NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a repeal of Abortion Rights that seems to have slipped in under our noses, and is presently sailing toward quorum.

Repeal "Abortion Rights" (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion)
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61 (http://www.nationstates.net/69741/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60)
Proposed by: Dorksonia (www.nationstates.net/dorksonia)

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (http://www.nationstates.net/69741/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60) (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZES that abortion is an issue where good people on each side of this issue disagree.

PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs.

POINTS OUT Resolution #61 provides no details or reasons for it's argument.

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any abortions, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

NOTES people are passionate on both sides of this issue and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit).

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.

QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.

REPEALS resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"

Approvals: 232 (Dorksonia, NewTexas, Noctaurus, Faerie-Sprite, Palentine UN Office, Kamikastan, Nitwitium, Armistria, Jey, Sbear, Ascetic Order, Kirisubo, Richard2008, Preeminent States, Mt Sinai, Newswana, WallCorp, Flibbleites, Warmth and Sunshine, New Javert, Brookium, Pope Lexus X, Van de Von Krooger, James_xenoland, Leg-ends, Cherry Ridge, Darth Mall, Wegason, Conchland, Merasia, Vampire Piggies, Versalia, Futuristic America, Ditto8Mel, GX-Land, Rome V, Garlandistan, Unified Dakkania, Ingrism, Schordic, Bolquetombia 3, Welsh DragonSocialists, Dracoliches, Al Tira, Mexanadamerica, Soggy tissues, Affopia, Cav, Bettia, A Raptor, Zarfopolis, MikeNapierFunkyTown, Borgavia, Arbeitnehmerrepublik, Pieking, Sporkutania, Vestiphobia, Legendary Rock Stars, Aaronakia, Tarmsden, Qazox, Manussa, The Dome Piece, Idchafeestan, Manflemingdon, Laaksonen, Holy Awesomeness, 07LauAH, JCland, Trostoponesia, UCSB, Super Hornet, Squornshelous, Belarum, Tse Moana, Ultimate Hunters II, Vikoulini, Brunelian BG advocates, Newyorkfoundlandistan, Dave2k5, Square rootedness, PostEUBritain, Medved, Locker 732, Mommy D, Imperial Dark Rome, Kollathopia, Mexican Hood, Cerberbia, Omgian, Dahveedland, Outer Earth Colonies, Haradin, White Kanatia, Umbababamau, Imsopov, Knives and Forks, Alexandrian Ptolemais, St Mckie, The Mattabooloo, Neo Ozia, Rosp, Rekamednam, Sarvoxyl, Zekebobastan, Miceandmen, Kalishnakovia, Nerdboy, Cristogay Pavlovia, Markadonia, Gateborg, Athena Lisona, Zohand, Aakron, Jacob is Da Bomb, The Knox School, FGHS RULES, Windenburg, Penguinian Philosophy, Boroxon, The Wolfgeschlecht, Marry Jane, Osovia, Nueva Communist Russia, Triple R, Jyall, Phernblattistan, Nick-land, Beautancus, Democratic Progress, Sangreland, Carcharocles, The Utopia of Bohemia, UN Peacekeepers, British Renaissance, Kcran, Coldrisk, Valori, New Commustan, Roundhousekickistan, Medicalis, King Islands, Octavie, The Three-Toed Sloth, Haapalinna, Isle Of Hags, The Campbell dynasty, Pauli the Great, The Derrak Quadrant, Governor JEB, Nebulant, CDA5, Of Cascadia, Desert Storm Iraq, Andaras Prime, Nicholas County, Solarlandus, Athens and Midlands, Dungle, Tacitium, Olloland, Western Districts, Kevin Island, Mynarnia, Kareemia, The Kazoo Peoples, The Kurtish Republic, Trinidad n Tobago, Ryzerk, CoralsandDiamonds, Paddan Aram, Barca mi vala, The Phantom Prophet, Zocane, Daein, Bostonia by the Sea, Sympatico, Krankor, Slakaj, Ashohir, Caersws, Pantocratoria, Greenpeoples, Purpleation, Chocolate Bar, Micronanta, Tyndarus, Master guns, Zhukhistan, Pogaria, Antipatris, Labradorite, Overly Priced Spam, Illadar, Twitcheldom, Nistolonia, Kaykaysheee, Bom Jesus de Braga, Karistia, Arendias, Theorb, The Gentle Giant, Woolfenstein, Gerkistan, Phuctards, The Weebl, Nykibo, Reiver Deamon, New Taulkinham, The fat evil chickens, Sinsvyka, Ronrovia, Cainia, The Rising Ghetto, Fernetti, Kleronomos, Zutroy, Spinning Tops, Thesniper5161, Incolus, Revolution Truth, Irish_Free_States, Xarvinia--Wurtemburg, Elvish Viking Warlords, The Cabbage People, Highgard, The Iroqouis, Severidom, 803iah, Incorigable Servitude, Sri Varanasi, Laecodamia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 18 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Jan 24 2006The Federal Republic opposes a repeal of this resolution, for fear that it will allow members to propose a much stronger (to use a filthy word) replacement, with fewer loopholes. We are counting on our fluffy friends to defeat this article once it gets to vote. :cool:

I'll do my best.

but just in case, think I'll go take a look at that replacement I wrote ages ago and dust it off. It could be needed soon ;).

Yes, this does give an opportunity to replace it, but I would still oppose the repeal - despite the limitations of Abortion Rights - because of the arguments presented within it.

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.
Hmmm. Is this a statement of current status, or a proposal of new law within a repeal? Frankly, it's not clear. Discuss.

Although, the mention of the abortion "daily issue" might constitute a Metagaming violation. We can already answer our issues however we please; there's nothing in a resolution text that would prevent us from doing so. Mods? Are you watching? Oh, shit! I might have posted this in the wrong forum! :p

Hmmm. Is this a statement of current status, or a proposal of new law within a repeal? Frankly, it's not clear. Discuss.
I don't think it "proposes" it in a way that would be illegal, but more "proposes that it be proposed".

*scurries off*

Jey is completely against abortion except in extreme cases, thus we endorse this proposal and would welcome a replacement that let nations decide if they want to kill those that cannot speak for themselves.

Hmmm. Is this a statement of current status, or a proposal of new law within a repeal? Frankly, it's not clear. Discuss.

I don't see this as new law within the repeal either. It reads to me like the author is asking us to consider that section as an arguement, not mandating that we recognise it.

It's a load of tosh arguement anyway. When the surgeon has to get the woman's permission to do the surgery, and she is the first one cut open, then she is the patient, not the foetus, which at that stage is just a part of her body. It would be like someone having heart sugery, where the heart is considered a seperate entity. Total rubbish.

It would be like someone having heart sugery, where the heart is considered a seperate entity. Total rubbish.

And yet that heart is not months away from becoming a complete human being. We're not asking for the foetus to receive all the human rights of a child--just the right to life if its possible.

I did think the 'daily issue' touched MetaGaming, but I suppose they'd argue they merely meant a 'regular concern'.

Hmmm. Is this a statement of current status, or a proposal of new law within a repeal? Frankly, it's not clear. Discuss.
I don't think it's a new proposal; however, it wouldn't be out of place in an abortion ban/sovereign decision proposal's preambulatory text either. It seems to be sneaking in a definition of a foetus as a child with rights, but I don't think it's actually enough to make it illegal. (Besides, as has been pointed out before, repeal and replacement preambulatory clauses have clashed in the past, and such clashes have been considered legal.)

It brings up a question. It's noting termonology used, taking the concept of different societies, and posing questions that might not be properly answered by this resolution - which in many ways I'd see as a good approach (even if I disagree with his arguments on the whole). Argument

The delegate of one of my regions has endorsed this! :p

Right, it just may be ejected by founder time :D.

Right, it just may be ejected by founder time :D.

Great idea! If only we all got ejected from regions for disagreeing with our founders. :p

That paticular nation's pre title isn't "The founder Gods" for nothing :D.

I do oppose the repeal of this resolution, and will fight it if (when) it gets to the floor, but won't cry if it passes. This will be the perfect opportunity to get a replacement passed without all the loopholes the original has, and ensuring the right of all women to control of their own fertility without outside interference.

the right of all women to control of their own fertility without outside interference.

why are you putting the desire of a woman over the right of a human to live?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/STS_501E2.JPG

By Order Of His High Goat-Ordained Holiness The Sultan Of Gruenberg:
Baaaaaaaaaaaa

Ladies and gentlemen, fluffies and gnomes. It is with great sadness that we must tonight convey to the General Assembly that, should this repeal reach quorum, the Hemispherical Goat-a-Rama of Gruenberg will be forced, for only the second time in their history, to vote against a repeal and, for the first time, will consider active lobbying against that repeal. Simply put:
Abortion is legal in Gruenberg
The performing of an abortion is illegal in Gruenberg (and doctors known to have performed such have their licences revoked, are heavily fined, and then executed)
No state funds are allocated to abortion clinics or practices, whilst family planning clinics, Abstinence Brigades and fifty-foot-high billboards saying "If you have an abortion, we will kill you™" are very well funded
Abortion is taught as a sin in Religion classes; abortion is taught as potentially fatal in Biology classes
Although reports of women being beaten or even killed for having abortions are common, and although there exists substantial evidence of husbands, brothers or fathers forcing women not to have an abortion, no single prosecution for such an offence has ever been filed
The resultant abortion rate in Gruenberg is pleasantly low

We don't fancy changing that. Let them have their right; remove Abortion Rights, and they'll really kick this thing into shape. It is a shame to see so many nations doubtless opposing abortion supporting this repeal.

We don't fancy changing that. Let them have their right; remove Abortion Rights, and they'll really kick this thing into shape. It is a shame to see so many nations doubtless opposing abortion supporting this repeal.

We love loopholes here in Jey, and use many of the same methods to deter abortion of which you stated. Though, we will remain in support of this proposal in the hopes that this issue will be left entirely up to NatSov.

We love loopholes here in Jey, and use many of the same methods to deter abortion of which you stated. Though, we will remain in support of this proposal in the hopes that this issue will be left entirely up to NatSov.
Occasionally, it's best to be pragmatic. They'll pass another resolution.

why are you putting the desire of a woman over the right of a human to live?

I don't really want to get into a full on debate on this, mainly because these right to life vs right to choose debates have a bad tendancy to veer totally off topic for the UN and morph into a general debate.

So I'll answer the question, but wont' keep going.

Simply because its her body, and her choice to share it. The foetus doesn't have a right to the womb, nor does it own it. The womb belongs to the woman who's anatomy is a part of and what happens in her body is her business.

Those that don't like abortion don't have to have one. No-one will tie them down and rip the foetus out, but they can keep their noses out of my womb, and the wombs of other women. We are grown adults and quite capable of deciding whats best for us, our bodies, our families and our circumstances by ourselves.

No-one will tie them down and rip the foetus out, but they can keep their noses out of my womb, and the wombs of other women.
I think that's position #67 of the Kama Sutra...

Seriously, Waterana, those are good points. In all honesty, we hate abortion debates. No one wins. We understand your reluctance to engage in a full debate on the matter: I can assure you, your sentiments are shared on the other side.

There is a repeal of Abortion Rights that seems to have slipped in under our noses, and is presently sailing toward quorum.

The Federal Republic opposes a repeal of this resolution, for fear that it will allow members to propose a much stronger (to use a filthy word) replacement, with fewer loopholes. We are counting on our fluffy friends to defeat this article once it gets to vote. :cool:

My government had created a draft proposal condemning infantcide (sp?) months ago. It is a *weaker* proposal that prohibits certain types of abortions, and might be nice to bring back to the proposal stage should this repeal reach the floor and pass.

My government had created a draft proposal condemning infantcide (sp?) months ago. It is a *weaker* proposal that prohibits certain types of abortions, and might be nice to bring back to the proposal stage should this repeal reach the floor and pass.
A partial birth ban would be nice.

why are you putting the desire of a woman over the right of a human to live?
No offense, Jey, but let's leave the lid on that particular
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/temp/can_o_worms.jpg
at this time. Everyone knows (or should know) that there are two fundamentally irreconcileable opinions on this issue, and no amount of argument will move anyone from one side to the other. If you want to rehash it, go to any of a hundred similar threads both here and in General and pick it up where it left off. Nobody ever changes their mind. Ever.

Let's stick with the NS UN implications, whether it's a good repeal, whether the original law needs to be lifted for fairness reasons, whether a new resolution needs to be crafted, that sort of thing. Frankly, I see this as having the potential to be hotly contested race, and one of the more exciting debates, assuming everyone doesn't fall back into the "you're WRONG!", "No YOU'RE wrong!" trap.

Whadda ya say?

I say time to begin the gunning process.

I honestly think this repeal is about as dead as it can get. Fluffies will likely oppose it, NSO will oppose it, pro-choice oppose. Low-activity NatSovs are the only group that'll give it major support, and those guys don't have a majority vote (it's been proven several times)

But alas, I believe the content is just as important as the thousand and one political aspects that lay beyond whether it gets repealed or not. Thus the content must likewise be analyzed:

RECOGNIZES that abortion is an issue where good people on each side of this issue disagree.

As Fris said.....let's leave it at that

PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs.

POINTS OUT Resolution #61 provides no details or reasons for it's argument.

This I have to agree with. Resolution 61, like 43, 12, and quite a few others that end up in this kind of deadlock argument scenario are some of the worst examples of UN legislation - passing on the deadlock rather than the quality.

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

Automatic opposed vote, but with exception to parental consent, I think this is probably a good line for what's being accomplished

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any abortions, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

Fine. While I noted the argument of metagaming, I think this is actually rather irrelevant and can easily be interpreted as "your local commons can figure out what they want to do with it tomorrow" or "becomes the issue of the day for your citizens"

NOTES people are passionate on both sides of this issue and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit).

*growls*

"Pro-choice"? What, you get to let nations decide whether they enslave people to their point of view? That's choice? The choice to remove the right to chose from a citizen? What a ludicrous argument.

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.

As said before, I don't think this is illegal. That said, I don't exactly see the relevance considering the arguments used in UNR 61 (and it just smells of a badly attempted pro-life argument).

QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.

So? Says who all people research all procedures they have fully? Says who the research isn't provided to them and they are asked a few times by doctors whether they've researched the side effects and still wish to go ahead.

REPEALS resolution #61 "Abortion Rights"

Fat chance IMO

*Enters the writer of the repeal*

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.

Automatic opposed vote, but with exception to parental consent, I think this is probably a good line for what's being accomplished

The argument is designed for those who might have a problem with ANY of these possibile loopholes of the status quo, not ALL. I would hope that those like yourself that have an issue with parental consent would join me in this effort to repeal a poorly written bill.


"Pro-choice"? What, you get to let nations decide whether they enslave people to their point of view? That's choice? The choice to remove the right to chose from a citizen? What a ludicrous argument.

I would call this a faulty refutation of the argument. You're rebuttal is framed in the words of "choice" where my repeal nowhere desires to take away a person's choice of what clothes they wear, what they're going to eat for breakfast, who they will marry, etc. In other words, to frame the argument as "choice" is to wrap it in rhetoric. Almost all resolutions could be called an assault to choice since most of them limit a nation's or individual's right to do something. But we never frame other arguments around "choice". Instead we look at what it is that is being chosen. In this case it's abortion.

So this argument line of the repeal is not giving a nation rights of removing any "rights to choose" from citizens except the right to abort their children. This reinforces the line that good people will passionately disagree. I would respectfully submit that some passionately call abortion - Murder. Most nations have laws that limit a person's choice to do that.


QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.


So? Says who all people research all procedures they have fully? Says who the research isn't provided to them and they are asked a few times by doctors whether they've researched the side effects and still wish to go ahead.

Well, when it's the most common surgical procedure done today, I believe it deserves some research. When tonsilectomy used to be the most common surgical procedure there was all kinds of research done on the emotional effects of the surgery on the child, physical side effects, etc. However, because this unfortunately has become such a politically charged issue, where is the research now that abortion has replace tonsilectomy as the most common surgical procedure done today? In a crisis pregnancy, many women do not realize ahead of time that abortion then goes into their trauma box (pyschologically speaking) and many have issues to deal with for years and years to follow because of that. I could go into more, wouldn't have gone into what I have, except for what I felt was a shallow dismissal of the argument presented.



Some have stated here they look forward to the bill being replaced with something with less loopholes or something to that effect. There are others, like myself, who have a lot better stuff lined up as well. And whereas it is said here "fat chance" of this repeal passing, I'm looking forward to the fun of attempting it.

If it doesn't pass, we'll try again.

A partial birth ban would be nice.
Ecopoeia would vehemently oppose such a move, though a replacement resolution that made no obligation on states to accept partial birth abortions would perhaps be acceptable.

Mathieu Vergnaniud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Ecopoeia would vehemently oppose such a move, though a replacement resolution that made no obligation on states to accept partial birth abortions would perhaps be acceptable.
That's pretty much what I expected. The moment the legislative pendulum swings right, all the anti-sovereigntists start flapping like fish out of water. Funny, isn't it.

Whadda ya say?

No problem there, Fris. :cool:

That's pretty much what I expected. The moment the legislative pendulum swings right, all the anti-sovereigntists start flapping like fish out of water. Funny, isn't it.Rib-crackingly hilarious, Mr. Bausch. :D

*Enters the writer of the repeal*

I was about to respond to the TG you sent me, then I noticed your post here so....

The argument is designed for those who might have a problem with ANY of these possibile loopholes of the status quo, not ALL. I would hope that those like yourself that have an issue with parental consent would join me in this effort to repeal a poorly written bill.

You misunderstand my point. I disagree with the entirity of the list as irrelevant. I was merely commending it on being a good argument for your purposes - as with exception to parental consent, I think you will pick up support on those issues (I do not think you will pick up very much support - perhaps even lose support - for mentioning parental consent).

I actually have a severe personal issue with trying to push Parental consent on an abortion issue when a sister of a girl I knew was nearly disowned by her family because she chose to have an abortion.

I would call this a faulty refutation of the argument. You're rebuttal is framed in the words of "choice" where my repeal nowhere desires to take away a person's choice of what clothes they wear, what they're going to eat for breakfast, who they will marry, etc. In other words, to frame the argument as "choice" is to wrap it in rhetoric. Almost all resolutions could be called an assault to choice since most of them limit a nation's or individual's right to do something. But we never frame other arguments around "choice". Instead we look at what it is that is being chosen. In this case it's abortion.

You are merely confudling the issue and attacking a scarecrow. I'm saying that you cannot claim that by giving the right to governments to choose means that you are doing something that is "pro-choice". The entire concept of "pro-choice" is to let the INDIVIDUAL decide. On abortion, let the individual decide whether she wants to have an abortion. You don't hear these pro-choice people go "let the governments decide whether their citizens can have an abortion". That's a ludicrous argument at best.

So this argument line of the repeal is not giving a nation rights of removing any "rights to choose" from citizens except the right to abort their children. This reinforces the line that good people will passionately disagree. I would respectfully submit that some passionately call abortion - Murder. Most nations have laws that limit a person's choice to do that.

*avoids can of worms*

I won't touch the issue of whether its murder or not. I will, however, dispute what your repeal has stated. You cannot claim that by giving the nations to legislate instead of the UN that you are being pro-choice - PERIOD. I don't disagree that there's a lot of differing view points on the matter, and I agree that there are a lot of philosophies where the logical conclusion is a pro-life position. I'm not here to debate it. I'm here to debate a disgraceful line within a repeal attempt. I'm here to make sure ludicrous crap doesn't get passed through the UN

And actually, while I think Resolution 61 needs to be shot so we can get a much better replacement through, I refuse to support such a godaweful attempt. As I said, content is just as important, if not more important, than the resulting politics that comes from the passing of that document.

Well, when it's the most common surgical procedure done today, I believe it deserves some research. When tonsilectomy used to be the most common surgical procedure there was all kinds of research done on the emotional effects of the surgery on the child, physical side effects, etc. However, because this unfortunately has become such a politically charged issue, where is the research now that abortion has replace tonsilectomy as the most common surgical procedure done today? In a crisis pregnancy, many women do not realize ahead of time that abortion then goes into their trauma box (pyschologically speaking) and many have issues to deal with for years and years to follow because of that. I could go into more, wouldn't have gone into what I have, except for what I felt was a shallow dismissal of the argument presented.

You're taking how RL governments set up their abortion clinics as being the bar of what other governments are doing it. You want your citizens to have this procedure researched before they have an abortion? Go right ahead. Nothing's stopping you.

Considering the various UN resolutions passed - including Love and Esterel's Sex Education Act (UNR 118) which pressures governments to give much more information to all students on various issues INCLUDING abortion, I think it's false trying to think that all or even most systems are failing to provide a considerable amount of information on Abortions.

Some have stated here they look forward to the bill being replaced with something with less loopholes or something to that effect. There are others, like myself, who have a lot better stuff lined up as well. And whereas it is said here "fat chance" of this repeal passing, I'm looking forward to the fun of attempting it.

If it doesn't pass, we'll try again.

I shall enjoy barbequing this bill as the vote looms nearer and comes to the floor. I shall enjoy watching it burn.

That's pretty much what I expected. The moment the legislative pendulum swings right, all the anti-sovereigntists start flapping like fish out of water. Funny, isn't it.

We already addressed it back when Waterana started drafting the replacement. We know 61 is bad and we did attempt to repeal it at one point, but it crashed in its attempt to get endorsements because those that agreed with us were too worried the replacement wouldn't get through.

There is a repeal of Abortion Rights that seems to have slipped in under our noses, and is presently sailing toward quorum.

How in hell did this get in under the radar? :eek:

We must be slipping, folks. ;)

How in hell did this get in under the radar?
I saw it, but only when it had 30 or so approvals. Well-written repeals of this often get 50-60 without a TG campaign, so I didn't think anything of it. I had no idea it was going so quickly.

I have to admit, I missed it completely, but then I don't go through the list as often as I used to (when I was a regional delegate).

That's pretty much what I expected. The moment the legislative pendulum swings right, all the anti-sovereigntists start flapping like fish out of water. Funny, isn't it.
National sovereignty isn't my concern. An enforced ban of any sort would be unacceptable to Ecopoeia - not because we believe it infringes on our national right to self-determination, but because the vast majority of Ecopoeians hold that abortion is a universal right.

That said, I'm happy to offer sovereigntists the sop of 'opting out' of permitting partial birth abortions - something this resolution doesn't allow for, despite your semantic contortions.

MV

National sovereignty isn't my concern. An enforced ban of any sort would be unacceptable to Ecopoeia - not because we believe it infringes on our national right to self-determination, but because the vast majority of Ecopoeians hold that abortion is a universal right.

That said, I'm happy to offer sovereigntists the sop of 'opting out' of permitting partial birth abortions - something this resolution doesn't allow for, despite your semantic contortions.
How is it a 'semantic contortion' to prohibit IDX procedures? The resolution doesn't even contain a definition of abortion.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

I saw it, but only when it had 30 or so approvals. Well-written repeals of this often get 50-60 without a TG campaign, so I didn't think anything of it. I had no idea it was going so quickly.I saw it yesterday morning, when it had about 74 or something like that, but I didn't have time to bring it up till last night; I even mulled starting a TG campaign to get peeps to withdraw their votes.

OOC: please ignore, or think of MV as a moron, or whatever - I got confused on this point. The perils of typing responses while at work...

How is it a 'semantic contortion' to prohibit IDX procedures? The resolution doesn't even contain a definition of abortion.

Gruen - I'm not sure whether you were trying to imply this or not, but you seemed to be claiming that anti-sovereigntists get weak kneed when they start seeing stuff they don't like talking about. The problem is (though you seem to be able to grasp this a lot better than most sovereigntists) that IntFeds also have their own line of what should remain at the national level - they just believe that there should be an International Government. It's like claiming that just because the US has a national government, they shouldn't give any of their powers to the states.

OOC: For reference, Ecopoeia is neither a national sovereigntist nor an international federalist - MV didn't appreciate being lumped with the 'anti-sovereigntists', hence being quite riled. Unfortunately he made no allowance for his puppet-master's incompetence...

Gruen - I'm not sure whether you were trying to imply this or not, but you seemed to be claiming that anti-sovereigntists get weak kneed when they start seeing stuff they don't like talking about. The problem is (though you seem to be able to grasp this a lot better than most sovereigntists) that IntFeds also have their own line of what should remain at the national level - they just believe that there should be an International Government.Alrighty then ... what powers do you think the national governments should have unique authority over? I haven't seen you object to a single proposal that would usurp member states' rights. And even where you have disagreed with the proposal, you always agreed with the concept. I really don't know what your stance on an anti-partial-birth bill is, but if you honestly think the UN should maintain the right to legalize abortion, but not restrict it, I'm really gonna lose my mind here.

*snip*
I really don't know what your stance on an anti-partial-birth bill is, but if you honestly think the UN should maintain the right to legalize abortion, but not restrict it, I'm really gonna lose my mind here.

Going to lose your mind? ;)

Alrighty then ... what powers do you think the national governments should have unique authority over? I haven't seen you object to a single proposal that would usurp member states' rights. And even where you have disagreed with the proposal, you always agreed with the concept. I really don't know what your stance on an anti-partial-birth bill is, but if you honestly think the UN should maintain the right to legalize abortion, but not restrict it, I'm really gonna lose my mind here.

Um......you obviously have never read my comments in a drugs debate

Or guns, or gambling, or.....

Actually, there's a lot of proposals where I've outright rejected the concept and the proposal. You either have a very selective memory or you aren't reading enough threads to honestly be able to comment.

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

When it comes to abortion, I think it is the full right of the mother to decide whether or not she wants to carry the child. If this means that by deciding not to carry, the child will die due to lack of ability to technologically sustain it, so be it. If the child can be saved while not being attached to the mother, it should be. So long as the mother can find an appropriate professional to perform the operation and neither her nor the doctor are penalized for doing it (assuming the doctor is qualified), then I don't care what the government wants to do beyond that. If they want to have all women pledge that abortion is evil every morning, so be it. If they want her to undergo counciling - so long is it doesn't make it impossible for her to have an abortion in a reasonable time frame, so be it. As far as I'm concerned, that can remain at the national level. If you noticed in Right to Divorce, I left areas that I felt belonged to national governments to decide - areas where I EXPLICITLY stated as such.

Um......you obviously have never read my comments in a drugs debate

Or guns, or gambling, or.....

Actually, there's a lot of proposals where I've outright rejected the concept and the proposal. You either have a very selective memory or you aren't reading enough threads to honestly be able to comment.No, I do not have the time to read every thread in this forum, or every post therein. And I've only been very active on this forum for several months -- hence my qualifier "I've never seen ..."

Honestly, I was only curious.

When it comes to abortion, I think it is the full right of the mother to decide whether or not she wants to carry the child. If this means that by deciding not to carry, the child will die due to lack of ability to technologically sustain it, so be it. If the child can be saved while not being attached to the mother, it should be. So long as the mother can find an appropriate professional to perform the operation and neither her nor the doctor are penalized for doing it (assuming the doctor is qualified), then I don't care what the government wants to do beyond that. If they want to have all women pledge that abortion is evil every morning, so be it. If they want her to undergo counciling - so long is it doesn't make it impossible for her to have an abortion in a reasonable time frame, so be it. As far as I'm concerned, that can remain at the national level.Stop begging the question. I was asking what you think the UN's power should be with respect to abortion rights; I really don't give a flip what few national rights you think should be granted. The question is, if the UN is entitled to legalize abortion, then it should likewise be empowered to restrict it, should it not?

If you noticed in Right to Divorce, I left areas that I felt belonged to national governments to decide - areas where I EXPLICITLY stated as such.Right. Unless it had to do with under which circumstances a divorce should be granted. Unless it had to do with how long one must be in a marriage or union to request a divorce. Unless it had to do with how long a couple must be separated before divorce can be requested. Unless it had to do with whether parents had the right to see their children. OK. There just were so many usurpations in yours and L&E's bill, I honestly found it difficult to locate the areas in which you left sole authority to member states. But you say there were such areas. My mistake.

A partial birth ban would be nice.

I bumped that old thread. Hirota actually wrote the only draft, and as far as my government is concerned, we can make this a priority and work with Hirota or any other government to get such a clause included. Essentially the people of Mikitivity feel there is a middle ground here, and that this repeal may have opened the door for us to find it.

I have said before, I'll say again - if the UN can pass a resolution that restricts abortion (or, really, any other field), unless I hold a universal policy in that area of it being a national issue (eg: drugs, guns), I will not fight it on whether it should be handled at the International level or not - I'll fight it based upon what I believe on the issue. In other words, yes.

Occasionally, it's best to be pragmatic. They'll pass another resolution.

I supported the repeal because as in RL I feel that Abortion is an issue best decided by the states(ie. Nations here), and the voters of each state, and not an extra-governmental body(ie. the UN here), or the Federal Government(ie. in RL).
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

By the by:

The problem is (though you seem to be able to grasp this a lot better than most sovereigntists) that IntFeds also have their own line of what should remain at the national level - they just believe that there should be an International Government.I too think that there should be a body of international law; I wouldn't belong to the United Nations otherwise. I simply think such a body should be restricted to international issues, like: this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32), this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875401&postcount=128), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9945882&postcount=131), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042672&postcount=134), this (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=133) and this (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terrorism). Don't pretend like you're the only ones with a mind for internationalism, just because sovereigntists like myself think there should be a damn good reason before the international community interferes in national affairs. And forcing member nations to adhere to your values is not "internationalist" at all; it is one-world government, and a rather tyrannical one at that.

I too think that there should be a body of international law; I wouldn't belong to the United Nations otherwise. I simply think such a body should be restricted to international issues, like: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Don't pretend like you're the only ones with a mind for internationalism, just because sovereigntists like myself think there should be a damn good reason before the international community interferes in national affairs. And forcing member nations to adhere to your values is not "internationalist" at all; it is one-world government, and a rather tyrannical one at that.

Well said!

I don't want to tangent too far off topic, but my idea of the United Nations is not for all nations to look the same in what they legislate or not. I think some have posted here quite clearly that they want to impose their moral beliefs in international law on certain items like abortion. That their personal beliefs on issues like this is what will guide them in voting on bills and repeals. It is ok to believe that, but don't expect that we are all going to agree with it.

While this is not the thrust of my repeal, since that would not be a justifiable reason based on national sovereignty alone, I personally agree the United Nations should stay out of devisive political issues and let nations deal with those themselves.

And forcing member nations to adhere to your values is not "internationalist" at all; it is one-world government, and a rather tyrannical one at that.

Amen! A "father knows best", tyrannical one-world government at that. Brrr! Makes me shudder!*SHUDDER!!*

Bump

Knootoss is flat-out opposed to this repeal. We find it regrettable that the United Nations delegacy has been taken over by social conservatives currently, as is evidenced in the string of resolutions recently approved for voting in the General Assembly.

My nation is absolutely disgusted by the wording of this repeal, which takes away the right of the individual to choose and gives it to to oppressive national governments to restrict at their pleasure. The same argument could be used to take away all fundamental human rights and liberties.

Our considerations of rejoining the United Nations will be completely off the agenda if this repeal passes. For shame, UN, for shame! Let this be a warning to all freedom-loving people - already those who oppose freedom are planning how to implement the next piece of restrictive legislation in this very debate!

Any further comments in this debate will be made by my deputy. Thank you.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian UN Mission Ambassador

Hope you don’t mind if I have a go on this one.Argument: RECOGNIZES that abortion is an issue where good people on each side of this issue disagree.Absolutely, although I think there are not 2 “sides” but different views along the whole spectrum. I’m pro-choice up to a point, for example. I happen to think that area is where a common consensus can be reached on the whole debate, but I digress.PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs. Absolutely.POINTS OUT Resolution #61 provides no details or reasons for it's argument.True, but we did not have the high standards of resolution writing that we do today. I don’t think that’s a fair reason to repeal the resolutionEMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.Agreed, I happen to think that abortions should be permitted up to the third trimester, for example. I disagree with some of those examples you have listed though, I’m unconvinced about spousal consent.ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any abortions, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.I happen to think that it is the individual, not the state, which needs to decide this issue. By having it permitted by law in the UN, we pass that power of decision to the populace, the people who actually matter. I feel that member states should have no influence on the matter whatsoever when it comes to individual choice. By legislating on it within the UN to protect abortions, we leave the choice to the individual.NOTES people are passionate on both sides of this issue and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit). I disagree with the assertion that this promotes pro-choice. This resolution placed the ultimate choice to the individual. If we remove that resolution, we add another layer in the decision making process – the government. It’s completely ludicrous and incorrect to suggest this somehow strengthens the cause of pro-choice, because we will be taking away complete choice from the individual.CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location. Which is why I oppose third trimester abortions, surely the individual will have had several months to consider an abortion in the first place.QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure.With assistance and support from the government, yes they can. It’s something I would want in any replacement.

I might have to oppose this proposal, I accept many of the points are valid and true, but I think the idea that the promotion of national sovereignty actually promotes pro-choice is ridiculous. Pro-choice is about individual sovereignty, not national sovereignty. I bumped that old thread. Hirota actually wrote the only draft, and as far as my government is concerned, we can make this a priority and work with Hirota or any other government to get such a clause included. Essentially the people of Mikitivity feel there is a middle ground here, and that this repeal may have opened the door for us to find it.I remember the draft well, but I can’t find it. I would be interested in working on a replacement. But I definitely agree, there is a middle ground I feel that can accommodate the majority of views, excluding the most extreme.
__________________
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

[Beginning of the today "Friday Morning international politic public chat" presented by Shin Kim the editorialist of vagatorpost.lae.
Today he invited Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, LAE's Vice president]

http://test256.free.fr/chat.jpg

This repeal leaves me in something of a quandary. In its favour, the resolution in question made a simple statement of principle that I feel is valid. However, it is poorly written and does not actually oblige on nations to assist women having abortions - it is easily circumvented, as evidenced by the pronouncements of the Gruenberg delegation and others. There is also a compelling case for this issue being left to individual nations to legislate on, independent of UN mandate.

The flaws briefly detailed above ought to be sufficient for me to support repeal, yet I can't help but fear the consequences. The way will be left clear for a more detailed replacement that may prove to be overly restrictive. I, regrettably, have little faith in the ability of many delegates to read proposals in depth. Too many superficially appealing resolutions have been passed for me to retain great faith in my peers.

For the time being, Ecopoeia will abstain from voting on this repeal, though my Deputy and I remain open to persuasion from both sides.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

IMO... either #61 needs to be rewritte, or it needs to be repealled.

The DR of Geneticon is totally opposed to abortion, and will do all that is possible to see this resolution pass.

As a Delegate of the UN... I urged my fellow UN members to see the folly of resolution #61... even a resolution forcing every car in your nation to be pink would be more clear.

#61 doesn't even protect women's rights.

By the by:

I too think that there should be a body of international law; I wouldn't belong to the United Nations otherwise. I simply think such a body should be restricted to international issues, like: this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32), this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384832&postcount=111), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9439182&postcount=118), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9692854&postcount=120), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875401&postcount=128), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9945882&postcount=131), this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10042672&postcount=134), this (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=133) and this (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=anti-terrorism). Don't pretend like you're the only ones with a mind for internationalism, just because sovereigntists like myself think there should be a damn good reason before the international community interferes in national affairs. And forcing member nations to adhere to your values is not "internationalist" at all; it is one-world government, and a rather tyrannical one at that.


Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stands and applauds.

[Beginning of the today "Friday Morning international politic public chat" presented by Shin Kim the editorialist of vagatorpost.lae.
Today he invited Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, LAE's Vice president]

*image snip*

OOC: This crap's really gotta stop.

By the by:

I too think that there should be a body of international law; I wouldn't belong to the United Nations otherwise. I simply think such a body should be restricted to international issues, like: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Don't pretend like you're the only ones with a mind for internationalism, just because sovereigntists like myself think there should be a damn good reason before the international community interferes in national affairs. And forcing member nations to adhere to your values is not "internationalist" at all; it is one-world government, and a rather tyrannical one at that.Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stands and applauds.It's all very well and good saying the international community should not interfere in national affairs, but I feel that it is just as important that the government should not interfere in an individuals affairs.

At least by having the UN legislate on such a matter, we are removing that constraint on the individual, and letting them make the choice, rather than having it imposed upon them by their government.

I suppose it is a matter of perspective, some nations just seek to protect their rights from the UN, whilst I prefer to look at protecting the individuals rights from the government (of course trying to keep it balanced rather than allowing complete anarchy - although I know some nations are anarchys and very happy about it). Using the UN to protect the rights of the individual from the government is a very good way of acheiving this.

It's not a one world government, the NS UN is more like a federation or confederation, and as long as it deals with what it should deal with (international issues and human rights) rather than micromanagement of issues, then it's all good.
__________________
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

But in this case, it's legislating on an issue that is not settled: that of when a lump of cells becomes a person worthy of protection. Legislating either way on the issue, then, is indeed forcing one set of beliefs upon everyone. Just because one nation (or even many nations) feels that life worthy of legal protection doesn't begin until actual birth or sometime during the course of a pregnancy, that doesn't mean the UN should force nations that believe such life begins at conception to abandon that belief.

It's all very well and good saying the international community should not interfere in national affairs, but I feel that it is just as important that the government should not interfere in an individuals affairs.

At least by having the UN legislate on such a matter, we are removing that constraint on the individual, and letting them make the choice, rather than having it imposed upon them by their government.

I suppose it is a matter of perspective, some nations just seek to protect their rights from the UN, whilst I prefer to look at protecting the individuals rights from the government (of course trying to keep it balanced rather than allowing complete anarchy - although I know some nations are anarchys and very happy about it). Using the UN to protect the rights of the individual from the government is a very good way of acheiving this.

It's not a one world government, the NS UN is more like a federation or confederation, and as long as it deals with what it should deal with (international issues and human rights) rather than micromanagement of issues, then it's all good.


But the NSUN is expressedly supposed to allow for all forms of government, including those that are moralistic &/or repressive...

Knootoss is flat-out opposed to this repeal. We find it regrettable that the United Nations delegacy has been taken over by social conservatives currently, as is evidenced in the string of resolutions recently approved for voting in the General Assembly.Begging your pardon, I wasn't formerly aware that striking out bad legislation and terrorism were "conservative" issues. Although we agree that this repeal must not succeed.

Damn you, fluffy scum! Get your lazy asses in gear! This thing is winning 2-1! :mad:

Some things need to be protected. In this case, the woman's right to have an abortion. If that means forcing our values on backwards nations, so be it.

I will vote against this repeal.

Some things need to be protected. In this case, the woman's right to have an abortion. If that means forcing our values on backwards nations, so be it.

It's this sort of moral superiority that sickens me. Just because some nations don't share your values doesn't make them "backwards." The arrogance of such a statement is disgusting.

It's this sort of moral superiority that sickens me. Just because some nations don't share your values doesn't make them "backwards." The arrogance of such a statement is disgusting.
Golgothastan is very 'pro-choice', and would be more sickened by this repeal if we didn't think a better replacement could emerge. Nonetheless, we are inclined to agree with you on this point. We have one caveat: we would agree with you, and further say it is reprehensible to force one's values on another person, as well as another nation.

Some things need to be protected. In this case, the woman's right to have an abortion. If that means forcing our values on backwards nations, so be it.

If it is "backwards" to oppose the wanton murder of unborn children then the government of St Edmund gladly accepts that label...

(St Edmund doesn't actually favour a total ban on the process, but would definitely prefer to be able to insist on a more important reason than "lifestyle choice" existing before authorising it...)

(St Edmund doesn't actually favour a total ban on the process, but would definitely prefer to be able to insist on a more important reason than "lifestyle choice" existing before authorising it...)

The Republic of ZAWARUDO applauds the stance of St Edmund and is in total agreement. We support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, however that choice must be made in a timely, intelligent, and responsible manner. Late-term abortions, abortions for purely cosmetic reasons, or even for no good reason whatsoever are completely unacceptable.

Not to mention that we of ZAWARUDO are mortified that such a thing was ever mandated by the U.N. to being with. Such a sensitive matter as this belongs being decided on a national level, not a global one. We urge you all, then, to exercise your right to soverignty and move to repeal Resolution 61.

But the NSUN is expressedly supposed to allow for all forms of government, including those that are moralistic &/or repressive...Well, I'd rather tread on a few political toes and emancipate those who are suppressed than not. Of course it's all about moderation, which is why I oppose outright stamping on political toes ;)

I find it slightly hypocritical when a government says its unhappy about the UN making the decisions and infringing on national sovereignty, when I imagine that the populace – the individuals - are probably saying the exact same thing about their repressive government infringing on their personal sovereignty. It's why I lean towards such acts in moderation - the UN shouldn't go crazy and legislate on everything, just like the government shouldn't go crazy and legislate on everything.

In this case I think neither the UN nor the state is qualified to decide on the acts of the individual, which is why this should be legislated on to permit abortion – just because it is legal does not mean that the individual is going to have an abortion – it’s based upon social and cultural factors which are ingrained into a society and are arguably more important than whatever a government or the UN has to say on a matter. But in counterbalance, I think that up to 6 months is plenty of time to decide to have an abortion (excluding abortions on medical grounds and other cases, of course), and by that time the embryo is not an embryo – it’s a viable human being that can survive outside the womb (given medical aid).

But I don’t think we want to get into that particular bugbear just yet.

OOC: This crap's really gotta stop.

OOC: As usual, your polite and interesting argument

Some things need to be protected. In this case, the woman's right to have an abortion. If that means forcing our values on backwards nations, so be it.

I will vote against this repeal.
Yelda stands in solidarity with our colleague Groot Gouda in voicing opposition to this repeal. We have cast our vote against and stand ready to campaign for a replacement should this reprehensible thing pass.

There is a repeal of Abortion Rights that seems to have slipped in under our noses, and is presently sailing toward quorum.

The Federal Republic opposes a repeal of this resolution, for fear that it will allow members to propose a much stronger (to use a filthy word) replacement, with fewer loopholes. We are counting on our fluffy friends to defeat this article once it gets to vote. :cool:

We fully agree with the idea of a stronger proposal going into place that may have more bite than the one already approved. As most of the ones to replace this one we have seen would be stronger in that they would require nations and people to perform them even if they oppose the idea. This protects the woman from abuse because they choose to have one but does not abuse folks for not giving her one. Thus we fear the idea of a new one that would abuse folks for not preforming abortions simply because a woman wants one.

So we oppose the repeal of the currrent resolution.

OOC: As usual, your polite and interesting argument

OOC: Not an argument. Simply a statement of displeasure.

The PRRS opposes this repeal for several reasons.

"EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy."

There should be a limit on the age an unborn fetus is allowed to be aborted. And honestly there is little to no reason that a woman should even have an abortion short of unconsentual procreation. If one wishes to abort a growing citizen of our country they better have a valid reason and proof of said reason.

Then I'd suggest you support the repeal...

I'll just say this: All these repeals of age-old issues are getting extremely annoying. Can people not just leave things be? Or is there noone out there original enough to make an actual proposal?

Everyone is free to have their opinion on what they personally believe about abortion. Frankly I could care less what people believe about it and hope this thread does not become a back and forth about irrelevant thoughts.

But whatever you think about this repeal, people should take notice that this original bill, the current repeal hopes to strike out, is the exact reason many are frustrated with the UN in the first place. If the UN feels it has the jurisdiction to rule on behalf of nations concerning abortion, then why have daily issues to decide upon at all? I suppose we should just allow the UN to decide everything for us.

I also recognize that those who don't believe in defending the life of the unborn child but look at it as a "glop of cells" or whatever you choose to call it would naturally disagree with what I have written above and call it a "human rights issue" for the mother. Realize that there are those who feel that the human rights argument is not being equally applied to the unborn child. Also, there are many who morally disagree with this whole argument. So "human rights" as an argument in this seems to be totally a matter of perspective.

I have dropped out of the UN with my nation because of just such issues as this that the UN feels it can poke it's nose into how I legislate one way or the other on such sharply decisive issues (abortion, Euthanasia, Human cloning, etc.). The nation I created just to join the UN with (for the sole purpose of voting), however, has voted FOR this repeal and believes more nations would be a part of this body if there were more room for disagreement on issues like this.

Or is there noone out there original enough to make an actual proposal?I can think of one (www.nationstates.net/mirkai). Or what? Are you not up to the challenge?

I vote AGAINST this repeal.

Even if it doesn't make abortion illegal, it makes abortion more difficult. Let's live this fundamental woman right !

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

Even if it doesn't make abortion illegal, it makes abortion more difficult. Let's live this fundamental woman right !

Here we go with human rights arguments again. I suppose the above is true unless you were an unborn woman. Then you have no rights at all. And whatever one feels about what I just wrote, the important thing is that good people DO disagree on this (first point of the repeal). Which is why the UN should not legislate on it.

I'll just say this: All these repeals of age-old issues are getting extremely annoying. Can people not just leave things be? Or is there noone out there original enough to make an actual proposal?

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/floghorse.jpg

I have two things to say.

Does the repeal have a proposed replacement?

It has been scientifically proven that sterility is inherited.

I'll just say this: All these repeals of age-old issues are getting extremely annoying. Can people not just leave things be? Or is there noone out there original enough to make an actual proposal?

I've got a [non-controversial] proposal about meteorological cooperation drafted: It was submitted once before and only got just over a third of the necessary number of approvals for being sent to the General Assembly, but I'll be trying again next week... Please approve it, if you are a regional delegate, or ask your delegate to approve it if you're not one yourself.

The people of The Fleeting Daydream Of Safalra were most disturbed that the original resolution allowed for medical research companies to pay poor women thousands of pounds/dollars/etc to get pregnant and have an abortion in order to secure a source of stem cells. Fortunately vigilante action in our nation prevented this from happening, but we are glad that this repeal will allow either a more sensible replacement, or for nations to legislate themselves.

Some things need to be protected. In this case, the woman's right to have an abortion. If that means forcing our values on backwards nations, so be it.

I will vote against this repeal.

Ladies, gentleman, and persons of other assorted genders and physical constitutions of the assembly, allow me to direct your attention towards this statement.

You will note that Ambassador Lane has come to the basic point. She believes that the values of her nation are superior to the values of other nations, and is furthermore willing to engage in coercive behavior to force others to adhere to those vaues. I ask you which is worse of these two examples: a religious and conservative Automobilican nation that tramples on the liberty of its members, or an irreligious and liberal multinational organization that tramples on the liberty of its members?

Reasonable people, those who have the ability to look carefully at an issue from multiple persepectives, might conclude that the only significant difference in terms of the destruction of liberty is one of scale. Why destroy liberty in one place to uphold it in another? In either case, liberty is destroyed, but if we act in a way that destroys liberty for the sake of preserving it then we simply tarnish ourselves with the very wrong we wish to stop. Liberty is no better for it, and we are the worse for it.

We in the Federation are in favor of liberty, and opposed to engaging in the destruction of it. We stand FOR the repeal.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

My Esteemed Coleagues and assembled journalists,

My nation and my region's nations have been playing this issue like ping pong ever since it came up. At first, I had decided that the repeal of #61 was very similar to the recent repeal of #12 ("Gay Rights"). The emptiness and uselessness of #61 was just as egregious as that in #12, in my region's opinion. However, the point was made that #12 had overlapping quasi-replacements already on the books, whereas #61 has no such support. The initial vote FOR this repeal was reversed.

A while later, another argument was made about whether or not the UN really needs to legilate a stand on a divisive issue like this, even if it's to allow abortion by not restricting it. It was decided that the UN's best option was to have no official opinion on the issue, thereby allowing the several nations to do with it as their various systems of government allow. This unanimous point of view led to my reversion of Greater Seattle's vote to FOR the repeal.

Now my conscience is eating at me. I'm not convinced to withdraw my support of the repeal yet, so I'm looking to my colleagues here to help dislodge the "no official position" argument from my mind or in some way reinforce my support. I am fully behind the effort to excise vestigial and appendix-like resolutions from the NSUN body politic, but I can also see that striking out #61 could leave the door open for pro-life resolution. Then I think that those who wish such a resolution must survive the gauntlet of UN opinion and the votes of the delegates -- personally, I don't think outright pro-life conservative bans would pass or even win enough approvals.

Because the repeal will force proposals to be very carefully constructed, I am voting YES on this repeal. I don't expect many to follow the reasoning, but I'd enjoy any rejoinders to it.

With great respect,

Miinister Benjamin Royce,
UN Proxy for Jubal Harshaw,
Regional Delegate for Greater Seattle and Magister of Intangelon

I supported the repeal because as in RL I feel that Abortion is an issue best decided by the states(ie. Nations here), and the voters of each state, and not an extra-governmental body(ie. the UN here), or the Federal Government(ie. in RL).


Therein lies the basis of Norderia's support for this repeal. The issue of abortion is too hot to be handled with a blanket Resolution. Leave it to individual governments to decide, whether they allow it, or not, and to what extent.

The Resolution up for Repeal at this time is a poorly written one. The people in Norderia have extensive abortion rights, but this Resolution does little to support them, and the Repeal does nothing to take them away. Norderia's rights are not at all hurt by this Repeal passing.

As for the proposition of a replacement: This is not an easy thing for me to have an opinion on. I certainly would oppose staunchly a Resolution that placed limits on Norderia's ability to maintain its clear and detailed Constitutional rights to abortion, but I may not be able to support a Resolution that expressly prohibits nations from prohibiting abortion.

It would, however, benefit Norderia to have a Resolution that protects its right to self-determination in the issue of abortion. A Resolution that states that it is each nation's right to decide for their own which side of the abortion issue to take, and prohibits one nation from forcing another to adopt its policy. The issue of abortion is best left to the individual nations, due to its hotly debated nature, and the number of opinions present about the extents to which it should be allowed or prohibited.

Norderia votes for this Repeal, and hopes that a Resolution as described in the above paragraph to allow self-determination on the issue of abortion be proposed.

If this resolution passes I will resign from the UN. Then I can finally control my people how I want!

If this resolution passes I will resign from the UN. Then I can finally control my people how I want!

This repeal isn't doing anything about your control over your people. The Resolution it's repealing doesn't even do much to control your people.

But in this case, it's legislating on an issue that is not settled: that of when a lump of cells becomes a person worthy of protection. Legislating either way on the issue, then, is indeed forcing one set of beliefs upon everyone. Just because one nation (or even many nations) feels that life worthy of legal protection doesn't begin until actual birth or sometime during the course of a pregnancy, that doesn't mean the UN should force nations that believe such life begins at conception to abandon that belief.


I agree, good sir, that there is a great amount of debate that could be had over such issues. As such, I will refrain from adding my two cents about when life begins or when it should be illegal to end it for the time being.

That being said, I am forced to disagree in principle with your remark about forcing one set of beliefs upon everyone. It could be argued by some of the more "anarchistic" nations that terrorism is a valid form of political statement that should be allowed. I, myself, agree with your standpoint that they are rather misled and wholeheartedly supported that unfortunately delayed (I have no doubts of its inevitable return and passing into law) resolution. That resolution would, in effect be forcing OUR beliefs upon those who disagree.

It ill fits us to be an international legislative body that shies away from the notion of legislating internationally.

I do, however, agree that there are some places that, perhaps the UN should not go as a whole. Inside a woman's body might be one of them.

Thank you for your time

Respectfully,

Oskar Feldstein
Slightly Moist Representative of Kivisto

This repeal, if passed, will be enough for me and my regional delegate to seriously consider leaving the UN. We ask for a replacement to be offered before repealing such an act.

I'm a little surprised such a resolution was passed in the first place.

I fear a repeal of this resolution could eventually lead to the elimination of my
country's main export, baby meat.

Women here are encouraged to get pregnant, carry 8.5 months and then abort to sell their would be children for a substantial profit.





Wait that's disgusting,
We vote for the repeal.

This repeal, if passed, will be enough for me and my regional delegate to seriously consider leaving the UN. We ask for a replacement to be offered before repealing such an act.

Why wait for them?

Create one. That way you can be sure it will best suit the desires of yourself and your associates.

Better yet, collaborate with some of the others that have mentioned working on or having drafts already prepared. With that you could be guaranteed of at least a few other supporters in your co-authors.

There's no need for such ultimatums. Though we fully appreciate the seriousness of your stance, you must understand that those who side against you will not be swayed by your absence.

Regards,

Oskar Feldstein
Representing Kivisto
Resting on The Master's Reposed Laurels

So the UN had accepted a resolution on abortion. Ha we think its wrong for the UN to step in on this issue and are glad that someone has done something about it. It is the government of the nations job to make judgment on something like this.

:sniper:

This repeal, if passed, will be enough for me and my regional delegate to seriously consider leaving the UN. We ask for a replacement to be offered before repealing such an act.

If this game would let me I would attack your country. You know what leave the UN. We don’t want people in the UN who are oh to willing to complain about a resolution but are not willing to do something about it

:headbang: :mp5: :sniper:

If this game would let me I would attack your country. You know what leave the UN. We don’t want people in the UN who are oh to willing to complain about a resolution but are not willing to do something about it

We also don't want people to speak for the entire UN. The above post by Kivisto was sufficient, this is just gratuitous.

"QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure."

WTF?!?! "Questions if women are unable to make informed choices?!" I understand the need for research into the topic before making any choice about going through with it (and I'm certain most people who have abortions DO their research and DON'T contemplate distroying potential life WITHOUT weighing the consequences), but the resolution makes it sound like women are unable to make sound judgements without the interference of their governement (or more logical men/religious institutions). That article is a disgrace to women and the UN!

On another note, what has given with the sudden rise of conservative legislation within the UN?! First Gay Rights and now strikening abortion from the International Charter? I would like to see progressive legislation upheld, instead of being picked away by the conservative lobby.

Liberal, Centrists, and Civil Liberty-minded nations of the UN, see that such legislation is not striken from our charter!!!!

"QUESTIONS if women are able to make informed choices without further research into the pychological and emotional side effects of such a common surgical procedure."

WTF?!?! "Questions if women are unable to make informed choices?!" I understand the need for research into the topic before making any choice about going through with it (and I'm certain most people who have abortions DO their research and DON'T contemplate distroying potential life WITHOUT weighing the consequences), but the resolution makes it sound like women are unable to make sound judgements without the interference of their governement (or more logical men/religious institutions). That article is a disgrace to women and the UN!

On another note, what has given with the sudden rise of conservative legislation within the UN?! First Gay Rights and now strikening abortion from the International Charter? I would like to see progressive legislation upheld, instead of being picked away by the conservative lobby.

Liberal, Centrists, and Civil Liberty-minded nations of the UN, see that such legislation is not striken from our charter!!!!

That "QUESTIONS" bit of this Repeal chaps my ass too. But it carries no weight for ruling in the UN, as this is only a Repeal. So I'm willing to ignore that for the sake of removing this poorly-written, if well-meaning Resolution for the sake of giving the UN the chance to declare this an issue to be resolved by each individual nation. I refer you to my first post on this thread, page 6.

It may look like a rather conservative idea to strike out a Resolution protecting abortion, but the Resolution, as was illustrated by someone earlier, does little to protect it. I would prefer to keep my nation's right to abortion, and I know that there are as many who would prefer to keep their nation's right to prohibit it. Thus, a Resolution declaring NatSov on this issue would be preferable.

The question, now, is that if we did this Self-determination thing with abortion, wouldn't it follow that we do it with all other issues? My answer is no. The issue of abortion is a cultural (by most opinions) issue. It does not deal with unusual weapons or war tactics, or the human condition. I guaruntee that there will be very few, if any at all Resolutions where it is just too hard to suggest that one side is more correct than the other, as is the case, seemingly, with abortion.

As one of the newest members of the UN, Vencer was excited about voting on such a topic of importance. Vencer stands for the Repeal. In order to grow as a nation, the people must lead the nation. The people of Vencer (the Venceros) believe that to sustain the level of freedom and liberty that the repeal must be stood for.

Regarding the virtues of the repeal itself, let's be in no doubt: it is poor. I defer to the commentary offered by a regonal colleague:

and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit).
How utterly spurious. The free choices of nations and the free choices of individuals are not the same category of thing at all. It's like people who describe themselves as libertarians arguing for the death penalty, on the grounds that banning the death penalty would limit what government can do and that would be regulation and hence anti-liberty.

Otherwise, yeah, this resolution was crap.

PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE & THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, DAMN IT!:mad: :upyours:

Howdy You All (Dignitaries)!

It has come to the attention of my nation state that the elite of Dorksonia have ruled over their fellow citizens in a reactionary manner, perhaps demanding an international responce from this body. The intelligence service of my nation, consulting the Dorksonia page, has become informed:"ETHNIC MINORITIES ARE OFTEN REFUSED ADMISSION TO SOME OF THE NATION'S BEST SCHOOLS"! You yourselves might consult with your own intelligence services, and I believe you will find the very same report. In proposing this ammendment Dorksonia has spoken forcefully for the sanctity of soverignty. It is our holding that all nations, by entering into the United Nations, pledge to lay down some small part of their soverignty in the embrace of more univsersal standards of liberty and equality. The apparent racism that has received offical sanction in Dorksonia might lend us to question their committment to these values. In that light, let us weigh the strength or weakness of the argument that abortion is a fundamental issue of woman's liberty and equality.

Peace and Prosperity,
Pres, Armed Republic of Creechmark

Should really be up to the nations themselves. So sorry as much as I think that all women should have the right to get a abortion, this is for the nation to decide so sorry my nation is for this bill......

So the UN had accepted a resolution on abortion. Ha we think its wrong for the UN to step in on this issue and are glad that someone has done something about it. It is the government of the nations job to make judgment on something like this.

The Star Sybil Natsume and Ruler of Windurst agrees. Abortion laws are for the nations to decide not the UN. We value the lives or our born and unborn strongly. If/ When this repeal is passed which I am for I will be agaist any and all abortion resolutions that appear unless they are giving full control of Abortion Laws to the governments of the other nations.

Do you know how abortion is done?!? MORONS! They open the woman up, and hack the fetus to pieces! (From what I remember x_X) And sometimes that doesn't work! And The baby is born deformed

Charnne is displeased in general with the wording of this appeal, but I do think the repeal is a good idea. I think this issue should be regulated by the individual member nations, and not by the UN. The larger debate of abortion is not really important to the passing of this bill.

If anyone is truly pro-choice then they should support this resolution. It is not the role of the United Nations to dictate what other nations can do in regards to personal issues. Whether you are pro life or pro choice it should not matter, everyone should support this resolution.

Let the nations decide-they know what's best for their people.

President Mowers
Republic of The Mowers

If anyone is truly pro-choice then they should support this resolution. It is not the role of the United Nations to dictate what other nations can do in regards to personal issues. Whether you are pro life or pro choice it should not matter, everyone should support this resolution.

Let the nations decide-they know what's best for their people.

President Mowers
Republic of The Mowers


OOC: Just so you know, for those who believe that this is a human rights issue, and that the UN should step into human rights issues, this won't convince anyone.

Moreover, I can be "truly pro-choice" and against this repeal, if I believe that the choice involved should be the individuals and not the governments.

Moreover, I don't believe that the nations always know what's best for their people.

Just my two cents.

----------------Player of Hou Mian, not the character who runs it-----------

If anyone is truly pro-choice then they should support this resolution. It is not the role of the United Nations to dictate what other nations can do in regards to personal issues. Whether you are pro life or pro choice it should not matter, everyone should support this resolution.

Let the nations decide-they know what's best for their people.

President Mowers
Republic of The Mowers

I would like to answer that:
Pro-choice = choice for each woman, not for each nations
Nations are not sapient, sentient or human beings, I don't think nations deserve to be granted sapient or human rights, and it's not "their people".

It seems to me that it's not because in this game, OOCly, a nation = 1 people behind his/her computer, that we should grant nations human/sapient rights.

Our nations need to have the right to decide this issue on our own. Abortion is a question of ethics that differs from one culture to the next and therefore should and can not be decided upon internationally. I think that Resolution #61 is a bad resolution in that it prohibits member nations from deciding on abortion rights on their own and according to their own culture. I have voted for this current resolution and encourage other nations who value their right to decide matters of ethics on their own to do the same.

Brixton Faction supports this current resolution to repeal Resolution #61.

:mp5: Long Live the Armed Republic of Brixton Faction

As important as legal abortion is in the Socialist Republic, we believe that the choice about whether or not to legalize the practice should be a decision left to sovereign states, not the United Nations. While a repeal might be followed by an attempt at reinstatement, that is no reason in our eyes to oppose the repeal. Any future legislation on the matter will be considered for its individual merits by the Socialist Republic. On the repeal of Abortion Rights, Xanthal casts its vote for.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

I don't like the arguments about "this resolution is pro-choice; it gives the nations the choice", because I believe it to be "rhetoricwanking". "Pro-choice" is a commonly used political term (at least in the US, I don't know about UK/elsewhere) that means "in favor of letting women choose to have an abortion or not". To say differently is to take an almost idiomatic term literally, distorting the message.

*gets down from soapbox*

Do you know how abortion is done?!? MORONS! They open the woman up, and hack the fetus to pieces! (From what I remember x_X) And sometimes that doesn't work! And The baby is born deformed

Your ignorance is appalling.

I don't like the arguments about "this resolution is pro-choice; it gives the nations the choice", because I believe it to be "rhetoricwanking". "Pro-choice" is a commonly used political term (at least in the US, I don't know about UK/elsewhere) that means "in favor of letting women choose to have an abortion or not". To say differently is to take an almost idiomatic term literally, distorting the message.

*gets down from soapbox*

I think it is perfectly fair of the resolution to use the term "pro-choice" in the broader sense, in this case meaning in favor of ("pro") choice, specifically the right of the nation to choose, national soverignty.

Then again, I agree that that sentence should have been omitted, because it is unnecessary. In the broad sense of the term, virtually everyone is pro-choice...

I'm still looking for a solid response to my earlier post (post#86). Any help? I can be swayed, as of now I'm still in the "yes" camp. However, the simplistic and emotion-laden rhetoric of recent "yes"-posters is weakening that stance on principle.

Howdy You All (Dignitaries)!

It has come to the attention of my nation state that the elite of Dorksonia have ruled over their fellow citizens in a reactionary manner, perhaps demanding an international responce from this body. The intelligence service of my nation, consulting the Dorksonia page, has become informed:"ETHNIC MINORITIES ARE OFTEN REFUSED ADMISSION TO SOME OF THE NATION'S BEST SCHOOLS"! You yourselves might consult with your own intelligence services, and I believe you will find the very same report. In proposing this ammendment Dorksonia has spoken forcefully for the sanctity of soverignty. It is our holding that all nations, by entering into the United Nations, pledge to lay down some small part of their soverignty in the embrace of more univsersal standards of liberty and equality. The apparent racism that has received offical sanction in Dorksonia might lend us to question their committment to these values. In that light, let us weigh the strength or weakness of the argument that abortion is a fundamental issue of woman's liberty and equality.

Peace and Prosperity,
Pres, Armed Republic of Creechmark

Lol! Now I'm called a racist by someone here.

Evidently, when you vote what seems a reasonable way on some daily issues the results sometimes are extreme ones that you disagree with. The way I voted on that daily issue was in my opinion the least racist option of all, and it turns out to result in a write up of my nation saying I am. Anyone else ever surprised how a daily issue vote turned out in your nation's description?

Case settled. This was just a diversion tactic anyway. Nothing to do with my "poorly drafted resolution" as some of you have told me in telegrams, and "the best written repeal on abortion rights I've ever seen" by others. This game does make me laugh.

I'm not going to attack someone for how they vote though like I've seen done on occasion in the past. It's just a game. Vote however you choose and be happy with yourself for voting. I think the original bill was a poorly written one. So if one thinks mine is poorly written but votes FOR it simply to get rid of the poorly written one on the books, I'm not going to lose any sleep over one's opinion of my writing skills on this one.

Oh, and I've never suggested, as some have implied, that women were ignorant of making choices for themselves. But most major surgeries tell any patient of the possible complications and research into the possible side effects. Tonsilectomy used to be the most common surgical procedure done in my nation (ooc: also used to be the case in the United States). Because of that, all kinds of research was done into the side effects and emotional effects this surgery had on young people. Millions of dollars went into this research because it was such a common procedure. Today, abortion is the most common surgical procedure in many of our nations (ooc: it's the most common surgical procedure in the United States - real life). Yet because of the politicalness of the issue - nobody seems to want to do any of this same kind of research, or if they do, they are labeled either pro-life or pro-choice depending on their results instead of being pro-woman regardless of one's beliefs. I would suggest that if one questions my wording on this bill in this area, that maybe they haven't spoken as much with close women in their lives who have actually had abortions. That's all I'll say on that.

Have fun voting everyone. And ultimatums about membership in the UN over a bill is kind of silly in my opinion. State your opinion and try to sway us with good arguments for your position. But emotional blackmail doesn't work too well here.

I think it is perfectly fair of the resolution to use the term "pro-choice" in the broader sense, in this case meaning in favor of ("pro") choice, specifically the right of the nation to choose, national soverignty.
Since when have National Sovereignity advocates been called "pro-choice" advocates? It seems to be like the term is being manipulated in light of the subject.

Not like it matters much...

if one questions my wording on this bill



Yes we question your wording:

NOTES people are passionate on both sides of this issue and repealing this issue will indeed be "pro-choice" (member nations may choose to permit abortions for any reason, limit it as they deem necessary, or prohibit).

pro-choice

supporting the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion (= an operation to end a pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby Compare pro-life.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=prochoice*1+0&dict=A

PRO-CHOICE
WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [adj] advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her right to an induced abortion)
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=pro-choice&sourceid=Mozilla-search

pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.

Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-choice


Pro-choice is a common self-description used by people who believe that women should have the legal right to have an abortion, or that one should be able to choose on issues relating to the life or death of themselves or any part of their body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

Since when have National Sovereignity advocates been called "pro-choice" advocates? It seems to be like the term is being manipulated in light of the subject.


Agreed. Folks, both pro-choicers (people in favor of allowing women the right to abortion) and pro-lifers (people in favor of prohibiting abortion) are voting in both the yes and no for this Repeal. This Repeal is not a debate between pro-choice and pro-life. Both sides see the merits of voting for or against this Resolution for their own reasons. There are parts of this Repeal that are very poorly worded, an apparent attempt at subtle insertion of the author's own attitudes and persuasion. Those bits can be ignored, because all this Repeal does is repeal. Nothing else. The wording of the Repeal ought not have any weight on how you vote.

There is no reason to bring up pro-choice or pro-life in this debate -- as they have been brought up thus far. It may come in later, but I don't see that as a likely, or significant occurance.

Nice try Love and esterel. An intelligent debater recognizes right away that this whole subject of calling abortion "choice" is an excercise in rhetoric.

Long ago people realized that when abortion was the issue, those that were in favor of abortion lost the debate. Because the focus was on what was being chosen. But the issue has been wrapped in the rhetoric of "choice" to avoid what it is exactly that is being chosen in this instance.

In this case the example is a choice between a live baby or a dead baby. Some people use different terminology because they don't like to think about killing a baby or an unborn child (Fetus - Latin meaning "unborn child").

So because I would find a certain choice reprehensible for my nation, I could be called "anti-choice"???? As if I'm against anyone having the choice to pick their clothes or what they eat for breakfast in the morning as well. Come on! The choice is about abortion. So let's avoid the verbal gymnastics.

Whether you choose to vote for this repeal or not is your choice and I'm glad you have the freedom to vote For it or against it. I would like for you to vote FOR it because I believe it is an issue that should NOT be decided upon by the UNITED NATIONS.

What if there were a bill being decided the opposite way on the books. It could be called "Rights of the Unborn." Alot of the arguments one makes concerning human rights could be made for the unborn as well. I bring that up not in support of such legislation but to point out once again that good people are going to disagree on this. I believe that's a reasonable position. Of course there will be some unreasonable (IMHO) people who will trash this anyway and say my opinion on it is not a good one. Fair enough. That's why this repeal is the best choice because it is not mandating how you would be able to set laws in your own nation concerning abortion.

IMHO, calling this repeal "pro-choice" is more honest than calling a position in favor of abortion "pro-choice". One because it's ambiguous as to what is being chosen and phrased that way to avoid the subject. Also because in my nation those who call themselves "pro-choice" are usually against informed consent laws as well. And I believe an uninformed choice is no choice at all.

IMHO, calling this repeal "pro-choice" is more honest than calling a position in favor of abortion "pro-choice". One because it's ambiguous as to what is being chosen and phrased that way to avoid the subject. Also because in my nation those who call themselves "pro-choice" are usually against informed consent laws as well. And I believe an uninformed choice is no choice at all.
That's like saying calling peanut butter "brown goop" is more "honest" than calling it "peanut butter". Regardless of the way anyone wanks rhetoric, "pro-choice" has come to mean, whether we like it or not, "in favor of letting women decide whether to have an abortion".

I would further add that it matters not whether one is in favor of abortion or against it to repeal this poorly written bill. That is the direction I would like to keep the discussion going anyway. It makes not a lot of difference what one believes on the issue. This is only repealing a law on the books that people who have differing view points can find common ground on.

That's like saying calling peanut butter "brown goop" is more "honest" than calling it "peanut butter". Regardless of the way anyone wanks rhetoric, "pro-choice" has come to mean, whether we like it or not, "in favor of letting women decide whether to have an abortion".


Lol! Those who are in favor of abortion would like that to be true. Those who wish to limit abortion at least in some way make up an overwhelming majority of the population. Many of them reject and always have rejected the framing of this debate as "pro-choice." It's rhetoric.

Recent repeals all include, in one way or another, the following lines.

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any ****, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

According to their logic, the UN has no purpose of existing as everything should be decided by each nation and not by the UN body. Those who believe that the UN should let each nation decide on every issue could/should simply get out of the UN.

While these repeals are disguised as and claim to be repeals necessitated by poor quality of the original proposals, they are completely reactionary against the UN proposals altogether, according to the above clause.

Even if a better proposal is written and submitted, they will try to repeal it again, with the same reasoning. If you can't see that trap now, you won't see it when they try to repeal it for the second time either.

Lol! Those who are in favor of abortion would like that to be true. Those who wish to limit abortion at least in some way make up an overwhelming majority of the population. Many of them reject and always have rejected the framing of this debate as "pro-choice." It's rhetoric.
Yes, but as long as the point of language is to convey meaning, "pro-choice" means "in favor of letting women choose about abortion", not "in favor of national sovereignity".

I'm not going to go on in a pointless debate. I think we've both said what we want to say, and now this thread can go and cover some other useful point.

Ilyich,

I respect your thoughts on this. Maybe that's true for some. For many that I know, though, it depends on what it is that is being chosen (strangely enough) as to how they will vote. Many of us believe that highly devisive moral opinions should definitely not be decided by the UN but left for nations to decide for themselves. But we believe there is certainly a place for the UN here.

Yes, but as long as the point of language is to convey meaning, "pro-choice" means "in favor of letting women choose about abortion", not "in favor of national sovereignity".

I'm not going to go on in a pointless debate. I think we've both said what we want to say, and now this thread can go and cover some other useful point.


I do agree we should go on. However I'm reminded of the words of Ronald Reagan once, "There you go again." Choice means Choice. It means a CHOICE between two positions. I agree with you that the point of language is to convey meaning. Anything else, like calling this debate "choice" instead of "abortion" is rhetoric. I don't want to open up a can of worms, but if you go back far enough in history, "pro-choice" used to have nothing to do with abortion. It meant the right to own slaves. If you read the Lincoln - Douglas debates you read "pro-choice" over and over and over and over again in this context. Can't we agree that whether it's in the context of abortion or Slavery or anything else - "pro-choice" is nothing more than rhetoric because it paints a picture that those who disagree with them are against "Choice".

Every law on the books limits a person's right to choose something. My only point here is that we should allow nations to truly have a choice (between two positions - or more) rather than deciding something for them and calling that "choice."

Ilyich:
According to their logic, the UN has no purpose of existing as everything should be decided by each nation and not by the UN body. Those who believe that the UN should let each nation decide on every issue could/should simply get out of the UN.

While these repeals are disguised as and claim to be repeals necessitated by poor quality of the original proposals, they are completely reactionary against the UN proposals altogether, according to the above clause.

Even if a better proposal is written and submitted, they will try to repeal it again, with the same reasoning. If you can't see that trap now, you won't see it when they try to repeal it for the second time either.


Well, esteemed delegate, you have hit it upon the proverbial "head". Why have a UN at all if not to create unilateral ruling in situations where persons stand to have their rights stripped from them.

I would consider either:
A proposal which aims to destroy UN regulation of abortions on the basis that the UN has no business regulating such things, or:
A proposal which clarifies prop61, making the changes that this author thinks it needs.

As is, I am against this proposal for two reasons:
A woman's body is hers, and her rights need to be inalienable
This proposal is not worded clearly, and does not state a consice intent:

RECOGNIZES that abortion is an issue where good people on each side of this issue disagree.

It is far to vague. Isnt this true of most proposals anyways? Doesn't this look like an attempt to simply re-vote and hope for the best this time?

Archmage Rheshven, Magister and Delegate (Hon.), Aesthyra

Well, esteemed delegate, you have hit it upon the proverbial "head". Why have a UN at all if not to create unilateral ruling in situations where persons stand to have their rights stripped from them.

I would consider either:
A proposal which aims to destroy UN regulation of abortions on the basis that the UN has no business regulating such things, or:
A proposal which clarifies prop61, making the changes that this author thinks it needs.

As is, I am against this proposal for two reasons:
A woman's body is hers, and her rights need to be inalienable
This proposal is not worded clearly, and does not state a consice intent:

It is far to vague. Isnt this true of most proposals anyways? Doesn't this look like an attempt to simply re-vote and hope for the best this time?

Archmage Rheshven, Magister and Delegate (Hon.), Aesthyra

It does get tricky when trying to determine where the UN has power, and where it should not. Abortion is such a hot issue, with so many different opinions and ideologies that I think it would be impossible to satisfy enough people were the UN to pick just ONE to make law. But even that is hardly rock solid logic.

I am at an impasse. Something in this thread will vindicate me though, I'm sure.

Lol! Now I'm called a racist by someone here.

Evidently, when you vote what seems a reasonable way on some daily issues the results sometimes are extreme ones that you disagree with. The way I voted on that daily issue was in my opinion the least racist option of all, and it turns out to result in a write up of my nation saying I am. Anyone else ever surprised how a daily issue vote turned out in your nation's description?

Case settled. This was just a diversion tactic anyway. Nothing to do with my "poorly drafted resolution" as some of you have told me in telegrams, and "the best written repeal on abortion rights I've ever seen" by others. This game does make me laugh.

I'm not going to attack someone for how they vote though like I've seen done on occasion in the past. It's just a game. Vote however you choose and be happy with yourself for voting. I think the original bill was a poorly written one. So if one thinks mine is poorly written but votes FOR it simply to get rid of the poorly written one on the books, I'm not going to lose any sleep over one's opinion of my writing skills on this one.

Oh, and I've never suggested, as some have implied, that women were ignorant of making choices for themselves. But most major surgeries tell any patient of the possible complications and research into the possible side effects. Tonsilectomy used to be the most common surgical procedure done in my nation (ooc: also used to be the case in the United States). Because of that, all kinds of research was done into the side effects and emotional effects this surgery had on young people. Millions of dollars went into this research because it was such a common procedure. Today, abortion is the most common surgical procedure in many of our nations (ooc: it's the most common surgical procedure in the United States - real life). Yet because of the politicalness of the issue - nobody seems to want to do any of this same kind of research, or if they do, they are labeled either pro-life or pro-choice depending on their results instead of being pro-woman regardless of one's beliefs. I would suggest that if one questions my wording on this bill in this area, that maybe they haven't spoken as much with close women in their lives who have actually had abortions. That's all I'll say on that.

Have fun voting everyone. And ultimatums about membership in the UN over a bill is kind of silly in my opinion. State your opinion and try to sway us with good arguments for your position. But emotional blackmail doesn't work too well here.

OOC -- I damn well knew you weren't (most likely) an actual proponent of segregation. I was just being zealous, and playing the game. It was a political tactic (and something I found sort of amusing to do) and by no means did I mean to attack you personally. Anyway, nobody seems interested in playing this sort of game, so I'll drop it. It does sort of raise the basic issues here, between state soverignty and universal rights, and I'll leave it at that. Anyway, I might regret taking the game in a negative direction -- though, you're the one that's got us debating abortion, for God's sake.

Armed Republic of Creechmark

So why would I join you jerkoffs?

You vote down terrorist laws and now you want to tell me I can't ban abortion?

Man I am glad I'm not one of you fuckers...If I lost the ability to keep preagnat woman preagnant my economy would fall apart. Some guys tries his damndest to knock a broad up, and someone thinks its a good idea to let her tkill that kid, ruining the poor guys family?

WTF

The reason this act is being repealed is a good one "Telling me how to treat my women is none of the international communities fucking business". What next, a vegitarian act to tell me how to treat livestock. As soon as you guys clear out all these useless bills let me know, I'll join the party.

Life's hard, Grab a helmet and a woman or two (If you get her preagnant, you get to keep her)

Yeah, I'm pro-choice. The goverment should get to make the god-damned choice, tho!

Lol! Those who are in favor of abortion would like that to be true. Those who wish to limit abortion at least in some way make up an overwhelming majority of the population. Many of them reject and always have rejected the framing of this debate as "pro-choice." It's rhetoric.

Speak for your own country. Civilised nations tend to have different feelings.

Speak for your own country. Civilised nations tend to have different feelings.
OOC: How is the campaign going? The vote's still down at the moment. If you need help TGing, I can probably send a few today and tomorrow.

You will note that Ambassador Lane has come to the basic point. She believes that the values of her nation are superior to the values of other nations, and is furthermore willing to engage in coercive behavior to force others to adhere to those vaues. I ask you which is worse of these two examples: a religious and conservative Automobilican nation that tramples on the liberty of its members, or an irreligious and liberal multinational organization that tramples on the liberty of its members?

What the honourable yet not terribly accurate mr Smith is missing is the point. Our nation values freedom for the citizens. We do not force every woman to have an abortion. We do force governments to do what they are supposed to do: govern on behalf of the people, not on behalf of themselves.

We give liberty to the citizens in the UN. We want to protect their rights. If a woman has an abortion, that's none of the government's, or other people's business. It is morally wrong to force your rules on people if those rules interfere with other people's freedom. By allowing abortion, one does not interfere with those who object to abortion (as they won't use the freedom to have one), while those who have a real need to use that freedom can do so. If a government fails to do that, the UN should step in and ensure this right. A government should not restrict the freedom of people as long as that freedom is used wisely and without negative spillover effects.

That is what mr Smith will need to understand, so his nation too can join the ranks of enlightened civilised nations. Nations who care about citizens, not about abuse of power on behalf of the moral minority.

It's this sort of moral superiority that sickens me. Just because some nations don't share your values doesn't make them "backwards." The arrogance of such a statement is disgusting.

And forbidding people to decide on their own body is even more disgusting. Government intrusion on private life is disgusting. Giving freedom to people isn't, so I will gladly take up a position of moral superiority and accept that some nations are unable to handle this. That just shows how much more governments are concerned with their power, rather than what's best for their people.

And forbidding people to decide on their own body is even more disgusting. Government intrusion on private life is disgusting. Giving freedom to people isn't, so I will gladly take up a position of moral superiority and accept that some nations are unable to handle this. That just shows how much more governments are concerned with their power, rather than what's best for their people.
Nonetheless, calling societies whose morals you happen to disagree with 'backwards' isn't exactly something those of trying to argue against on the repeal on more than high-handed supposition are keen to associate ourselves with. However strongly you feel on this issue, that sort of cultural stereotyping is unbecoming and unhelpful.

IC: The Democratic Republic of Golgothastan left the UN some time ago. The current mood of legislation is conducive to our considering return. Nonetheless, we feel compelled to comment on this debate.

Firstly, we wish to address the issue of the phrase 'pro-choice'. There seems to be an argument that because the repeal would allow states to choose whether to oppress their people, to reduce their women to level of enslaved subjugation, it is a 'pro-choice' repeal. Fair enough: it does indeed give a choice. But, instead of making some brilliant rhetorical point, it simply goes to show how silly the pro-choice and pro-life tags are. Pro-lifers would argue the woman denies the fetus a choice; pro-choicers would argue women are denied a right to control their own lives. When the replacements are passed, we would recommend they steer clear of using either term.

Secondly, we feel we should comment on the assertion that abortion is not within the UN competency's to legislate on. We agree that it is a highly divisive issue, and that there will never be accord on its morality, we do not think this is a disqualification for action. Further, we accept that many supporting this repeal want to take the UN in a new direction, and we accept their right to do so. What we are about to post they may well dismiss with "yeah, well we want to repeal all them too". Fair enough. However, for the moment, let us establish that there definitely is legal precedent for the UN legislating on abortion:

Public Health

Resolution #9, "Keep The World Disease-Free!" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=8).
Resolution #17, "Required Basic Healthcare" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=16), as well as its replacement, Resolution #20, "'RBH' Replacement" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=19), and even its repeal, Resolution #102, "Repeal "Required Basic Healthcare"" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=101), which noted Resolution #17 as a 'valuable reference document'.
Resolution #29, "The IRCO" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=28).
Resolution #32, "Global AIDS Initiative" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=31).
Resolution #33, "No Embargoes on Medicine" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=32).
Resolution #42, "Increased Access to Medicine" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=41).
Resolution #55, "World Blood Bank" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=54).
Resolution #67, "Needle Sharing Prevention" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=66).
Resolution #77, "Epidemic Prevention Protocol" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=76).
Resolution #84, "NS HIV AIDS Act" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=83).
Both Resolution #87, "Repeal "Legalize Prostitution"" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=86), and its replacement, Resolution #91, "The Sex Industry Worker Act" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90).
Resolution #96, "UNWODC" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=95).
Resolution #98, "Eradicate Smallpox" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=97).
Resolution #113, "UN Biological Weapons Ban" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=112).
Resolution #114, "Establish UNWCC" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=113).
Resolution #118, "The Sex Education Act" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=117), which includes a call for abortion education.
Resolution #130, "Global Food Distribution Act" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129).

Now, together, it is clear these form a pattern of the UN being a legitimate agent of public health legislation. Opponents of abortion might then suggest that abortion where there is not an immediate and direct risk to the woman should remain prohibited. So we enter other areas where the UN has previously legislated. From these, we begin to see common themes emerging: a right to privacy, a right to one's body, and a belief in freedom of choice.

Resolution #6, "End Slavery" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5).
Resolution #7, "Sexual Freedom" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6).
Resolution #10, "Stop privacy intrusion" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=9).
Resolution #26, "The Universal Bill of Rights" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=25) - Article 5 of which presents a case against forcing a woman to carry or deliver an unwanted child.[/url]
Resolution #53, "Universal Freedom of Choice" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=52).
Resolution #68, "Ban Trafficking in Persons" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=67).
Resolution #91, "The Sex Industry Worker Act" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=90).
Resolution #94, "Right to Self-Protection" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=93).
Resolution #115, "Freedom of Conscience" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=114).

Again, I believe supporters of the repeal will dismiss this morass of copy and paste out of hand. But, I believe it is legally incorrect to assert that the UN cannot legislate abortion, and simply wrong to suggest it should not.

I am not going to call those opposing abortion names: I'm sure their reasons for such views are perfectly honourable. I'm just going to get on with replacing this thing.

The PRRS opposes this repeal for several reasons.

"EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy."

There should be a limit on the age an unborn fetus is allowed to be aborted. And honestly there is little to no reason that a woman should even have an abortion short of unconsentual procreation. If one wishes to abort a growing citizen of our country they better have a valid reason and proof of said reason.

All the current resolution does is say a woman can get an abortion without punishment to her. This is to keep her from having to go to a quack and get on and rish her health. As there is nothing in the current proposal that defines the procedure for an abortion nor who will give it and where or when it shall be given. Thus that is left up to medical persons to determine first if they will give it to the woman.. then how and when it will be done. There is nothing in it that says a doctor has to do it exactly like the woman wants it done, as all they have to do is say no, and she must find somebody to do it her way if she is not happy with how one doctor may find toward the abortion. Any resolution that says a doctor must do exactly what the woman wants without reguards to her health or the doctors beliefs on abortion would violate the womans rights to one as well as his rights not to do it properly and safely as he feels is proper for all concerned. Woman, Fetus, and his own feeling toward the issue.

As doctors already will not do certain forms of medical procedures without proper consideration for a number of things. Minor children require a parents consent to have a procedure done so since abortions are medical procedures that should be the rule always with them. As most see 'woman' as an adult person not a child under age and have set ages for becoming an adult or 'woman' not a child or girl. The current resolution places no set age on 'woman' nor does it prevent a nation from setting that age between girl and woman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly,

I have three remarks to make about the nature of this debate and one announcement of an organisational nature.

First of all, I do not see why the representative of Groot Gouda should be feigning respect for those who wish to oppress basic human rights for religious reasons under the guise of trumped-up horror stories. The fact of the matter is that we would not have these virulent attacks on the pro-choice members of the General Assembly if we were arguing about Female Genetic Mutilation, because human rights clearly take precedence over brutal and oppressive local cultures. The government and people of Knootoss have no respect whatsoever for those who wish remove the freedom of women to control their own bodies. This repeal is an attempt to move the abortion issue from the realm of personal conscience back into the realm of national politics. The anti-choice camp has turned this matter of personal concience into a political debate, not us.

Secondly, these 'calls' by the anti-choice camp for a restricted debate are nothing less than attempted voluntary restriction of the freedom of speech. If pro-choice members are not allowed to speak out about the violation of civil rights constituted by this repeal then we should not be surprised to see it succeed. Especially if, at the same time, the anti-choice members of this assembly get plenty of room to express their primitive opposition to women's rights by excessive use of sniper smilies. If they mention the plight of a clump of cells, then the pro-choice camp should be allowed to mention how women are forced to cut themselves with pieces of glass in poorly-lit illegal back rooms because of oppressive government legislation. Illegalizing abortion causes clear victims. People will suffer to satisfy the personal religious and philosophical feelings of the anti-choice legislators in this Assembly. Instead of being the personal decision that is is now, abortion will be moved back into the realm of national politics. This repeal is the divisive option, not leaving it to the national conscience of women!

There is another matter of worry, and that is how conservatives and reactionaries in the United Nations are now stealing the term "pro-choice" and twisting it to mean "accommodating anti-choice legislation". Choice, and civil liberties, have always in the course of legislation in this body applied to individuals. States do not have civil rights because they are not citizens. Therefore this repeal is simply giving national sovereignty back to states at the expense of women's rights. It pains me that even some respectable members of this House have chosen to mis-frame the debate in this way to further their interests.

It is because of this that I wish to speak of one final matter. The Dutch Democratic Republic will be resigning from the National Sovereignty Organisation (NSO) when the vote on this repeal closes. The Staten-Generaal of the Republic has expressed the desire to resign in a 129-71 vote condemning this resolution and the government will be accommodating this intention. The reasons of the government are twofold. Knootoss supports the cause of national sovereignty, but believes that the United Nations has a job in safeguarding civil rights and the liberties of citizens as well as supporting collective international action. The NSO has demonstrated recently that it does not respect these goals. We are also deeply disturbed by the way Groot Gouda has been smeared by the NSO in their private debates, and would hereby like to express our complete solidarity with them.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

Nice try Love and esterel. An intelligent debater recognizes right away that this whole subject of calling abortion "choice" is an excercise in rhetoric.

Long ago people realized that when abortion was the issue, those that were in favor of abortion lost the debate. Because the focus was on what was being chosen. But the issue has been wrapped in the rhetoric of "choice" to avoid what it is exactly that is being chosen in this instance.

In this case the example is a choice between a live baby or a dead baby. Some people use different terminology because they don't like to think about killing a baby or an unborn child (Fetus - Latin meaning "unborn child").

So because I would find a certain choice reprehensible for my nation, I could be called "anti-choice"???? As if I'm against anyone having the choice to pick their clothes or what they eat for breakfast in the morning as well. Come on! The choice is about abortion. So let's avoid the verbal gymnastics.

Whether you choose to vote for this repeal or not is your choice and I'm glad you have the freedom to vote For it or against it. I would like for you to vote FOR it because I believe it is an issue that should NOT be decided upon by the UNITED NATIONS.

What if there were a bill being decided the opposite way on the books. It could be called "Rights of the Unborn." Alot of the arguments one makes concerning human rights could be made for the unborn as well. I bring that up not in support of such legislation but to point out once again that good people are going to disagree on this. I believe that's a reasonable position. Of course there will be some unreasonable (IMHO) people who will trash this anyway and say my opinion on it is not a good one. Fair enough. That's why this repeal is the best choice because it is not mandating how you would be able to set laws in your own nation concerning abortion.

IMHO, calling this repeal "pro-choice" is more honest than calling a position in favor of abortion "pro-choice". One because it's ambiguous as to what is being chosen and phrased that way to avoid the subject. Also because in my nation those who call themselves "pro-choice" are usually against informed consent laws as well. And I believe an uninformed choice is no choice at all.

Dorksonia, you know very well that you purposely used in your proposal the term "pro-choice" with a completely opposite meaning of its definition in every dictionary.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=prochoice*1+0&dict=A
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=pro-choice&sourceid=Mozilla-search
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-choice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice

It's "#61 Abortion Rights" which is "pro-choice", #61 doesn't force anyone to have an abortion or to not have one.

it is not mandating how you would be able to set laws in your own nation

Here is our difference,
A Nation is not the owned nations of someone behind his/her computer setting laws, but a nation owned by millions of men and women.

I have an idea. We can decide that "pro-choice" is defending the right of the UN to choose what member nations do. Or better yet, defending the right of Fonzoland to decide which way the UN vote is supposed to go...

After careful reconsideration of the facts, the Parliament of Vencer representative to the UN has declared a change of vote.

He reasons that by voting for this Repeal, a nation would be voting to take away civil liberties owed to that person, the person being a woman. As well, it is Vencer's political beliefs that every citizen should have the right of choice. The liberty being taken away is a choice; a choice to let live or a choice to let die an unborn baby.

However, Vencer is greatly opposed to the idea of Abortion, it supports its people's right of choice and fears that if Resolution 61 is repealed then the right of choice will solely be affected. Vencer will continue to urge is female citizens to have the child and place it for adoption, but the choice will still and will always be the woman's choice.

Vencer realizes that this Repeal does not ban abortions, it simply gives the power to the government to decide. Either way, we feel, that our way of viewing this issue will not be dettered. However, in order to share some responsibilty, we feel that we should vote how our nation's political views deem fit and therefore we vote AGAINST the Repeal.

From these, we begin to see common themes emerging: a right to privacy, a right to one's body, and a belief in freedom of choice.

You do realize that that is a sort of a straw man argument, right? You are completely ignoring the fact that most pro-lifers consider the fetus to have these rights as well as the woman, which is why they consider abortion a difficult issue and tend to oppose it unless the woman's life is in great danger.

You do realize that that is a sort of a straw man argument, right? You are completely ignoring the fact that most pro-lifers consider the fetus to have these rights as well as the woman, which is why they consider abortion a difficult issue and tend to oppose it unless the woman's life is in great danger.
Ok, then I propose the following: all states should hold a referendum on abortion. Only fetuses are to be allowed to vote (because, clearly, if they are human beings, then the doctrine of rights should extend to political representation).

Yes, I'm completely ignoring it. Putting aside the fact that considerable numbers of anti-abortionists are more opposed to deviance from their sexual norms than any particular care for the fetus, those who do consider the fetus to be a human are wrong.

On another note, what has given with the sudden rise of conservative legislation within the UN?! First Gay Rights and now strikening abortion from the International Charter? I would like to see progressive legislation upheld, instead of being picked away by the conservative lobby.

Liberal, Centrists, and Civil Liberty-minded nations of the UN, see that such legislation is not striken from our charter!!!!


Our basic charter says that resolutions cannot ban any ideologies.
The resolution which people are trying to repeal here makes it impossible to run nations according to some conservative &/or religious ideologies.
The resolution which people are trying to repeal here should therefore never have been passed in the first place.

Our basic charter says that resolutions cannot ban any ideologies.
The resolution which people are trying to repeal here makes it impossible to run nations according to some conservative &/or religious ideologies.
The resolution which people are trying to repeal here should therefore never have been passed in the first place.
This resolution bans no ideologies because people who think abortions are wrong DO NOT HAVE TO GET ONE.

According to their logic, the UN has no purpose of existing as everything should be decided by each nation and not by the UN body. Those who believe that the UN should let each nation decide on every issue could/should simply get out of the UN.

Actually, a number of the nations that have supported recent repeals do believe that the UN has a purpose, but they believe that purpose to be deciding about matters which actually have international effects (such as international trade, rules of war, territorial waters, passports & visas, meteorological cooperation, anti-terrorism, and so on) rather than trying to force all nations into following one single code of morality...

Our basic charter says that resolutions cannot ban any ideologies.
The resolution which people are trying to repeal here makes it impossible to run nations according to some conservative &/or religious ideologies.
The resolution which people are trying to repeal here should therefore never have been passed in the first place.

Please, stop wanking with the ideological ban clause already! It is an empty objection, which can be applied to 95% of the passed resolutions. As long as a political system is allowed to subsist, the UN has the power and the right to restrict its behaviour.

Speak for your own country. Civilised nations tend to have different feelings.

So you label all nations that differ from you on this point of morality to be "uncivilised"? If we had diplomatic relations with your nation we would seriously consider breaking them off over this insult...

i alternate shapes

This resolution bans no ideologies because people who think abortions are wrong DO NOT HAVE TO GET ONE.

OOC: It bans running a nation according to an ideology, and there have been rulings by Mods against proposals that would do so in other cases.

Please, stop wanking with the ideological ban clause already! It is an empty objection, which can be applied to 95% of the passed resolutions. As long as a political system is allowed to subsist, the UN has the power and the right to restrict its behaviour.

Yes, it can be applied to a high proportion of the existing resolutions. Yes, the government of St Edmund thinks that it should apply to a high proportion of the existing resolutions even though we have no objections to the actual wording of some of them.
Or, if the ban is as meaningless as you claim, then the ban itself should be deleted from the UN's rules [by the Mods] so that nations aren't lured into the UN under false pretences...

Ooh! We have an idea here in Jey! Lets say we....

1) Pass this repeal.
2) Leave this issue up to NatSov!

that way everyone wins!

heck, even

3) Make a resolution saying this will stay a NatSov issue!

The beauty about the abortion rights resolution is that nobody is 'forced into a single code of morality.' If UN citizens have social or concientous objections to termination of pregnancy they simply don't get an abortion. There are Knootians as well that oppose abortion and they choose not to get them in a case of unwanted pregnancy. Are pro-lifers opressed here? Hardly.

I would be fighting alongside these representatives to repeal a 'Mandatory Abortion' resolution, but this sexist repeal only exists to enable moral conservatives and religious groups with political power to force their viewpoint on people who disagree with them in their own nation!

And the millions of women that will die in poorly-done illegal abortions as a result of a repeal. Are they winners too, Jey?

I also find it convenient how St Edmund conveniently ignores all the human rights resolutions which have been passed by this body by overwhelming majority by claiming the UN only exists to make passports more expensive, but that as an aside.

~Aram Koopman

Yes, it can be applied to a high proportion of the existing resolutions. Yes, the government of St Edmund thinks that it should apply to a high proportion of the existing resolutions even though we have no objections to the actual wording of some of them.
Or, if the ban is as meaningless as you claim, then the ban itself should be deleted from the UN's rules [by the Mods] so that nations aren't lured into the UN under false pretences...

Look, you are free to have an opinion on any resolution based on NatSov arguments. But if you go on endlessly accusing every single resolution you dislike of illegality, based on an obviously twisted (and refuted by precedent) interpretation of the ideological ban clause, then it will soon be interpreted as a lack of real arguments.

You seem to thrive on twisting words, be it in in the rules, a proposal, or an opponent's statement. It is wanking (semantic-wanking, if you will) and a crappy debate style. I never described the ideological ban clause as meaningless. I suggest the Mods should not delete an important rule just because some people don't know how to read.

If a proposal bans free markets, it is illegal; if it restricts the free market for nuclear warheads, it is not. If a proposal bans Christianity, it is illegal; if it restricts the implementation of Christian positions on abortion, it is not.

The beauty about the abortion rights resolution is that nobody is 'forced into a single code of morality.' If UN citizens have social or concientous objections to termination of pregnancy they simply don't get an abortion. There are Knootians as well that oppose abortion and they choose not to get them in a case of unwanted pregnancy. Are pro-lifers opressed here? Hardly.

I would be fighting alongside these representatives to repeal a 'Mandatory Abortion' resolution, but this sexist repeal only exists to enable moral conservatives and religious groups with political power to force their viewpoint on people who disagree with them in their own nation!

And the millions of women that will die in poorly-done illegal abortions as a result of a repeal. Are they winners too, Jey?

I also find it convenient how St Edmund conveniently ignores all the human rights resolutions which have been passed by this body by overwhelming majority by claiming the UN only exists to make passports more expensive, but that as an aside.

~Aram Koopman

By your logic most laws are a means for people to press a belief on their populace. Hell laws against murder are an enforced belief that killing another human being is wrong. Such things need to be ruled on by a majority belief or there really can't be a law creating government period. Someone's personal ethics can always be against the mainstream of the country & government. That doesn't mean a government should not 'oppress' the person who believes murder is ok and gos around wielding an ax in the streets. Not saying abortion is murder here by the way. Just making a comparison to say your logic is flawed. If a nation through the course of their own law creating body, elected by their own processes, decides that abortion is wrong then that is their call. How the majority feel as represented by election is the essence of democracy. I realize not all nations in the UN are democratic and some dictatorships can press the leader's beliefs, etc but that's a whole other issue and certainly not the only belief that dictatorships are pressing on their people.

Comparing abortion to murder. How crude, and at the same time, what a very stupid example. Of course, it should come as no surprise that the pro-choice camp has to resort refer to to something else which is completely uncontroversial (murder)in order to make the case for something completely different. (allowing national governments to force women into dangerous and illegal abortions or to commit suicide, child and all, because of their religious persuasions.) Knootoss stands up for individual rights. Murdering someone would infringe on that right, do you not agree?

It is amusing, too, to watch you dig your own grave by admitting first that democracy is a good way of determining these things, and then asserting that some UN nations are indeed undemocratic (whilst the UN itself actually is democratic.) So you conclude in the end that Dictatorships, theocracies and tyranny-by-majority states will be able to opress women by this repeal, but this is justifiable because now anti-choice majorities in some democratic UN nations will be able to take away the choice of women to have an abortion.

Really.

~Aram Koopman

Ooh! We have an idea here in Jey! Lets say we....

1) Pass this repeal.
2) Leave this issue up to NatSov!

that way everyone wins!

heck, even

3) Make a resolution saying this will stay a NatSov issue!

3) Make a resolution saying this will stay a PeopleSov issue!




We would like to focus on 3 points about abortion:

1-Birth is a random process, not a logical one. The process is not well designed, as many women are pregnant without desiring a baby at all, and many others try desesperately to have one without success, also so many women have miscarriage.

1-It’s why abortions always happen even when it’s forbidden, but when it’s banned it’s dramatic, as women health conditions is really at risk

3-I would like to ask a question to any member voting for this repeal:
Will you grant the same human rights to cloned humans when it will happen? I hope so (The question is independent from one opinion about cloning)
Today many mammals are being cloned, even dogs, cat, horses. Human cloning is not for this year, but probably for the next decade

What is the relation with abortion?
When the 1st cloned human will be born, then the statement that """"the “start” of a human being is fertilization"""" will be obsolete.
It means that neither god nor nature (choose the one you prefer) had fixed a clear “start” of human life.
Once more it’s a grey area, and once more it’s up to us, humans, to have some ethical and sensible behaviour on this topic.

Comparing abortion to murder. How crude, and at the same time, what a very stupid example. Of course, it should come as no surprise that the pro-choice camp has to resort refer to to something else which is completely uncontroversial (murder)in order to make the case for something completely different. (allowing national governments to force women into dangerous and illegal abortions or to commit suicide, child and all, because of their religious persuasions.) Knootoss stands up for individual rights. Murdering someone would infringe on that right, do you not agree?

It is amusing, too, to watch you dig your own grave by admitting first that democracy is a good way of determining these things, and then asserting that some UN nations are indeed undemocratic (whilst the UN itself actually is democratic.) So you conclude in the end that Dictatorships, theocracies and tyranny-by-majority states will be able to opress women by this repeal, but this is justifiable because now anti-choice majorities in some democratic UN nations will be able to take away the choice of women to have an abortion.

Really.

~Aram Koopman

You obviously missed the point. Not that I really expected to change your mind. Stupid, Amusing, etc, etc. The disrespectful nature with which you conduct yourself is a shame to this body. You have very much twisted my words as I expressly said that I was not calling Abortion murder. Merely stating that even the most accepted laws are a matter of enforced morality by nations. Therefore your objections on that basis are, in my eyes, rather absurd.

First of all, I do not see why the representative of Groot Gouda should be feigning respect for those who wish to oppress basic human rights for religious reasons under the guise of trumped-up horror stories.Nice to see that Mr. Koopman continues to think that breathless rhetoric and random, fevered anti-religion is a good substitute for actual, reasoned debate.

Keep on truckin' man. Maybe some day, somebody will actually listen to you...

...of course, it'd help if you'd say something worth listening to. I won't hold my breath.


-Dargan Zaraad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Ok, then I propose the following: all states should hold a referendum on abortion. Only fetuses are to be allowed to vote (because, clearly, if they are human beings, then the doctrine of rights should extend to political representation).Don't be stupid. It cheapens your arguement.

Don't be stupid. It cheapens your arguement.
To be honest, I don't think anyone will care. Nobody wins abortion 'debates'. I just hope this heap of trash gets voted down, and we can get on with passing a more sensible repeal-replacement.

What the honourable yet not terribly accurate mr Smith is missing is the point. Our nation values freedom for the citizens. We do not force every woman to have an abortion. We do force governments to do what they are supposed to do: govern on behalf of the people, not on behalf of themselves.

Ambassador Lane, I am saddened by your continued insistence on this tyrannical course of action. Let us re-word your statement and see if it might clarify what you have chosen to do.

We do force individuals to do what they are supposed to do: make choices on behalf of their unborn child, not on behalf of themselves.

It is ridiculous to assert that governments are supposed to act, not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the people for which they are responsible while at the same time allowing that individuals are free to act on their own behalf rather than on behalf of their unborn child for which they are responsible by virtue of making the choice to have it. Of course, in cases where governments and individuals are burdened with responsibilities that were not their choice (cases of refugees and rape, respectively), it might be reasonable to suggest that the governments and individuals are not to be held responsible. However, those cases are not truly what we are discussing. We are discussing a matter of choice. I would suggest that if you would assert that governments are responsible for acting on behalf of the lesser entities within their domain, you would do well to be consistent and assert that individuals are responsible for acting on behalf of the lesser entities within their domain.

For my part, I do not wish to impose unwanted responsibilities upon either individuals or governments.

We give liberty to the citizens in the UN. We want to protect their rights. If a woman has an abortion, that's none of the government's, or other people's business. It is morally wrong to force your rules on people if those rules interfere with other people's freedom. By allowing abortion, one does not interfere with those who object to abortion (as they won't use the freedom to have one), while those who have a real need to use that freedom can do so. If a government fails to do that, the UN should step in and ensure this right. A government should not restrict the freedom of people as long as that freedom is used wisely and without negative spillover effects.

In all this we are agreed (with the exception of the assertion that the UN should step in). Unfortunately, while I apply these points to both individual and national liberty, you choose to apply them to only one and wish to exercise coercive power to destroy the latter.

That is what mr Smith will need to understand, so his nation too can join the ranks of enlightened civilised nations. Nations who care about citizens, not about abuse of power on behalf of the moral minority.

My dear Ms. Lane, you must be under some misapprehension. The Federation cares deeply about the abuse of power on behalf of a moral minority precisely because it cares about citizens, not in spite of it. And not just citizens, but all people, regardless of legal status. All residents of our anarcho-socialist federation have the freedom to choose to have abortions just as they have the freedom to choose not to have one. This freedom of choice is one we respect in individuals, groups, and even other nations. We also respect that freedom of choice in international organizations. We do not see the need to respect the freedoms of an international organization and individuals while disrespecting the freedoms of nations, nor do we see that such a policy is ethical or appropriate, and we maintain that such a position is inconsistent and harmful to liberty.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

And forbidding people to decide on their own body is even more disgusting.
It is? Why of course it is! Where's my secretary? Ah there you are. Is it too late for us to change our stance on forced blood donations and organ transplants? No? But Groot Gouda says it's disgusting. Oh yes that's right, the Gouda of the many outweights the Gouda of the one. Oh you said good not Gouda. Never mind.

In the not so humble opinion of this meddling monk, abortion is clearly not an issue that the members of thus far from august body can discuss in any form resembling that of rational debate. Then again there is very little the half drunk deligates can rationally debate in the first place. If this repeal passes no nation will be forced to outlaw abortions. (Unless someone submitts and passes such a resolution - HINT HINT to regional deligates who have resolution writing authority.) Leaving the UN over this ... OMG they won't force me to allow abortions so I'm leaving ... has got to be the lamest excuse ever ... and believe me I've thought up a lot of pretty lame excuses for leaving the UN in the past.

Therefore Tzorsland will vote for this repeal, although frankly it's not actually worth it to explain why.

To be honest, I don't think anyone will care. Nobody wins abortion 'debates'. I just hope this heap of trash gets voted down, and we can get on with passing a more sensible repeal-replacement.

I don't believe the Unofficial Official Observer from the Most Glorious Hack was concerned about winning or not, but rather attempting to point out that we can be more productive in general if we maintain a polite environment.

My government hasn't cast its vote yet, and will likely abstain (which is typical for the Confederated City States of Mikitivity when it comes to repeals ... there are good reasons for them, but we also hate to see so many of them). However, we certainly recognize that the tone of these debates will really set the tone for UN forum discussions for months to come.

Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

*snip*

Leaving the UN over this ... OMG they won't force me to allow abortions so I'm leaving ... has got to be the lamest excuse ever ... and believe me I've thought up a lot of pretty lame excuses for leaving the UN in the past.

A very good point that those wailing against this repeal are ignoring. Even after the repeal, their national governments will still be free to allow abortions -- be it only in certain circumstances or even willy-nilly.

I don't believe the Unofficial Official Observer from the Most Glorious Hack was concerned about winning or not, but rather attempting to point out that we can be more productive in general if we maintain a polite environment.

My government hasn't cast its vote yet, and will likely abstain (which is typical for the Confederated City States of Mikitivity when it comes to repeals ... there are good reasons for them, but we also hate to see so many of them). However, we certainly recognize that the tone of these debates will really set the tone for UN forum discussions for months to come.

Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity
And I don't think I'll be taking tips on politeness from him.

As it happens, I think I've been fairly restrained. I've disagreed with painting anti-abortion societies as 'backwards' or 'uncivilised'; I haven't suggested anti-abortion campaigners are misogynists or slave-drivers; I haven't resorted to name-calling. I think extending rights to a fetus is stupid, but I don't think those who wish to do so are necessarily stupid, and I certainly haven't called them such.

Anyway, your hopes for being 'productive' are admirable, but unlikely to bear much fruit. We can dance around all we like, but when it comes down to it Mr Smith is in the eloquent minority. For most people, this is a black and white issue: abortion is legal, or abortion is banned. I don't think there'll be much 'productivity' on that front; should you wish to contribute, I'd suggest you spend more time in the Wateranan representative's thread than this one.

A very good point that those wailing against this repeal are ignoring. Even after the repeal, their national governments will still be free to allow abortions -- be it only in certain circumstances or even willy-nilly.
Well, I think their argument is about precedent, and the tone a repeal sets (similar to Omigodtheykilledkenny withdrawing over the failure of a resolution), rather than fear of any particular effects, but I do agree to an extent that it would be a better use of their time to remain in the UN and have the opportunity for their beliefs to be heard - and legislated on. We should know: we resigned from the UN some time ago, and that was based on absolute need. We would have liked to have maintained a presence.

I have two things to say.

Does the repeal have a proposed replacement?

It has been scientifically proven that sterility is inherited.

And could somebody please answer my concerns? I have searched and found no posts assuring a replacement proposal would be effective.

Firstly, this repeal can only do harm. It will allow UN member nations who are so dispositioned to remove some (more) of their citizens rights. It will not eve allow those nations to eliminate abortion, it will only cause the procedures to become more dangerous if they man it. Minnechusettsfornia protests this attempt to undermine still more rights, and casts its vote AGAINST this repeal.

Secondly, the NatSov argument gets brought up with increasing regularity when arguing against human rights amendments, as we saw in the repeal of resolution #12. I have to ask this: If the right to restrict various rights, for whatever reason, is so importaint that you prioritize it above global cooperation and advancement, then why are you in the UN? If you want to exist as a totally independant state with no regulation from the UN... then don't join the UN. I quote the preamble of the UN charter:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


The UN does not exist as a figurehead to be marginalized when international advancement becomes inconvenient for some of its members. If you do not want the resolutions passed in the name of the preamble above to affect your nation, and enforce international standards within it, then what exactly do you wish to accomplish by being a member of the UN?

Minnechusettsfornia reiterates its NO vote and states that, should this repeal pass the UN, a woman's right to choose within the borders of this nation shall NOT be curtailed in any way, and we will continue advocating education and rights both in our own nation and in others.

IC:
However, for the moment, let us establish that there definitely is legal precedent for the UN legislating on abortion:

Public Health


Resolution #67, "Needle Sharing Prevention" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=66).
Resolution #77, "Epidemic Prevention Protocol" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=76).


Now, together, it is clear these form a pattern of the UN being a legitimate agent of public health legislation.

As the sponsor of one of those resolutions and a proponent of the other (a Moral Decency resolution), I'd like it to go on the official record that both resolutions #67 and #77 were intended to protect public health due to regional and international risks, thus making the UN an appropriate tool.

Secondly, the NatSov argument gets brought up with increasing regularity when arguing against human rights amendments, as we saw in the repeal of resolution #12. I have to ask this: If the right to restrict various rights, for whatever reason, is so importaint that you prioritize it above global cooperation and advancement, then why are you in the UN? If you want to exist as a totally independant state with no regulation from the UN... then don't join the UN. I quote the preamble of the UN charter:
OOC: That's the RL UN Charter. This isn't the RL UN - this is the NSUN. The Charter, though nice as a reference document, is totally irrelevant.

As the sponsor of one of those resolutions and a proponent of the other (a Moral Decency resolution), I'd like it to go on the official record that both resolutions #67 and #77 were intended to protect public health due to regional and international risks, thus making the UN an appropriate tool.
I didn't wish to speak for the resolutions' authors; I was merely pointing out that to those suggesting public health was not a UN matter, there was clear precedent for it being such.

As the sponsor of one of those resolutions and a proponent of the other (a Moral Decency resolution), I'd like it to go on the official record that both resolutions #67 and #77 were intended to protect public health due to regional and international risks, thus making the UN an appropriate tool.

OOC: On this, we agree. You see, there are certain limits to my adherence to the NatSov creed. ;)

I have two things to say.

Does the repeal have a proposed replacement?

It has been scientifically proven that sterility is inherited.

And could somebody please answer my concerns? I have searched and found no posts assuring a replacement proposal would be effective.

My government can not address all of your concerns, however, instead of a replacement my government and Hirota have an old draft proposal concerning infanticide where my government was actually supporting the idea that the proposal would also carry language that would condemn abortions done after the gender of the child was determined for reasons other than medical concerns to the mother and child.

Essentially, some nations might see such a proposal as not a replacement, but a step in the other direction, as it would result in some loss of "choice".

I didn't wish to speak for the resolutions' authors; I was merely pointing out that to those suggesting public health was not a UN matter, there was clear precedent for it being such.

But this is not a public health issue. The two resolutions cited were inteded to curtail the spread of diseases. The resolution that would be repealed by this proposal is nothing of the kind. Whether an individual has an abortion or not has no impact on public health.

Folks, even if you're pro-choice, understand that Resolution 61 is not helping. The perfect example of this is in Member Gruenberg's earlier statement:

Abortion is legal in Gruenberg
The performing of an abortion is illegal in Gruenberg (and doctors known to have performed such have their licences revoked, are heavily fined, and then executed)
No state funds are allocated to abortion clinics or practices, whilst family planning clinics, Abstinence Brigades and fifty-foot-high billboards saying "If you have an abortion, we will kill you™" are very well funded
Abortion is taught as a sin in Religion classes; abortion is taught as potentially fatal in Biology classes
Although reports of women being beaten or even killed for having abortions are common, and although there exists substantial evidence of husbands, brothers or fathers forcing women not to have an abortion, no single prosecution for such an offence has ever been filed
The resultant abortion rate in Gruenberg is pleasantly low

We don't fancy changing that. Let them have their right; remove Abortion Rights, and they'll really kick this thing into shape. It is a shame to see so many nations doubtless opposing abortion supporting this repeal.

Let this Repeal pass, and let's see a draft for a new Resolution that does a much better job of protecting abortion come up. Is anyone working on one? I will gladly help. I've seen a lot of poorly worded Resolutions with misspellings and diction errors and such. Ask an English professional to proof-read for you. I volunteer my services.

OOC:
I didn't wish to speak for the resolutions' authors; I was merely pointing out that to those suggesting public health was not a UN matter, there was clear precedent for it being such.

OOC: I know. :) And it was a very well researched list, which always captures my respect.

IC:
Oh, my government firmly supports international cooperation to protect international security and promoting public health and safety. We just wanted to point out that we firmly believe the UN should focus on issues with international standing (i.e. issues that have a great potential to cross borders or reduce tensions between nations).

But this is not a public health issue. The two resolutions cited were inteded to curtail the spread of diseases. The resolution that would be repealed by this proposal is nothing of the kind. Whether an individual has an abortion or not has no impact on public health.
Those two resolutions, yes: what about the fifteen or so others? Abortion quite clearly is a matter of public health, because there has historically been demand for abortion regardless of the legal status of the operation, and this has led to extremely poorly equipped, unhygienic, 'back alley' clinics, the use of chemicals with dangerous side-effects, or even attempts to conduct an abortion on oneself. Preventing such cases clearly is a matter of public health, even if it doesn't entail stopping a wildfire plague. Further, those reasons are why we support a repeal (though not this one): the original resolution makes no provisions with regard to health considerations, and thus arguably works against this consideration.

Those two resolutions, yes: what about the fifteen or so others? Abortion quite clearly is a matter of public health, because there has historically been demand for abortion regardless of the legal status of the operation, and this has led to extremely poorly equipped, unhygienic, 'back alley' clinics, the use of chemicals with dangerous side-effects, or even attempts to conduct an abortion on oneself. Preventing such cases clearly is a matter of public health, even if it doesn't entail stopping a wildfire plague. Further, those reasons are why we support a repeal (though not this one): the original resolution makes no provisions with regard to health considerations, and thus arguably works against this consideration.

That's a matter of individual health, not public health.

That's a matter of individual health, not public health.
Ok. Then we are using the term to mean different things.

Ok. Then we are using the term to mean different things.

Well, there's a huge difference.

Well, there's a huge difference.
Yes, that's rather that I was saying: there's a huge difference between what we are understanding the terms to mean. But, ok: there is significant for the UN legislating 'individual health'.

Yes, that's rather that I was saying: there's a huge difference between what we are understanding the terms to mean. But, ok: there is significant for the UN legislating 'individual health'.

I assume you meant "significant cause or reason," but actually there's not.

Ack, sorry. Missed a word. I meant 'significant precedent'; I certainly didn't mean 'significant reason'. I might happen to think the UN should in certain areas, but I would never present that as fact. And I fully accept you may be arguing there shouldn't be precedent, because you think those old resolutions are no good, but that post was really responding to earlier claims that this as a point of fact wasn't a UN issue. I was basically just urging people not to present their opinions as hard fact; sorry if in the process I came across as asserting that mine was factual (which I don't think it is, although I obviously stand by it as an opinion).

Sorry. Didn't mean to put word in your mouth. Bad assumption on my part as to the omitted word. :(

My fault for mistyping.

I am a liberal. I believe that sovereignty of an individual is should be greater than popular sovereignty. However I do not believe murder is a Woman's right. The declaration talks about the inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The rights are not equal in value, they are prioritized. The Right to liberty should not be superior to the right to life. The right to pursue is invalid if it interferes with liberty.

It has been said that life beginning at conception is a fact of religion, but not of science. Studies show it a fact of the latter. At conception the gender, facial features, and all physical characteristics are determined. It also has its unique DNA. This makes an individual organism. It is a living human being. The heart begins to beat 18 days from conception. Brainwaves are detected six weeks after conception. Go to http://www.justthefacts.org/ and decide if this is a choice.

If you believe abortion is justified in certain circumstances, endorse a new resolution that gives women a choice in those circumstances.

I have heard someone say that he/she supports this resolution, but in his or her nation, he/she says abortion is illegal in the third trimester. "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." I do not see any exception for that. So, if you have a similar view to that I encourage you to vote for the repeal and then this issue can be brought back for consideration.

Some say women who are so desperate will give themselves an abortion, or get an unsafe back alley abortion and get harmed that way. This is very unfortunate, I agree. However, making abortion legal for this reason is like making it legal to shoot people to stop suicide bombings.

"We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil [abortion]...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."

* Susan B. Anthony, women's suffrage movement leader, The Revolution 7/8/1869

How old should a baby be before you can't terminate it? I'd say until it's born. If the mum wants rid of it, goodbye, but I believe that in cases or rapid population dcrease we should be allowed to ban them until births are going up.

How old should a baby be before you can't terminate it? I'd say until it's born. If the mum wants rid of it, goodbye, but I believe that in cases or rapid population dcrease we should be allowed to ban them until births are going up.

read the arguement above... It will answer this question.


BTW.. I am annoyed that people are whining about the wording of the repeal. According to NS rules, all a repeal can do is repeal, it can't mandate a ban or legaliztion.

BTW.. I am annoyed that people are whining about the wording of the repeal. According to NS rules, all a repeal can do is repeal, it can't mandate a ban or legaliztion.
It also can't be removed, and some of us are not keen to vote binding sexist statements into international law, regardless of their practical effect, or of our view of Resolution #61.

I am a liberal. I believe that sovereignty of an individual is should be greater than popular sovereignty. However I do not believe murder is a Woman's right. The declaration talks about the inalienable rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The rights are not equal in value, they are prioritized. The Right to liberty should not be superior to the right to life. The right to pursue is invalid if it interferes with liberty.

What declaration do you mean? Anyway, whatever subjective ordering of values you defend, it is irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is the majestic logical fallacy under which you operate. Abortion is abortion, murder is murder.

It has been said that life beginning at conception is a fact of religion, but not of science. Studies show it a fact of the latter. At conception the gender, facial features, and all physical characteristics are determined. It also has its unique DNA. This makes an individual organism. It is a living human being. The heart begins to beat 18 days from conception. Brainwaves are detected six weeks after conception. Go to http://www.justthefacts.org/ and decide if this is a choice.

Bullshit pseudo-science. Unique DNA is not, nor has ever been, the definition of an independent living organism. Your spit, your hair, and your nails contain your DNA; are they alive? If you want to talk science, do it properly: If a zygote is indeed an independent living being, then it fulfills the scientific definition of a parasite. Is that what you want to suggest? Or shall we stop playing semantic games?

If you believe abortion is justified in certain circumstances, endorse a new resolution that gives women a choice in those circumstances.

I have heard someone say that he/she supports this resolution, but in his or her nation, he/she says abortion is illegal in the third trimester. "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." I do not see any exception for that. So, if you have a similar view to that I encourage you to vote for the repeal and then this issue can be brought back for consideration.

Might happen, if the repeal passes. But I thought you were arguing that abortion is murder... Suggesting a replacement from your position is nothing short of devious hypocrisy.

Some say women who are so desperate will give themselves an abortion, or get an unsafe back alley abortion and get harmed that way. This is very unfortunate, I agree. However, making abortion legal for this reason is like making it legal to shoot people to stop suicide bombings.

Try harder, this one didn't work.

"We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil [abortion]...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."

* Susan B. Anthony, women's suffrage movement leader, The Revolution 7/8/1869

Whatever. Are you prepared to discuss logically, instead of talking of "evil" and "souls"?

I voted against it because if someone got pregnent and didn't want to, they should be allowed to have an abortion.

You obviously missed the point. Not that I really expected to change your mind. Stupid, Amusing, etc, etc. The disrespectful nature with which you conduct yourself is a shame to this body. You have very much twisted my words as I expressly said that I was not calling Abortion murder. Merely stating that even the most accepted laws are a matter of enforced morality by nations. Therefore your objections on that basis are, in my eyes, rather absurd.

Ambassador Kylemore is obviously misstaken. I urge him to read the record of this debate and point out where I said that he called abortion murder. The ambassador did, however, compare abortion to murder. This is clearly on the record as well. Banning murder has very little to do indeed with forcing someones personal morality on individuals (as with abortion) and it has everything to do with safeguarding the essential freedoms of all citizens.

I will not deign the cheap anti-Knootian sentiments of Mr. Zaraad from the Hack with a response as they are beneath the dignity of this General Assembly. The only thing I'd like to say to him is that I shall keep on truckin' whenever truckin' needs to be done.
~ Aram Koopman

OOC:
Why basing your character on a webcomic is fun! Keep on truckin', Hack. (http://www.meninhats.com/comics/20040730.gif)

EDIT: vaguely related too. Hmmm comic archives. (http://meninhats.com/comics/20030901.gif)

The beauty about the abortion rights resolution is that nobody is 'forced into a single code of morality.' If UN citizens have social or concientous objections to termination of pregnancy they simply don't get an abortion.
I couldn't have put it any better myself. This is the basic policy of the Yeldan government in regards to abortion.

Nice to see that Mr. Koopman continues to think that breathless rhetoric and random, fevered anti-religion is a good substitute for actual, reasoned debate.

Keep on truckin' man. Maybe some day, somebody will actually listen to you...

...of course, it'd help if you'd say something worth listening to. I won't hold my breath.


-Dargan Zaraad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Though we have adopted a position of not supporting or opposing the repeal, I would like to make it absolutely clear that my deputy and I find Mr Koopman's analysis of this issue both informative and persuasive. Contrarily, I've yet to see anything of substance from the Federated Technocratic Oligarchy.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Though we have adopted a position of not supporting or opposing the repeal, I would like to make it absolutely clear that my deputy and I find Mr Koopman's analysis of this issue both informative and persuasive. Contrarily, I've yet to see anything of substance from the Federated Technocratic Oligarchy.I would expect nothing less from the fevered minds of the ACA. Hyperbole suits you well as it seems to be the only method of "debate" you and yours are familar with. You are more than welcome to continue down the trail of irrelevency blazed by Ambassador Koopman.

- Dargan Zaraad, Office of Unofficial Official Statements
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: Yes, Knoot... I'm quite familiar with the webcomic you stole your ambassador from.

I am supporting this resolution as much for the fact that it lets individual nations decide on the abortion issue as for the fact that I agree with its premise. There is no good reason for other nations to be able to force laws like abortion and gay rights upon my country through an international organization like the UN.

I propose a resolution limiting the UN's power to inernational matters. National issues are handled by the issues that we address every day. If the UN is going to keep forcing controversial laws on its members, why should we bother with our issues?

I support this resolution.

I propose a resolution limiting the UN's power to inernational matters. National issues are handled by the issues that we address every day. If the UN is going to keep forcing controversial laws on its members, why should we bother with our issues?

This is an important matter that should be addressed further. The larger the UN the less need for individual countries to decide what goes on in their own borders. Political apathy is what leads to most problems occuring anyways. Personal responsibility is key to a successful and happy world

3) Make a resolution saying this will stay a PeopleSov issue!With all due respect to the representative from Love and esterel people are not soverign, however nations are.

1-Birth is a random process, not a logical one. The process is not well designed, as many women are pregnant without desiring a baby at all, and many others try desesperately to have one without success, also so many women have miscarriage.A random process fro crying out loud, if a woman has sexual intercourse without using some form of birth control then ths possibility exists that nine months later she'll have a baby. Seems that the logical course of action for those women who do not want a child to take the needed steps to reduse the possibility as much as possible.

3-I would like to ask a question to any member voting for this repeal:
Will you grant the same human rights to cloned humans when it will happen? I hope so (The question is independent from one opinion about cloning)
Today many mammals are being cloned, even dogs, cat, horses. Human cloning is not for this year, but probably for the next decadeFirst off, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has laws in place banning cloning of sentient beings so your question is irrelevent. And even for those nations that allow it, the rights of clones are covered under UN Resolution #56 BioRights Declaration so your question is still irrelevent.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't believe the Unofficial Official Observer from the Most Glorious Hack was concerned about winning or not, but rather attempting to point out that we can be more productive in general if we maintain a polite environment.

My government hasn't cast its vote yet, and will likely abstain (which is typical for the Confederated City States of Mikitivity when it comes to repeals ... there are good reasons for them, but we also hate to see so many of them). However, we certainly recognize that the tone of these debates will really set the tone for UN forum discussions for months to come.

Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

After hearing Ambassador Katzman's statements, his raven maned assistant Cassandra Thonberger pulled out the transcripts of the International Democratic Union UN debates. "Ambassador, I think you might want to hit the 'no' button for our UN vote, considering that we had earlier indicated that we'd weigh in with the majority of our region members on this issue."

Katzman didn't touch the transcripts before hitting the 'no' button. He then turned to his assistant and whisphered, "Fraulein Thonberger, you are right, I did previously agree that Mikitivity would vote against this repeal. Though should this repeal pass, I wonder if we can some how come up with a compromise that prohibits late term abortions, as I've still be toying with the idea of drafting a proposal to condemn infanticide. In any event, with the exception of Valtiz canton, don't you believe that Mikitivity will end up remaining pro-choice regardless of the outcome of this repeal? It isn't like the Council of Mayors views UN resolutions as anything other than recommendations. Gnomes running the world! They are just but a tale told to small children by crazy old people whom have had too much to drink!"

Wow. Mikitivity. Haven't seen you since the glory days of TNP V. Great Bight.

As far as this issue in the UN goes, why is it that so many people flock to repealments and yet a good, strong, and well-done proposal, the "Anti-Terrorism Act", was struck down with such fervor? Can you all not see that if we keep repealing, we'll soon have no Resolutions whatsoever? I'm ready to leave the UN because of it. I swear, if another repeal goes through, Jirfog may jump ship, and I'll try to get as many people out as I can. Mikitivity there and a few others have seen me when I get on a rant in a telegram. I'll send them to the whole NS world if I have to. Stop repealing - Start Resolving!

With all due respect to the representative from Love and esterel people are not soverign, however nations are.

People are sovereign over their own choice concerning their own body.

A random process fro crying out loud, if a woman has sexual intercourse without using some form of birth control then ths possibility exists that nine months later she'll have a baby. Seems that the logical course of action for those women who do not want a child to take the needed steps to reduse the possibility as much as possible.

Sex is a common human activity, and hopefully people have sex more often than when they desire to have a child, even married couples.

the rights of clones are covered under UN Resolution #56 BioRights Declaration

You perfectly right, it's why I hope you recognize that clones are humans, and then that you cannot state that "the start of human life is fertilization". (there is no fertilization in cloning)
Then what is the "start" of Human life?
There is no defined start, it's a grey area.

why are you putting the desire of a woman over the right of a human to live?

Quick question. Why is it that you are putting a radical pro-coathanger view over what a woman feels best for herself? You can't stop abortion through simply banning it, just as you can't stop drinking through prohibition, pot-smoking through a drug war, or gun violence through banning weapons. If you want to stop abortion why not focus on what leads to it? You gripe about how simple it is to put someone up for adoption. There are too many kids already who are still waiting to be adopted because idiots like you are too obsessed with adopting a newborn. That's almost like some dumbass animal rights activist line asking why we would put somebody's desire for a 12. oz steak over a cow's life. And even so, a fetus is not completely living. Nor do I consider anything to be "alive" until after it comes out of the womb. You're not the one with the uterus so until you get one you shouldn't be so quick to pass your half-witted judgement. YOu want to stop abortion? Well the first thing you could do would be to ensure better jobs than working at a God damn Wendy's for 6.00 an hour with a boss who harrasses you all the time, that meaning a living wage and an end to policies that allow corporations to ship their jobs overseas. Another way to stop it would be to give BETTER education to ALL students and especially sex education. Abstinence only and the idea of "control your urgin' stay a virgin'" idealogy not only is ineffective, but it puts people; especially teenage girls, at major risk. When 82 percent of those who make abstinence vows break them and 2 thirds do not wear a condom there is a major problem. Translate that into another 30 years or so where all we teach is abstinence, we'd have nearby 50 percent of our culture with AIDS, good job you religious whacko. On note, this resolution should not be repealed and a woman's right to choose should be left to her and her physician(s), not to a bunch of bible thumping protestants who wish to hold her down with unwanted pregnancies and bullshit gender laws.

While Neo-Britannia would support somewhat greater legislation on abortion (a limit on terminations post 3rd trimester for example) this resolution simply offers too great a chance for anti-choice legislature to go through.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions going round at the moment. Some people seem to believe this is about women's rights, or babies' rights. Bull. It's about states' rights.

The fact is, the UN has legislated the right of privacy, but even so, it remains possible for us to monitor and to restrict a good deal of our citizens' lives. We can largely control their work. We can control what they read, watch, and listen to. We can control their towns, their streets, their houses, their cars. We can even control what they eat. But, even if "Sexual Freedom" and "Stop privacy intrusion" and every other resolution were repealed, we wouldn't be able to control sex. It is the very definition of a private act.

And, Wena knows we've tried. Back in the Second Age, the Church used to actually produce pamphlets, mandating sex be performed in a particular style (the 'rampant goat' position), wearing sackcloth, and so on; that certain acts were forbidden. And, of course, they mandated that procreation was the sole aim of heterosexual sex (obviously, there was no such rule for homosexual sex): because this would deter people from having sex. If it was awkward and uncomfortable, and if it produced children they couldn't afford to feed, then they wouldn't do it. But you know what?

The bastards did it anyway.

And so, we had a problem: we couldn't control our citizens' thoughts. What sort of society is that, where the government's tentacles do not extend to ensnare every inch of their citizens' lives? Not any kind of place I'd want to live in. Fortunately, though, the procreation aspect did begin to kick in. With the Industrial Revolution, the poor became a lot poorer. But there was more good news: this led to more concern about the number of children and, slowly, birth rates dropped. We began to extend our grip over our citizens' minds again. The growth of backstreet clinics did nothing to deter this: there were too many deaths.

But then, we entered the UN, and our citizens were enslaved to a new, much crueler master: 'liberty'. Ack, how I spit on that! They began to get the idea that, as the UN now allowed them much greater bodily freedom, they were in some way entitled to think 'outside the box' - the 'box' being what we told them to think. They began to get ridiculous ideas that they had some sort of right to freedom of thought, that they were permitted to think at all. Absurd conceptions that they, not us, owned their minds floated about.

This is why I urge you to repeal Abortion Rights - so long as it doesn't produce a replacement (which, I fear, it will). Not because I hate women, or love foetuses: I hate foetuses, and the thought that abortion is killing makes me more supportive of abortion. Gruenberg has been and always will be a pro-killing nation, above all else. No. And it's not because we think banning abortion 'reduces women to slaves'. It's because we think banning abortion reduces all people to slaves; slaves to their government. Because once sex, the only real true freedom, is kicked out from under them, they will be forced to slowly choke on the noose we tie around them again. And, in time, we will recover their minds, and look forward to the day when we exercise full 'sovereignty': sovereignty over our people's souls.

Because a strong government makes a strong nation, and a strong voice in the UN. That makes a strong UN as a whole, which is good for all concerned nations.

Who's with me?

Quick question. Why is it that you are putting a radical pro-coathanger view over what a woman feels best for herself? You can't stop abortion through simply banning it, just as you can't stop drinking through prohibition, pot-smoking through a drug war, or gun violence through banning weapons. If you want to stop abortion why not focus on what leads to it? You gripe about how simple it is to put someone up for adoption. There are too many kids already who are still waiting to be adopted because idiots like you are too obsessed with adopting a newborn. That's almost like some dumbass animal rights activist line asking why we would put somebody's desire for a 12. oz steak over a cow's life. And even so, a fetus is not completely living. Nor do I consider anything to be "alive" until after it comes out of the womb. You're not the one with the uterus so until you get one you shouldn't be so quick to pass your half-witted judgement. YOu want to stop abortion? Well the first thing you could do would be to ensure better jobs than working at a God damn Wendy's for 6.00 an hour with a boss who harrasses you all the time, that meaning a living wage and an end to policies that allow corporations to ship their jobs overseas. Another way to stop it would be to give BETTER education to ALL students and especially sex education. Abstinence only and the idea of "control your urgin' stay a virgin'" idealogy not only is ineffective, but it puts people; especially teenage girls, at major risk. When 82 percent of those who make abstinence vows break them and 2 thirds do not wear a condom there is a major problem. Translate that into another 30 years or so where all we teach is abstinence, we'd have nearby 50 percent of our culture with AIDS, good job you religious whacko. On note, this resolution should not be repealed and a woman's right to choose should be left to her and her physician(s), not to a bunch of bible thumping protestants who wish to hold her down with unwanted pregnancies and bullshit gender laws.

Quick question: What changes in the "fetus" while it is in the womb just before birth that is different after birth 2 minutes later. Are you saying that 2 minutes prior it's not alive, but after it's born it is alive? That is a rather strange view I believe.

Second observation: I notice how some people want to make this into a religious issue. I'm not very religious. This is just another false argument based on rhetoric. One does not have to be religious to be against abortion.

Third: ALMOST 100% of all aborted babies die. I know of nobody who argues for or against abortion that can be happy about that fact unless you're a little odd like Gruenberg's post before mine.

Last: Not everyone voting FOR this repeal is against abortion. This is not really a debate about abortion. It's a debate about whether we should allow nations the right to have daily issues anymore or decide everything for them instead of giving them any choices at all. It's my belief that abortion should not be governed by a world legislature. Those who have argued against this have appealed to 'human rights'. Those same people deny that the unborn child is indeed human, as they obviously do not have any rights. The point once again is that good people disagree on this. I'm not going to insult those who believe differently from me (unlike some have chosen to do in this discussion) but understand issues like this are difficult ones where friends and family disagree with one another. It is therefore not right for the United Nations to declare they have the correct answer for all nations to follow on an issue that is so devisive.

The UN and daily issues are two completly seperate parts of the game. If they were in any way related, don't you think there would be a rule against submitting proposals that clashed with issues, and vice versa?

All nations in the game are affected by issues, unless they turn them off, but only UN nations are affected by UN resolutions. This part of the game is self contained and isn't allowed to affect those nations that don't have a little blue tag under their nation names, so why should the daily issues they can access as freely as us affect or limit the UN? Trawling through the passed resolutions to make sure an idea hasn't already been covered is bad enough. I'd hate to see the day we have to trawl through the list of issues as well.

I must say, I find it very interesting indeed that Mr. Zaraad had expected the ACA to agree with me. I for one am both pleasantly surprised and flattered by the comments of Speaker Lata Chakrabarti.

Truly, this debate is growing ever more interesting. A Hackian statement full of hyperbole is used to condemn hyperbole supposedly used by the ACA and my own person! Would that be irony?

Then finally we have the comments of the proposal author. Dorksonian... whoever you are: my friends and family are not trying to pass legislation that will cause the deaths of potentially millions of women in UN nations. When friends and family disagree, is it really time for the government to step in and say who s right? Aunty Dorksonia, you're hurting me!

~Aram Koopman

Nonetheless, calling societies whose morals you happen to disagree with 'backwards'

Please read what I am saying.

I don't say anything about societies, I only talk about governments. And those governments are disagreeing with their societies. I merely suggest that those governments listen to their citizens, rather than impose their rules.

Ooh! We have an idea here in Jey! Lets say we....

1) Pass this repeal.
2) Leave this issue up to NatSov!

Yes! Let's not protect women! Let's leave them to the will of the government! Who cares what happens to them, eh? If a government wants to abuse people's rights, why stop them having *fun*?

Nice to see that Mr. Koopman continues to think that breathless rhetoric and random, fevered anti-religion is a good substitute for actual, reasoned debate.

Nice to see that you only pick up one, relatively minor, point of his post and not respond to the actual debate.

Keep on truckin'. Mind the landmines.

Yes! Let's not protect women! Let's leave them to the will of the government! Who cares what happens to them, eh? If a government wants to abuse people's rights, why stop them having *fun*?
^^

See, Mrs. Lane understands where we're coming from. This sort of issue just isn't suitable for international legislation: it weakens our ability to rule.

Nice to see that you only pick up one, relatively minor, point of his post and not respond to the actual debate.

Keep on truckin'. Mind the landmines.

Landmines? Doesn't that put you in violation of a certain UN resolution?

Ambassador Lane, I am saddened by your continued insistence on this tyrannical course of action. Let us re-word your statement and see if it might clarify what you have chosen to do.

We do force individuals to do what they are supposed to do: make choices on behalf of their unborn child, not on behalf of themselves.

And that's why we need the right to abort. Because without it, not everybody will have that choice.

It is ridiculous to assert that governments are supposed to act, not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the people for which they are responsible while at the same time allowing that individuals are free to act on their own behalf rather than on behalf of their unborn child for which they are responsible by virtue of making the choice to have it.

What if they, or the mother, haven't made that choice? And in any case, circumstances may change. The mother should be free to make a choice. That choice harms no-one but the unborn baby, which I do not count as a citizen. This might be cruel, but I think it's just as cruel to let an unwanted baby be born.

I think we differ in ideology in that I see the government as a something that is necessary because a lot of things cannot be done by individuals. The government is there for the general good. If it starts meddling in the private affairs of people, it's out of its league.

Of course, in cases where governments and individuals are burdened with responsibilities that were not their choice (cases of refugees and rape, respectively), it might be reasonable to suggest that the governments and individuals are not to be held responsible. However, those cases are not truly what we are discussing. We are discussing a matter of choice. I would suggest that if you would assert that governments are responsible for acting on behalf of the lesser entities

You're talking about people here?

OOC: I know, virtual people. But still, "lesser entities"...?!

within their domain, you would do well to be consistent and assert that individuals are responsible for acting on behalf of the lesser entities within their domain.

For my part, I do not wish to impose unwanted responsibilities upon either individuals or governments.

I want to give people the freedom to make a choice. That might not be the choice other people like, but it does not harm those people. So there is no reason to take away the protection of a freedom. And yes, with that freedom comes responsibility. I think my people are responsible enough to take that responsibility. And if they can't, there's always the government to help them.

We give liberty to the citizens in the UN. We want to protect their rights. If a woman has an abortion, that's none of the government's, or other people's business. It is morally wrong to force your rules on people if those rules interfere with other people's freedom. By allowing abortion, one does not interfere with those who object to abortion (as they won't use the freedom to have one), while those who have a real need to use that freedom can do so. If a government fails to do that, the UN should step in and ensure this right. A government should not restrict the freedom of people as long as that freedom is used wisely and without negative spillover effects.
In all this we are agreed (with the exception of the assertion that the UN should step in). Unfortunately, while I apply these points to both individual and national liberty, you choose to apply them to only one and wish to exercise coercive power to destroy the latter.

I don't understand what you mean here. I am for individual liberty, which I rank higher than national liberty, yes. That's the only way to guarantee a choice. How can you support national liberty (in other words, liberty for a selected few in power) without violating individual liberty?

The Federation cares deeply about the abuse of power on behalf of a moral minority precisely because it cares about citizens, not in spite of it. And not just citizens, but all people, regardless of legal status. All residents of our anarcho-socialist federation have the freedom to choose to have abortions just as they have the freedom to choose not to have one. This freedom of choice is one we respect in individuals, groups, and even other nations. We also respect that freedom of choice in international organizations. We do not see the need to respect the freedoms of an international organization and individuals while disrespecting the freedoms of nations, nor do we see that such a policy is ethical or appropriate, and we maintain that such a position is inconsistent and harmful to liberty.

But why do you want to limit the freedom of people for national liberty? What makes a national government so special that you are more willing to give them liberty instead of the people that are actually concerned? Because that is the consequence of your position, and that's in my opinion even more harmfull to liberty.

If this repeal passes no nation will be forced to outlaw abortions.

But many will do so because they aren't forced to keep it legal.

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions going round at the moment. Some people seem to believe this is about women's rights, or babies' rights. Bull. It's about states' rights.

And that would be a godo reason to vote against this repeal. Because the rights of citizens and societies should be considered more important than the rights of a national government.

What if they, or the mother, haven't made that choice? And in any case, circumstances may change. The mother should be free to make a choice. That choice harms no-one but the unborn baby, which I do not count as a citizen.

That's you. Other nations clearly feel differently, believing the unborn baby to be worthy of some rights and protections. Your opinion -- and that's all it is -- is no more valid than anyone else's and, thus, should be forced on everyone by enshrining it in international law.

This might be cruel, but I think it's just as cruel to let an unwanted baby be born.

With the option of putting an "unwanted baby" up for adoption, this statement is just plain disingenuous.

I think we differ in ideology in that I see the government as a something that is necessary because a lot of things cannot be done by individuals. The government is there for the general good. If it starts meddling in the private affairs of people, it's out of its league.

Here I agree with you completely, but I fail to understand how this ideology would allow for any legislation whatsoever on such a personal, private matter as abortion.

And that would be a godo reason to vote against this repeal. Because the rights of citizens and societies should be considered more important than the rights of a national government.
Then you clearly didn't read the rest of my post. Of course the rights of the government outweigh the rights of the citizens. Citizens exist to produce goods and services, which we trade to make our country rich: they are little more than cogs. The government, though, is the machine which works the system. All this fancy 'human rights' nonsense seems to forget that in the NSUN, it is governments - and solely governments - which matter. You may consider your citizens more important than your government, but in our (no doubt 'backwards', 'uncivilised') society, the people know their place. Below us.

That's you. Other nations clearly feel differently, believing the unborn baby to be worthy of some rights and protections. Your opinion -- and that's all it is -- is no more valid than anyone else's and, thus, should be forced on everyone by enshrining it in international law.

My opinion doesn't matter. What matters is that the mother of an unborn child gets a choice. If you do not put that into international law, millions of mothers will not have a choice. Or worse, they'll choose rather messily, with knitting needles.

If the unborn baby should have all those rights, then perhaps those nations should treat the unborn baby seriously, make everyone a citizen from conception, give them a passport, register them, etc. As long as those rights are given willy-nilly, I don't think many people seriously consider an unborn baby to be a real citizen.

With the option of putting an "unwanted baby" up for adoption, this statement is just plain disingenuous.

For adopted children chances are higher that they get abused or end up with psychological problems. And what if no-one wants to adopt that child?

Here I agree with you completely, but I fail to understand how this ideology would allow for any legislation whatsoever on such a personal, private matter as abortion.

Without legal protection it's impossible to keep matters private.

My opinion doesn't matter. What matters is that the mother of an unborn child gets a choice. If you do not put that into international law, millions of mothers will not have a choice. Or worse, they'll choose rather messily, with knitting needles.

If the unborn baby should have all those rights, then perhaps those nations should treat the unborn baby seriously, make everyone a citizen from conception, give them a passport, register them, etc. As long as those rights are given willy-nilly, I don't think many people seriously consider an unborn baby to be a real citizen.

I'm not even touching these ludicrous "arguments."



For adopted children chances are higher that they get abused or end up with psychological problems. And what if no-one wants to adopt that child?

Abused? Psychological problems? I assume you have some facts to back of those assertions?



Without legal protection it's impossible to keep matters private.

By writing something into law, you do exactly the opposite. You make it a public matter. There's nothing private about law.

By writing something into law, you do exactly the opposite. You make it a public matter. There's nothing private about law.

False. You can protect privacy by legislating on it. Removing a woman's personal decision from the hands of religious fundamentalists and tyrants does a pretty good job in protecting the privacy of the decision.

The same way you defend UN legislation to protect and enshrine NatSov, others defend UN legislation to protect individual rights. There is nothing contradictory in either approach.

Abused? Psychological problems? I assume you have some facts to back of those assertions?

http://www.tekstnuitleg.nl/adoptie.html

"Swedish research in 2002 pointed out that adopted children from mostly Asian and South American nations have a large chance on psychiatric problems as young adults. They commit suicide about three times as often as non-adopted people of their age and have a 5 times higher chance getting addicted to drugs. (...) Dutch reseach by Dr. Geert-Jan Stams at Leiden University showed that 7 year old non-white adopted children have three times as many behavioral problems than other children."

Most research seems to focus on international adoption, as that's the major source of adoption. I wouldn't be surprised if similar results are found for non-international adoptions, as the problem is that there is no natural bonding between adopted child and parents.

By writing something into law, you do exactly the opposite. You make it a public matter. There's nothing private about law.

Yes, but by not legalising on UN level nations can still legislate against it, and people need to be protected against those privacy violations.

I refuse to sign this bill because of the ignorance that circulates around it.

:gundge:

I refuse to sign this bill because of the ignorance that circulates around it. Annoying smiley.
Ignorance? Ignorance?

This is coming from the state whose latest proposal (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=alternate) is nothing more than a copy and paste of the worst resolution in the history of the United Nations, with about three lines changed.

Yeah, we're the ignorant ones.

I refuse to sign this bill because of the ignorance that circulates around it.

Agreed. Now go and circulate elsewhere, and we will do all the signing.

And that's why we need the right to abort. Because without it, not everybody will have that choice.

What if they, or the mother, haven't made that choice? And in any case, circumstances may change. The mother should be free to make a choice. That choice harms no-one but the unborn baby, which I do not count as a citizen. This might be cruel, but I think it's just as cruel to let an unwanted baby be born.

I think we differ in ideology in that I see the government as a something that is necessary because a lot of things cannot be done by individuals. The government is there for the general good. If it starts meddling in the private affairs of people, it's out of its league.

Ms. Lane, we most certainly differ in ideology. Not because you believe that government is something that is necessary for the general good, but because you wish to force your beliefs based on the above emotive and irrational claptrap onto others who believe the opposite based on their own emotive and irrational claptrap.

You're talking about people here?

OOC: I know, virtual people. But still, "lesser entities"...?!

OOC: Yes, lesser entities. You yourself said in the quoted post that "I see the government as a something that is necessary because a lot of things cannot be done by individuals," which implies that governments are greater entities in that they can do more, just as a mother can do more than a foetus. Individuals are lesser entities that are under the authority of governments and operate within their domain with the risk that the greater entity could eject them from its domain should it choose to do so. Likewise, foetuses are lesser entities that are under the authority of mothers and operate within their domain with the risk that the greater entity could eject them from it's domain should it choose to do so. There is another parallel as well. Both the foetus (always) and the individual (in most cases) did not choose where they were born and live under the greater entity.

With this background, based on your stated view, the conclusion would be that mothers are responsible for acting for the good of the foetus and shouldn't meddle in its private affairs. Now of course, you might reply that since foetuses are not persons and only persons have rights this doesn't apply to them. But why should mothers be granted rights by the greater entity of government? Isn't it the choice of government, the greater entity, to do what it will with the body it controls (the nation)? We can extend this principle of yours to the greater entity of the United Nations as well, which under your understanding of the purpose of government would be charged with acting in the "general good" and shouldn't "meddle in the private affairs of" its members, to use your words.

Keep in mind that this is simply a logical extension of your view, not my view either in-character or out-of-character. And in the future lets keep this in-character, considering the inflammatory nature of the issue.

Back In-Character:

I want to give people the freedom to make a choice. That might not be the choice other people like, but it does not harm those people. So there is no reason to take away the protection of a freedom. And yes, with that freedom comes responsibility. I think my people are responsible enough to take that responsibility. And if they can't, there's always the government to help them.

Only people have choices. That is what you seem to be suggesting with your constant harping on individual liberty. What about the liberty of other entities? National governments? Can not a government make choices, which we might call policies? Your nation's government does so. Can not an international body make choices, which we might call resolutions? The United Nations of which yours is a member does so.

I don't understand what you mean here. I am for individual liberty, which I rank higher than national liberty, yes. That's the only way to guarantee a choice. How can you support national liberty (in other words, liberty for a selected few in power) without violating individual liberty?

That very good question. Take it and apply it to your own statement that your nation's government is always there to help them, which I think we all know means that it eill make their choices for them when your nation's government decides it is best to do so, thereby destroying the individual liberty your nation holds so dear.

But why do you want to limit the freedom of people for national liberty? What makes a national government so special that you are more willing to give them liberty instead of the people that are actually concerned? Because that is the consequence of your position, and that's in my opinion even more harmfull to liberty.

No, my dear Ms. Lane, what makes the individual so special that you are willing to commit the crime of tyranny and squash the liberties of greater entities, much like a government might squash a woman's liberties in favor of giving that liberty to a mere foetus? Frankly, your position is equally as disgusting as the position you oppose so strongly, and highly inconsistent as well. My nation respects the liberty of individuals, nations, and international bodies, and the individuals in my nation respect the liberty of those in their charge. Your nation only respects the liberty of individuals, hardly a greater example of a promoter of liberty.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

False. You can protect privacy by legislating on it. Removing a woman's personal decision from the hands of religious fundamentalists and tyrants does a pretty good job in protecting the privacy of the decision.

The same way you defend UN legislation to protect and enshrine NatSov, others defend UN legislation to protect individual rights. There is nothing contradictory in either approach.Quite right.

I was wondering when national soverignty and personal soverignty would collide - it appears that abortion is the battleground.

After still more debate within the Senate and House of Regents within Intangelon as well as high-level Greater Seattle Cooperative Council debates, the arguments posted within this thread have swayed us back to voting against this repeal. Most notably, the track record of NSUN on public health issues and the fevered emotive rhetoric of the pro-repeal side (not all, of course, but most) have made the case for us to vote no. It seems to me that even with #61 in place, nations will be free to do with the abortion issue whatever they want so long as the woman's rights to her own body are not infringed.

The UN is backing off too much. We need to instate more laws not repeal them. The UN is not doing its job. I encourage all to take a stand and start to propose laws not repeals. The UN has done nothing. Something must be done.:headbang:

as the UN delegate of the Antarctic Oasis, and the Ambassador from the Palentine UN office, I wish to vote against a repeal of this legislation. However it is not because I favor abortion that I vote against this repeal, because I don't. My government's position is, and always has been, the view that Abortion is a right that should be determined by an individual nation and/or its people. Not an Extra-governmental body. We stand opposed to the repeal, because we recognize that within days...nay minutes of the repeal, another piece of Abortion rights legislation will be submitted for delegate approval, rather than leaving it up for the nations to decide for themselves.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"Vox Populi, vox Humbug"
-General William Tecumpseh Sherman

The UN is backing off too much. We need to instate more laws not repeal them. The UN is not doing its job. I encourage all to take a stand and start to propose laws not repeals. The UN has done nothing. Something must be done.:headbang:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/diy.jpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cluichstan
Abused? Psychological problems? I assume you have some facts to back of those assertions?

http://www.tekstnuitleg.nl/adoptie.html

"Swedish research in 2002 pointed out that adopted children from mostly Asian and South American nations have a large chance on psychiatric problems as young adults. They commit suicide about three times as often as non-adopted people of their age and have a 5 times higher chance getting addicted to drugs. (...) Dutch reseach by Dr. Geert-Jan Stams at Leiden University showed that 7 year old non-white adopted children have three times as many behavioral problems than other children."

Most research seems to focus on international adoption, as that's the major source of adoption. I wouldn't be surprised if similar results are found for non-international adoptions, as the problem is that there is no natural bonding between adopted child and parents.

This is an interesting argument. I do agree that when an unborn baby dies, it will no longer feel pain, hunger, etc. Maybe we should just go through the orphanages of the world and kill them all so they don't have to suffer anymore (I hope people realize here I am arguing from the absurd conclusion of this position and not actually in favor of that).

as the UN delegate of the Antarctic Oasis, and the Ambassador from the Palentine UN office, I wish to vote against a repeal of this legislation. However it is not because I favor abortion that I vote against this repeal, because I don't. My government's position is, and always has been, the view that Abortion is a right that should be determined by an individual nation and/or its people. Not an Extra-governmental body. We stand opposed to the repeal, because we recognize that within days...nay minutes of the repeal, another piece of Abortion rights legislation will be submitted for delegate approval, rather than leaving it up for the nations to decide for themselves.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"Vox Populi, vox Humbug"
-General William Tecumpseh Sherman

Another interesting position. In favor of the repeal but voting against it because the repeal could be repealed (another piece of legislation voted in).

Let me remind everyone that voting FOR this repeal does not take away any nation's right to abortions. It just puts it back into the realm of daily issues instead of world jurisdiction. It is our opinion, regardless of what one believes about abortion, that it should not be legislated from the United Nations. There are several who are "pro-choice" and "pro-life" who are voting FOR this repeal because it gives everyone the true choice to govern their nations instead of abdicating that right to govern to the collective will of the nations of the world.

Some believe they can force their morality on everyone else. It's interesting how people usually use that argument to attack those who wish to limit abortion, but don't realize that they are guilty of it by insisting their view is right and forcing it on all of us.

the decision to become a parent and to bring another living human to this world should be the result of a desire to be a parent and to raise a child.

some people tend to say: assume your responsabilities. being a parent shouldn't be a punishment for ignorance, accidents, rapes, or stupidity.

also note that
NO WOMAN IN THIS WORLD WISHES TO GO THROUGH ABORTION.

abortion is always last resort.

and to those who wishes to protect life, let me ask you this: are you in favor of capital punishment?

BASICALLY, IF YOU'RE AGAINST ABORTION, DON'T GET ONE, BUT LET THE OTHERS DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR LIVES

SNIP!...and to those who wishes to protect life, let me ask you this: are you in favor of capital punishment?...SNIP!

Yes I am in favor of Capital Punishment. Your point being?:rolleyes: I'm waiting with baited breath for the coming attack. I've got my patented Barbaric Militant Machismo(TM) ready.

[QUOTE=Some believe they can force their morality on everyone else. It's interesting how people usually use that argument to attack those who wish to limit abortion, but don't realize that they are guilty of it by insisting their view is right and forcing it on all of us.[/QUOTE]

i believe you can't force someone to get an abortion, just as you can't stop someone from having one. if you're against something don't do it, but let the others decide for themselves. there may be some woman in your nation who desire to have the assurance of a safe and legal abortion even if you are personnally against it.

I think that "abortion rights" is designed to protect women from dying in illegals abortions. It doesn't anyone to go through an abortion.

Some believe they can force their morality on everyone else. It's interesting how people usually use that argument to attack those who wish to limit abortion, but don't realize that they are guilty of it by insisting their view is right and forcing it on all of us.

The thing is, nobody is forcing anything except "a view" on you. You are attempting to force a woman to have a child against her will. Can you spot the difference?

The thing is, nobody is forcing anything except "a view" on you. You are attempting to force a woman to have a child against her will. Can you spot the difference?

If she really doesn't want to have a child, there is another way, other than an abortion.

People are sovereign over their own choice concerning their own body.And yet people are subject to the laws of the nations that they're in therefore people are not soverign.

Sex is a common human activity, and hopefully people have sex more often than when they desire to have a child, even married couples.What does this have to do with the fact that if a woman doesn't want a child then she (and the guy of course) should take precautions to reduce the possibility as much as possible?

You perfectly right, it's why I hope you recognize that clones are humans, and then that you cannot state that "the start of human life is fertilization". (there is no fertilization in cloning)
Then what is the "start" of Human life?
There is no defined start, it's a grey area.
When have I ever said that life begins at fertilization?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think that the actual problem concerning the repeal is not if we are for or against abortion.
The initial resolution just allows the abortions to be legal in all nations, not interfering in the nation politics towards abortion practice.
The fact is that even if abortions are illegal there still will be women that will try to finish an unwanted pregnancy. In this case the women will either try to cause a miscarriage or address to doctors that will perform an operation in low medical standards due to the prohibition.
Both cases I think are worst than to actually keep abortion legal and try in a state level to make more choices for the women, or make it a harder choice (either by welfare, religion, advising or whatever is proper for your nation profile). In any case I think that most women do not consider abortion as an easy solution.

So we are against abortion in all cases. Would I vote for or against? The issue is not clear. Thanks for any help!

So we are against abortion in all cases. Would I vote for or against? The issue is not clear. Thanks for any help!
In that case, you would vote FOR the repeal, because if it passes, it will allow you to ban abortion.

And yet people are subject to the laws of the nations that they're in therefore people are not soverign.

Flibbleites, I agree with you that people have to respect laws, but laws and nations are made for people, to protect them, not to impose some values on them.

What does this have to do with the fact that if a woman doesn't want a child then she (and the guy of course) should take precautions to reduce the possibility as much as possible?

I also agree with you about precautions, but i don't agree to try to impose everyone, for every opposite sex intercourse when no baby is wanted, to secure the outcome to 100%.

When have I ever said that life begins at fertilization?

Thanks for saying that, then you are acknowledging that human being does not start at one precise moment, and that there is a long progressive process from a simple group of cells to a human being. And it's why abortion is not murder.

I haven't backread everything yet but...is anyone else amazed at the amounts of votes FOR repealing this?

And are the votes for repealing this because people are against said rights? Or they want to repeal them to invoke a new, more coherent law?

This whole abortion thing seems to be based on convenience. If it's convenient to kill someone, am I allowed to just kill them? Of course not. Just because you don't want the child isn't a valid reason not to give it a chance at life. If you REALLY don't want it, (and the joys of children, especially babies, are immense) put the child up for adoption. Every child deserves a chance at life, and by killing it you are not giving it that chance. If they want to kill themselves later on, that is their problem, but who knows how many children that would have greatly benefited our society have been aborted?

Then you clearly didn't read the rest of my post. Of course the rights of the government outweigh the rights of the citizens. Citizens exist to produce goods and services, which we trade to make our country rich: they are little more than cogs. The government, though, is the machine which works the system. All this fancy 'human rights' nonsense seems to forget that in the NSUN, it is governments - and solely governments - which matter. You may consider your citizens more important than your government, but in our (no doubt 'backwards', 'uncivilised') society, the people know their place. Below us.

Think of it like this: I like your citizens so much, I want to help them. Now, isn't that a compliment?

And if that's how your society works, dear friend, than I'm not surprised your people are below your government. However, since your government is so backwards, don't be surprised if you find you're facing the wrong way and they're actually suddenly on top of you.

Think of it like this: I like your citizens so much, I want to help them. Now, isn't that a compliment?
Not really. My people are ungrateful shits. We have no interest in liking them or pandering to their whims: we have only interest in their full, unadulterated support. What we and others think of them matters little.

And if that's how your society works, dear friend, than I'm not surprised your people are below your government. However, since your government is so backwards, don't be surprised if you find you're facing the wrong way and they're actually suddenly on top of you.
Actually, Gruenberg is a fairly stable country. There have been three serious attempts at insurrection in the past century - one aristocratic coup, two popular uprisings - and the brutality of the suppression and aftermath seems to have convinced them that they are better off as they are.

Which is part of why banning abortion is needed: if we allow the freedom of their own bodies, the freedom of their own lives, then there is a very real chance their heads will become filled with your dangerous democratic ideals. The subjugation of the populace may not be pretty, but it's how we govern and, as I've said, our maintaining a strong government contributes to the strength of the UN as a whole.

OOC: Yes, lesser entities. You yourself said in the quoted post that "I see the government as a something that is necessary because a lot of things cannot be done by individuals," which implies that governments are greater entities in that they can do more, just as a mother can do more than a foetus.

OOC: But the government isn't the greater entity - that's where the comparison falls apart. Ultimately the people decide, whether that's through democratic elections or revolution. From that point of view, the government is the lesser entity, even though they hold a lot of power. But that is power delegated from the people.

With this background, based on your stated view, the conclusion would be that mothers are responsible for acting for the good of the foetus and shouldn't meddle in its private affairs. Now of course, you might reply that since foetuses are not persons and only persons have rights this doesn't apply to them. But why should mothers be granted rights by the greater entity of government? Isn't it the choice of government, the greater entity, to do what it will with the body it controls (the nation)?

No, as the mother does not belong to the government. A foetus does belong to a mother, being part of her body. Just like we don't accept a government taking away organs from people without asking, or forcing them to take medicins against their will (with certain exceptions, but then it's a public matter, not private), we shouldn't accept the government to legislate on a woman's womb.

We can extend this principle of yours to the greater entity of the United Nations as well, which under your understanding of the purpose of government would be charged with acting in the "general good" and shouldn't "meddle in the private affairs of" its members, to use your words.

It's true in its basic logic, but I see the UN as a cooperation of governments on behalf of the people. That means that when I consider resolutions, I look from the point of view of the people, not the governments. Governments facilitate, people have to deal with the actual resolution.

Back In-Character:
Only people have choices. That is what you seem to be suggesting with your constant harping on individual liberty. What about the liberty of other entities? National governments? Can not a government make choices, which we might call policies? Your nation's government does so. Can not an international body make choices, which we might call resolutions? The United Nations of which yours is a member does so.

Yes, it can make choices. But I want it to make choices so people can make choices. My view on liberty is that as long as other persons aren't harmed, leave them be. And governments should facilitate that freedom by ensuring people have a choice. That means protection too, but I don't think that protection should extend to foetuses.

I don't understand what you mean here. I am for individual liberty, which I rank higher than national liberty, yes. That's the only way to guarantee a choice. How can you support national liberty (in other words, liberty for a selected few in power) without violating individual liberty?
That very good question. Take it and apply it to your own statement that your nation's government is always there to help them, which I think we all know means that it eill make their choices for them when your nation's government decides it is best to do so, thereby destroying the individual liberty your nation holds so dear.

Nope. That means that if people can't make a choice, because of lack of money, lack of mobility, lack of health, lack of education, a government should provide a minimum of means so choice is available. Not for everything (wouldn't we all love to be able to choose the luxurious villa over the concrete appartment building), but at least for the basics. That's what I mean with "help".

What a government can do is make education available for everybody. That means choice. Forcing one type of education on everybody because a government thinks it's great doesn't mean choice. See the difference?

No, my dear Ms. Lane, what makes the individual so special that you are willing to commit the crime of tyranny and squash the liberties of greater entities, much like a government might squash a woman's liberties in favor of giving that liberty to a mere foetus? Frankly, your position is equally as disgusting as the position you oppose so strongly, and highly inconsistent as well. My nation respects the liberty of individuals, nations, and international bodies, and the individuals in my nation respect the liberty of those in their charge. Your nation only respects the liberty of individuals, hardly a greater example of a promoter of liberty.

Ah, dear Thomas, you misunderstand me. We seem to do that a lot, but hey, that's adding to the fun. You can't simply compare a government to a person. A foetus hardly elects their mother, for example. I want to force it on a government to keep the freedom available. The mother must have a choice, a government must give her that. That doesn't mean the mother or government have to prefer any of the choices; just that the choice should be available. That probably doesn't matter for a lot of nations here who will keep abortion legal one way or another, but it does for those nations who will use this repeal to repress women in their nation. There's not a lot we can do about that, except through the UN. And I think we should use the power of the UN to restrict governments just a little bit so the people, who are the greater entity here, get their freedom.

If she really doesn't want to have a child, there is another way, other than an abortion.

Does this involve a bag, a heavy stone and a river? [/sarcasm]

Actually, Gruenberg is a fairly stable country. There have been three serious attempts at insurrection in the past century - one aristocratic coup, two popular uprisings - and the brutality of the suppression and aftermath seems to have convinced them that they are better off as they are.

OOC: I am *so* glad the anti-terrorism resolution failed. Now I can sponsor an uprising in your nation! Pity I don't have an army except for IGNORE cannons, but maybe the population can use them to IGNORE your government into orbit? :p