NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been proposed to repeal the Abortion Resolution. This destorys the human rights of the children. They must be protected. It has been proposed and needs the have enough approvals before 1/17.

Uh...have you: A) Posted this repeal and are promoting it, B) Found it in the queue and are promoting it, or C) suggesting someone else do it? I won't support it though, our nation is pro-choice and believes the child does not gain their rights until they have reached the third trimester from which point, abortions are illegal.

It has been proposed to repeal the Abortion Resolution. This destorys the human rights of the children. They must be protected. It has been proposed and needs the have enough approvals before 1/17.

You'll probably need a better argument than this. Not everyone accepts that a fetus is a child.

Now, tie that into national sovereignity and the right of different cultures to disagree on this topic, and you might have a shot.

You'll probably need a better argument than this. Not everyone accepts that a fetus is a child.
No state is forced by UN law to accept that a fetus isn't a child.

Anyway, I don't see the point repealing Abortion Rights. Simply bar all doctors from performing abortions.

A gamete is a gamete. A zygote is a zygote. An embryo is an embryo. A fetus is a fetus. A child is a child.

Now, instead of playing semantic games, why don't you present serious arguments?

This is a useless debate, this resolution may be in the "Q" somewhere - but it isn't the next item up for bid. Let's hold debate until it really comes up for a vote.

This is a useless debate, this resolution may be in the "Q" somewhere - but it isn't the next item up for bid. Let's hold debate until it really comes up for a vote.That would defeat the purpose if he's trying to garner support to get it into the queue.

I won't support it though, our nation is pro-choice and believes the child does not gain their rights until they have reached the third trimester from which point, abortions are illegal.

under the current abortion rights resolution, I don't think you are allowed to fo that.

The motherland believes strongly in NatSov We are strongly pro-choice, allowing abortions at any time. You did not use NatSov as a reason, which would have possibly made the motherland more supportive of this. You used instead, almost religious undertones in its defence. As an atheist nation we can not support this.

under the current abortion rights resolution, I don't think you are allowed to fo that.

It states that every woman has the right to an abortion; not that every doctor should perform them.

Hirota feels that national Sovereignty is not more important than the Sovereigntyof the individual to decide what is best for their own body and the potential child. Since this UN resolution protects this freedom from the meddling of governments, Hirota would oppose any repeal.

However, we would like to see a repeal and replace to exclude third trimesters.

It has been proposed to repeal the Abortion Resolution. This destorys the human rights of the children. They must be protected. It has been proposed and needs the have enough approvals before 1/17.
What children? I only see aborted foetuses. Not a pretty sight, but there you go.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Let's face it, unless you physically restrain women the moment they discover they are pregnant, you cannot stop determined women from somehow managing to have abortions. All you can do is stop women from having relatively safe abortions.

The nation of Ardchoille does not intend to tell half its citizens that they must function as incubators regardless of their personal desires, family situation or health status.

It states that every woman has the right to an abortion; not that every doctor should perform them.


This is the key reason this resolution should remain as it gives women the right to an abortion but doen't force somebody opposed to such to do one for them or for any nation to allow it inside their own borders. As if nobody in my nation is willing to do an abortion then it is up to women to find a place to get one. Any new resolution that would require anyone to preform an abortion would by us be opposed and probably by many here. As there are two sides to this issue so to force anyone to do it is just as bad as stopping somebody from doing one or having one. Key here is the health of the woman as far as getting a proper abortion without the fear of prison time as this stops such actions, but doesn't send somebody to prison because they refuse to give abortions.. Thus both sides are safe here...

As there are two sides to this issue so to force anyone to do it is just as bad as stopping somebody from doing one or having one.

Well said, Zeldon. I apologise for my earlier use of the unnecessarily emotional term 'incubator'.

Unfortunately, if no doctors in a particular nation will perform abortions you get the unfair situtation where only women who can travel elsewhere can have safe(-ish) abortions.

The 'abortion pill' isn't entirely a solution to this dilemma. Even if you make it free so poor women can have it too, somebody has to supply it.

A realist might say that supplying the abortifacient is a neutral act, as the woman still must decide for herself whether to take it.

But realists seldom last long in abortion debates or euthanasia debates (not sidetracking, just mentioning the other 'my body is mine' issue).

I end up bringing it down to personal response. There are circumstances in which I would have an abortion, circumstances in which I would help another person have an abortion, circumstances in which I might try to persuade another person not to have an abortion.

But ultimately I see it as the decision of the woman whose body must experience the pregnancy and its aftermath , whether that be life with a living child, life with a memory or life largely unchanged.

I think she has a right to make that decision without being loaded with other people's guilt, shame or fear, and with as little of her own as possible.

Now that abortions can be made relatively safe, I feel the opportunity should be available to her because that reduces at least one of the pressures on her: the fear of losing her own life or being severely disabled while aborting.

I also feel that it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that any living child has sufficient food, shelter and education, thus removing one of the pressures that might make a person consider abortion.

I think there should be no shadow of shame attached to bearing a child.

But these are my thoughts and feelings. I am not going to change them for arguments based on religion, and I doubt any religious person is going to change theirs for arguments based on the greatest good of the greatest number, or the obligations of a State to its citizens, or any of the others my secular humanist principles might raise.

That being so, I had better withdraw from this debate.

The stance (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Creative_Solutions_Agency#Resolution_.2361:_Abortion_Rights) of our Creative Solutions Agency is unchanged. ...