glad you took the time to ask one. I wasn't sure how I could get an interview like that.
I believe that was my point.

Once again, I will say. This is not about making abortion illegal. Simply killing pointless resolutions in the UN, just in a more interesting way.
Then what are you arguing with me for? Come on I'll buy you a drink.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

But frankly, I don't see this thread getting anywhere because it's obvious neither side is going to give in to the other anytime soon and if this proposal reaches quorum, it will be a bitter fight when it's put up for the general assembly.

Edite: Wlydetree and I must've been on the same brainwave with our responses...
OOC: lol At least people with disimilar opinions on abortion, etc can agree on that ;)

OOC



Well that part of what you said leads back to the fact that a child is also a potential adult and could be considered easy to 'abort' by the same logic (Yes I know a child can exist on it's own blah blah... we've been over it). It's all in where to draw the line and everyone's got their own opinion on that. Personally I'd rather err in the favor of life.

Totally agree, everyone does have their own opinions about where life starts. That's why you cannot approve a resolution like this without infringing freedom.

Also, you cannot approve a resolution like this without accepting an ENORMOUS amount of responsibility. If you force a woman to have an unwanted baby you create a tremendous social and political burden unless you also provide all the facilities needed to raise a child in a family situation that is probably emotional/economically unprepared to do so.

As to a woman's right... I consider a developing life's rights more important than a woman who knew going into sex what the consquences might be and just wants to rid herself of the inconvenient being.
You emphasize the woman here, but I would also like to add the man. The man knows that 9 months after a sexual encounter a baby may be born, and yet who, overwhelmingly is forced to accept the responsibility? The woman. I don't know if you have read any of those economists who have drawn strong correlations between the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States and a decrease in the crime rate when the first generation of unwanted babies would have become adults?? It's a harsh, harsh reality, I know. But a woman knows better than the state and especially the UN when she is ready to have a baby. I don't believe that one night's indiscretion should lead to years of a social and economic burden.

Abortion isn't pleasant, but neither is neglectful, abusive parenthood. Ultimately, such decisions must be left up to the individual. You wish to err on the side of life, but what is life without freedom?

OOC

Totally agree, everyone does have their own opinions about where life starts. That's why you cannot approve a resolution like this without infringing freedom.
Well I approve of the repeal because I agree. As I said, my character thinks this should be left to individual nations.
Also, you cannot approve a resolution like this without accepting an ENORMOUS amount of responsibility. If you force a woman to have an unwanted baby you create a tremendous social and political burden unless you also provide all the facilities needed to raise a child in a family situation that is probably emotional/economically unprepared to do so.
If they are unfit to raise the child I would propose adoption. Plenty of people out there looking for a child. Wait lists on adoptions are incredible.
You emphasize the woman here, but I would also like to add the man. The man knows that 9 months after a sexual encounter a baby may be born, and yet who, overwhelmingly is forced to accept the responsibility? The woman.
Well... including the man needs to be both ways or none. If the man is going to be held equally acccountable then that also means he should have a say in whether a woman get's an abortion or not no? Can't really have that both ways. Either he's a part of it or he isn't. I do feel the man should share the responsbilities BTW.
I don't know if you have read any of those economists who have drawn strong correlations between the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States and a decrease in the crime rate when the first generation of unwanted babies would have become adults?? It's a harsh, harsh reality, I know. But a woman knows better than the state and especially the UN when she is ready to have a baby. I don't believe that one night's indiscretion should lead to years of a social and economic burden.

Abortion isn't pleasant, but neither is neglectful, abusive parenthood. Ultimately, such decisions must be left up to the individual. You wish to err on the side of life, but what is life without freedom?
It is a sad fact that many won't take responsbility for their actions and take it out on the child. I refer once again to adoption though.

You emphasize the woman here, but I would also like to add the man. The man knows that 9 months after a sexual encounter a baby may be born, and yet who, overwhelmingly is forced to accept the responsibility? The woman. I don't know if you have read any of those economists who have drawn strong correlations between the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States and a decrease in the crime rate when the first generation of unwanted babies would have become adults?? It's a harsh, harsh reality, I know. But a woman knows better than the state and especially the UN when she is ready to have a baby. I don't believe that one night's indiscretion should lead to years of a social and economic burden.

Abortion isn't pleasant, but neither is neglectful, abusive parenthood. Ultimately, such decisions must be left up to the individual. You wish to err on the side of life, but what is life without freedom?

That is very true, what would rather have: a family where the chiled is abused and becomes a drain on the entire country because the women became pregnant and wasn't ready for parenthood? Or a child that is raised in a loving enviroment, gets a good education and becomes (hopefully) a good citizen? I'd personally go for the latter on this subject. I think there is a maybe loose consensus that abortion maybe isn't the greatest thing in the world, but not having the option at all is much worse for everybody, not just the child and the immediate family. But I believe if we get into the fact about who's fault it was in the beginning, we'll start to move into the conflicting territories of abstinenve vs. birth control which, as most people know, is a hotly contested religious problem that should not be discussed in NSUN because when religion gets involved, it seems that battle lines are more readily drawn...

That is very true, what would rather have: a family where the chiled is abused and becomes a drain on the entire country because the women became pregnant and wasn't ready for parenthood? Or a child that is raised in a loving enviroment, gets a good education and becomes (hopefully) a good citizen? I'd personally go for the latter on this subject. I think there is a maybe loose consensus that abortion maybe isn't the greatest thing in the world, but not having the option at all is much worse for everybody, not just the child and the immediate family. But I believe if we get into the fact about who's fault it was in the beginning, we'll start to move into the conflicting territories of abstinenve vs. birth control which, as most people know, is a hotly contested religious problem that should not be discussed in NSUN because when religion gets involved, it seems that battle lines are more readily drawn...
Well the 3 of us are discussing it reasonably and politely, but I am indeed waiting for someone to ruin it lol. It's actually rather nice to be dicussing this without a bloody flamewar for once. Abortion discussions inevitably bring in the mudslingers.

If adoption is so popular why are orphanages so full? Explain that one.

Also, it's interesting that even when men are held responsible in the eyes of the law how little the law is actually enforced. Looking at the lists of delinquent child support fathers makes one rather depressed about one actually coming through with his promise to support the child. Although, I must say that most situations where the father was active and supportive abortion isn't even considered. At least from the research I have read and in my own personal experience working with teen moms.

If adoption is so popular why are orphanages so full? Explain that one.
Inefficiency in the system and unreasonable standards in some regard. Couples sit on wait lists for years and there is no reason for that when, as you say, there are orphanages full of kids. The screening process should not be that long. Also, I believe there's unfair discrimination against single people and gay couples who want to adopt. Better they have a loving parent or same sex parents I say...

Also, it's interesting that even when men are held responsible in the eyes of the law how little the law is actually enforced. Looking at the lists of delinquent child support fathers makes one rather depressed about one actually coming through with his promise to support the child. Although, I must say that most situations where the father was active and supportive abortion isn't even considered. At least from the research I have read and in my own personal experience working with teen moms.
Indeed. When the father to be is present it gos a long way. The mother doesn't feel so alone and overwhelmed in many instances. Can't make someone be emotionally supportive though. Financially yeah, but that doesn't help much as far as state of mind.

On a personal note I know a thing or two about fathers who didn't pay out child support...

Also, your resolution is worded in such a way as to not just say that the UN should not be regulating this, but going a bit further in your direction.

As for a flame war, I admit I'm getting a bit bored with how polite this all is. Not that I'd prefer the alternative. For more excitement, please visit my post on assassinations.

Mine's the one about the chickens and the exotic dancers.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10207283&posted=1#post10207283

Also, your resolution is worded in such a way as to not just say that the UN should not be regulating this, but going a bit further in your direction.
Well it's not my resolution... and I already stated I think there are better arguements for the repeal... but would support this one on principle ;)

As for a flame war, I admit I'm getting a bit bored with how polite this all is. Not that I'd prefer the alternative. For more excitement, please visit my post on assassinations.
lol sorry for being so polite then?

I win!! You apologized! True it was for being polite and there was a question mark, but that doesn't count. I think by Internet forum posting rules that makes me queen of this thread!

Hail to the Queen, baby!

This thread probably should just be left alone because it's pretty obvious there is about nil support for the repeal itself, although there are staunch supporters of both sides. I think, that if the original resolution is to be repealed, this is what I would do:

-Repeal it based on the fact that the resolution just sucked (not official wording, but there's no point in droning on about what ifs and stuff)

-Follow up with a new resolution that clearly outlines abortion rights while at the same time creating a group to promote planned parenthood and adoption.

-This could possibly be followed by third proposal to try and work out the logistics of adoption to make it more streamlined.

Of course, anyone can take these and do what they want, but if you would want to work on one with me, just tell me because I'd be happy to.

I win!! You apologized! True it was for being polite and there was a question mark, but that doesn't count. I think by Internet forum posting rules that makes me queen of this thread!

Hail to the Queen, baby!
I don't know how the constitutes 'winning', but sure if it makes you feel better... lol :p

Is that an Army Of Darkness reference I detect? :D

This thread probably should just be left alone because it's pretty obvious there is about nil support for the repeal itself, although there are staunch supporters of both sides.
Pretty much. I'm just having fun with the out of character discussion tangent.

It's so an Army of Darkness reference.

It is nice to have a smart debate on the issue, I know that I'm usually outnumbered in my views due to the strong religious people around me so I try and avoid the subject as much as possible lest I be, metaphorically speaking of course, theologically raped.

Totally agree, everyone does have their own opinions about where life starts. That's why you cannot approve a resolution like this without infringing freedom.
I've got nothing against opinions. I try to stay away from there. This repeal is because resolution 61 is out of date, imposing on national sovereignty, and a mess of a resolution. Therefore it should be gone. This is NOT (catch the bolded type) a resolution to prohibit abortion.

Then what are you arguing with me for? Come on I'll buy you a drink.
OK, I could use it. This was way more than I bargained for. Thanks. :cool:

SqR

The Empire will/would support such a resolution

I am not too sure that many UN nations would accept this, for a combination of Church and State does not typically work out as well as planned. Besides, many civil rights would be infringed upon the repeal of the resolution.

Unless a new resolution to replace Resolution 61 is already planned, I shall not support the resolution, and I shall urge Aarmania to do the same.

Thwop! Seeing as I have about three hours left for approval, I find it hard to believe that I can achieve 90 some more approvals, and therfore hang my head in sorrow. But now I ask if any of you think I should revamp this repeal and submit it again, or stop wasting my precious time.

SqR

Thwop! Seeing as I have about three hours left for approval, I find it hard to believe that I can achieve 90 some more approvals, and therfore hang my head in sorrow. But now I ask if any of you think I should revamp this repeal and submit it again, or stop wasting my precious time.

SqR

Ok, everyone that wants to see this resolution die is just dieing for ANY text to come through that might repeal it. 3 months ago, Waterana tried to campaign to get it repealed and replaced - meaning she had a repeal that was quite congratulatory of this resolution. She still failed to achieve quarom and as I said earlier, received numerous replies saying "please don't do this, there's too much at stake". Considering that when we looked at the list and a large percentage of the names that appeared on it were people who were supporting most abortion repeals of the day, we were pretty convinced that it is next to impossible to repeal this resolution at this point and time.

Ok, everyone that wants to see this resolution die is just dieing for ANY text to come through that might repeal it. 3 months ago, Waterana tried to campaign to get it repealed and replaced - meaning she had a repeal that was quite congratulatory of this resolution. She still failed to achieve quarom and as I said earlier, received numerous replies saying "please don't do this, there's too much at stake". Considering that when we looked at the list and a large percentage of the names that appeared on it were people who were supporting most abortion repeals of the day, we were pretty convinced that it is next to impossible to repeal this resolution at this point and time.

and if by some miracle it ever is repealed, for whatever reason, my replacement will be brought out, dusted off, the T's will be crossed and the I's dotted, and I will do whatever work is required to get it passed.

Square rootedness, the current Abortion Rights resolution is a loop hole hunters paradise. My replacement won't be so easy to get around. Maybe you are better off staying with the devil you know.

and if by some miracle it ever is repealed, for whatever reason, my replacement will be brought out, dusted off, the T's will be crossed and the I's dotted, and I will do whatever work is required to get it passed.
I remember your replacement proposal. If it ever comes to that, I'm offering my assistance in advance. I'll do whatever it takes to see that it reaches quorum and is passed.

The United Nations,

Recognising that the sperm cells can develop into nothing other than a human being;

Extending that recognition to realize that sperm is human;

Bans Male Masturbation.

Recognising that the egg cells can develop into nothing other than a human being;

Extending that recognition to realize that egg is human;

Bans Periods

Hmm maybe someone should try and pass that.

I remember your replacement proposal. If it ever comes to that, I'm offering my assistance in advance. I'll do whatever it takes to see that it reaches quorum and is passed.

Thanks Yelda. I'll remember your offer if I ever need to bring the replacement out.

And I'm not the one who brought up the issue of international sperm regulation to begin with. For pity's sake, it's not like i'm the Pope or your mom or some nutter like that.
What is it about nuts that makes people associate them with mental unhingednessification? Good call on me mam though.

Square rootedness, the current Abortion Rights resolution is a loop hole hunters paradise. My replacement won't be so easy to get around. Maybe you are better off staying with the devil you know.
I never said I wasn't for a compromise. :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg

You are wrong. There are people who condemn masturbation on the grounds of not leading to reproduction.

I didn't say that these people didn't exit. Some people still think the world is flat. I suggested the arguments per se are non sense and that the pro-life movement tends to be those who believe that post conception abortions are wrong.

Now some people who are in the post conception camp might have moral issues with contraception and masturbation, but they are not related to "wasted sperm." Otherwise men would have to attend memorial services almost every day due to natural nocturnal emissions and women would have to do so every month.

Generally speaking, I have seen two solid arguments for when legal rights should begin and they are both based on science. Conception, when the genetic material becomes able to properly replicate, and implantation, which some argue sets other conditions for the fetus to properly evolve.

And yet, for some reason, I don't hear people calling for someone to be charged with manslaughter if they accidentally knocked a pregnant lady to the ground forcing her to have a miscarriage - or the mother if she trips and falls, or a thousand other scenarions

And yet, for some reason, I don't hear people calling for someone to be charged with manslaughter if they accidentally knocked a pregnant lady to the ground forcing her to have a miscarriage - or the mother if she trips and falls, or a thousand other scenarions

Actually, though rarely, it has been tried, but I can't recall if it's ever led to a conviction or not.

EDIT: In some states in the US, at least, the laws are there (click here (http://www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/sthomicidelaws.htm)).

I simply fail to see a legitament reason for abortion unless the pregnant womans life would be endangered by the process of giving birth.

If the woman is unable to properly care for the child, then she can, by law, immeadiatly put the child up for addoption. If she is worried about the physical stress of labor and ect., than she should have taken more care not to become pregnant (unless rape was involved, in which case, while a tragic crime, the fetus is not at fault for the father's crimes, and should be allowed to live).

Thus I can see no legitament reasons for abortion, and the cause of feminism doesn't come close to justifing, in my opinion, the killing of a fetus. For the killing of a fetus takes away it's chance to persue happiness, and to make the world a better place.

I simply fail to see a legitament reason for abortion unless the pregnant womans life would be endangered by the process of giving birth.

Lots of justifications. Read the debate and earlier posts before wading in.

I would much rather have women having abortions by a trained doctor in a sterile enviroment rather than have them mangling themselves with coat hangers and whatever else they can find that would abort the pregnancy. If it's made illegal, I believe it will become the kind of debacle we have with drugs and medicine. People will either do it in their basement and hope for the best or they will go to a country where it is legal and have it performed there.

Lots of justifications. Read the debate and earlier posts before wading in.

How terribly drab! I'm a great proponent of just wading into any ol' situation and finding out afterwards if it's a snake pit or teacup party.

There are so few real surprises in life.

How terribly drab! I'm a great proponent of just wading into any ol' situation and finding out afterwards if it's a snake pit or teacup party.

There are so few real surprises in life.

Abortion and Same Sex marriage, the two biggest snakepits on the forum.

Lots of justifications. Read the debate and earlier posts before wading in.

I haven't got the time to read through an hours worth of posts, though from what I've seen you've posted nothing of substance, other than ranting about your feminist agenda.

I haven't got the time to read through an hours worth of posts, though from what I've seen you've posted nothing of substance, other than ranting about your feminist agenda.
You obviously have not looked very hard. You lack of time to read this topic betrays you. I'm not a feminist. I'm just someone who has opinions, and backs them up with strong evidence (as are most of the other nations who have posted from a prochoice stance thus far). All I've seen from you is a few lines of uninformed prattle.

Read the topic, it'll make you a better person, and far more qualified to express an opinion on this subject, and better equipped to argue from your position. Then I hope to see some informed and well reasoned debate, rather than what you have offered thus far. I look forward to it. :)

UN should not write legislative of this. Just like the USA there is a point is which it is the states decition not the country. Each country should decid for themselves on this one instead of forceing their views on everyone.

I haven't got the time to read through an hours worth of posts, though from what I've seen you've posted nothing of substance, other than ranting about your feminist agenda.

I'm sorry - you shall find I'm rather anti-feminism if you ever cared to parse through my beliefs deeply enough. However, I somehow quite in support of Abortion. How is supporting a right to abortion a "feminist agenda". While I'm certain there are a few guys who are feminists, I have a hard time believing that a board such as this one which is so heavily male dominated is likewise dominated by a feminist agenda - and yet, the board, as a whole supports the right to abortion.

If you have nothing but baseless accusations to make, then go away. If you want to debate the issue and the points made, you will need to actually invest the time to debate it. Otherwise, I can assure you, your opinion WILL get crushed. If you don't spend the time debating it, you will change a grand total of zero opinions, and thus your posting here was merely a waste of your time (though far from being a waste of mine as it would actually strengthen the pro-choice position since the pro-life side refused to give an argument).

UN should not write legislative of this. Just like the USA there is a point is which it is the states decition not the country. Each country should decid for themselves on this one instead of forceing their views on everyone.

It's not up to each country to decide on this, it's up to each woman to decide on this, and the UN has decided, by passing the current resolution, to protect her right to decide.

Hence the word choice. Those that don't like abortion, think its murder, think life starts at conception, believe it goes against religion, destroys families ect don't have to have one. Thats the beauty of choice, they can use their right to choose to say no.

No country/government knows the individual circumstances of each member of their female population so how the heck can they make such an intimate and personal decision for them?

Does all this boil down to the sexual revolution and women finally wresting control of their lives away from fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands ect and earning the right to make their own life choices? Are there people trying to regain dominance over women by controlling what they can and can't do with their wombs?

Forcing any woman to bear a child she doesn't want is no better than slavery in my opinion. If any abortion repeal passes, another proposal will be passed to replace it. A much better written and more comprahensive document that won't allow the wiggle room the current one does. Thats a promise.

and for the earlier poster looking for "feminist" arguements, well I'm female so mine is about as feminist as you'll get.

It's not up to each country to decide on this, it's up to each woman to decide on this, and the UN has decided, by passing the current resolution, to protect her right to decide.

Yet what of the fetus's right to decide? y giving a woman the right to make ONE choice, it is forever removing a fetus from ever getting to make ANY choices. They might find a way to end world hunger, to bring world peace, and who knows what else. They would make good choices and bad ones, that we will never know. By "protecting" the so called liberties of the pregnant woman, you are depriving the right of life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness to the fetus.

Hence the word choice. Those that don't like abortion, think its murder, think life starts at conception, believe it goes against religion, destroys families ect don't have to have one. Thats the beauty of choice, they can use their right to choose to say no.

So let's use this logic in terms of adult humans, if you think that homicide is wrong, don't do it, and ignore those who do. Talk about anarchy.

No country/government knows the individual circumstances of each member of their female population so how the heck can they make such an intimate and personal decision for them?

As I have said before, if a woman's life is endangered, she is justified in having an abortion. Otherwise, if she is unable to support the infant, she can easily put it up for adoption. What's so bad about that? How is actually giving an infant a chance at no cost to you a bad thing?

Does all this boil down to the sexual revolution and women finally wresting control of their lives away from fathers, brothers, uncles, husbands ect and earning the right to make their own life choices? Are there people trying to regain dominance over women by controlling what they can and can't do with their wombs?

No, those against abortion (at least most that I know) are simply thinking of the unborn child.

Forcing any woman to bear a child she doesn't want is no better than slavery in my opinion. If any abortion repeal passes, another proposal will be passed to replace it. A much better written and more comprahensive document that won't allow the wiggle room the current one does. Thats a promise.

How is it slavery? It doesn't even have to be painful, there are pain relievers for labor. Is it slavery to give a child a chance at life. The labor proccess is temporary, the childs life is not.

and for the earlier poster looking for "feminist" arguements, well I'm female so mine is about as feminist as you'll get.

Again and again posters have been misinterpriting my above statement. I was simply iforming a fellow poster that I thought that his/her arguments contained little context from what I had viewed, and thought that the poster was biased by their partialty to feminism. I don't see how that is "looking for a 'feminist' arguement," and would apprieciate you not twisting my words. That also applies to the rest of you complaining of my using that word.

The simple fact of the matter is the foetus doesn't own the womb. The woman who's body it's a part of does, and it' up to her whether or not she wants to share it for nine months. Its a bit like a tenancy. If the landlord is happy the tenant stays, if not the tenant goes. Forcing her to have a child she doesn't want is just turning a woman into an incubator, and to me that is slavery.

This comes down to the rights of an existing person vs the rights of a potential person and in my opinion the exisiting person, the woman, get priority. The foetus isn't a baby/person/child until it is born and can survive unattached to the woman. Until then it's little better than a parasite living off its host.

You really need to do some research if you think labour pain is the only painful thing about pregnacy. This is just the first site I found..

Click Me (http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/1483/complications.html)

Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote an article back in 1990 called "A Defense of Abortion". While it's argument is mildly flawed insofar as she draws an incomplete parallel, I would like to share it as it is something to consider:

Her argument is let's say that through some combination of really strange events, you end up attached to some other person (via various medical tubes). Now you are in practically perfect health but this person is in a stable condition while entirely dependant upon you and, more importantly, whatever you are giving that person with the various medical equipment. You are told that if the equipment is removed, that person would die. However, the doctors know that in 9 months, plus or minus a few weeks, the person will come out of their current condition and be able to function on their own.

Her argument was that it is absolutely ludicrous to say "you can't detach yourself because that would be murder". I think we all see the parallel, anyone care to comment? I'm unfortunately in no condition to pursue this line of thought so I won't expand on it....yet

LAE will support a repeal, in the only case it's writen in a manner to encourage a more sensible replacement as Waterana's draft:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9577618&postcount=40

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion.

Convinced however, that all women must have the right to ultimate control over their own reproduction and fertility, and those rights exceed any perceived right to life of a potential person.

Defining a potential person as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it.

Defining a viable foetus, child or baby as a foetus capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it

Defines a clinical abortion as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy prior to natural birth, where the sole aim is to remove a developing foetus from the womb that results in the termination of the pregnancy.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force any woman to bear a child she does not want, and that the right of all women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right.

Mandates the following….

1 – The state cannot remove the rights of any woman to control over her own reproduction and fertility unless she is suffering from a diagnosed internationally recognised mental disease or defect, and has been legally deemed incapable giving informed consent. In such cases, informed consent can be given by the woman’s legal guardian or advocate and such consent must be accepted by the state.

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals.

3 – While the state may not refuse to allow a woman access to a clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may at its own discretion request the woman to allow doctors to take all necessary steps to deliver any viable foetus safely. The child will receive all the medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be adopted out by the state if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from, her custody. This clause does not apply to clinical abortions in cases where such an operation would endanger the woman.

4 – The state may at its own discretion, refuse to publicly fund a clinical abortion for any woman who has the means necessary to pay for the operation herself. This includes coverage of the procedure by private health insurance. The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance.

5 – The state may at its own discretion, offer education sessions to all pregnant women. It may not at any stage of the pregnancy force women to attend such sessions. Information given must be factual, balanced, and presented without any preconceived judgements. If offered, the sessions must include, though are not solely limited to, all aspects of pregnancy, birth, adoption and clinical abortion.

I would urge some people to consider the above. If you don't like abortion, Abortion Rights is about the best compromise you're going to get in your nation. If it gets repealed, I would almost guarantee a far more sweeping and destructive replacement will pass. Under my interpretation of Abortion Rights, the following is the case:
no hospital, clinic, etc., need be forced to allow abortions;
no doctor need be forced to perform an abortion, nor punished for refusing to do so;
people who bomb abortion clinics, beat women having abortions, harass doctors who perform abortions, disown their daughters for having abortions, teach that abortion is sin in schools, and so on, need not be punished;
a government-sponsored, government-endorsed campaign that Abortion = Lose would be legal.

As I have said before, Abortion Rights is a coathanger. It is nothing more. I would urge those repealing it with a view to giving themselves the right to ban abortion to have the replacement ready before doing so. Because you can be sure as fuck the anti-sovereigntists will do.

The simple fact of the matter is the foetus doesn't own the womb. The woman who's body it's a part of does, and it' up to her whether or not she wants to share it for nine months. Its a bit like a tenancy. If the landlord is happy the tenant stays, if not the tenant goes. Forcing her to have a child she doesn't want is just turning a woman into an incubator, and to me that is slavery.

This comes down to the rights of an existing person vs the rights of a potential person and in my opinion the exisiting person, the woman, get priority. The foetus isn't a baby/person/child until it is born and can survive unattached to the woman. Until then it's little better than a parasite living off its host.

You really need to do some research if you think labour pain is the only painful thing about pregnacy. This is just the first site I found..

Click Me (http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/1483/complications.html)

The fetus may not own the womb, but who says that the preganant woman owns the fetus? If a landlord dislikes a tenant, does the landlord have the right to kill the tenant? If the woman doesn't want to have a child, she shouldn't have sex (rape being the exception here). The entire point of sex is to impregnate her (biologically speaking). If she doesn't want the child, again, she should put it up for adoption.

By the way, no, I do not think that labor is the ONLY pain in pregnancy, however pro-abortionists often cite it in their arguements.

So what takes priority, life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness (for the fetus if allowed to live), or only the liberty to, make ONE single choice citing liberty (for the would be mother)?

"life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness"

Any chance of an acronym? It's getting tiresome reading the same hackneyed phrase over and over again. Anyway, there are plenty more potential people in the queue.

MV

The fetus may not own the womb, but who says that the preganant woman owns the fetus? If a landlord dislikes a tenant, does the landlord have the right to kill the tenant? If the woman doesn't want to have a child, she shouldn't have sex (rape being the exception here). The entire point of sex is to impregnate her (biologically speaking). If she doesn't want the child, again, she should put it up for adoption.

By the way, no, I do not think that labor is the ONLY pain in pregnancy, however pro-abortionists often cite it in their arguements.

So what takes priority, life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness (for the fetus if allowed to live), or only the liberty to, make ONE single choice citing liberty (for the would be mother)?

With all due respect, I feel that we are making a flawed comparison here: A feoutus is usually, at the normally defined limits of abortion (around 24 weeks maximum) still utterly dependant on the mother and still underdeveloped in terms of biological functions. Furthermore, few abortions take place at that point for spurious reasons, normally it is due to extreme circumstances, i.e. to save the life of the mother.

Furthermore, saying that the mother's should simply put the baby up for adoption does not take into account the bond between mother and child. I would imagine (though as a man I cannot be certain) that even if the child was not wanted, after it was born, the mother would still feel an attachment to it that would make separation painful and distressing. Equally, sex is not purely biological and has been used as a means and source of pleasure for almost all our species history, even if the main effect is often to induce pregnancy in the female partner.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The fetus may not own the womb, but who says that the preganant woman owns the fetus? If a landlord dislikes a tenant, does the landlord have the right to kill the tenant? If the woman doesn't want to have a child, she shouldn't have sex (rape being the exception here). The entire point of sex is to impregnate her (biologically speaking). If she doesn't want the child, again, she should put it up for adoption.

By the way, no, I do not think that labor is the ONLY pain in pregnancy, however pro-abortionists often cite it in their arguements.

So what takes priority, life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness (for the fetus if allowed to live), or only the liberty to, make ONE single choice citing liberty (for the would be mother)?

This debate is getting too off topic for the UN now, so I'm not going to keep at it.

I know I'll never change your views, and you'll never change mine. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.

The NSUN decided when it passed the current resolution that the womans rights outweigh any perceived rights of the foetus. If you feel so strongly against this, then you are more than welcome to attempt your own repeal. Be aware though that there have been many serious attempts in the past to get rid of Abortion Rights and I've only seen one get anywhere near enough endorsements, and even that one failed. I feel pretty confident in saying that the majority of the NSUN feels the current resolution does the job, or is the better option over a well written replacement.