NationStates Jolt Archive

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?
OOC: You're welcome to try. But I didn't need the Anti-Terrorism Act to make that illegal: it already contravenes Rights & Duties.

Does this involve a bag, a heavy stone and a river? [/sarcasm]
No, it involes abstinence. If you really don't want to have a child, and then you have sex, you ARE taking the risk that you might have one, even with means of prevention. The baby should not be punished for your own problem.

OOC: You're welcome to try. But I didn't need the Anti-Terrorism Act to make that illegal: it already contravenes Rights & Duties.

OOC: Damn. Once again, the UN limits my freedom!

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

I would say more, there are plenty of other ways. There is contraception, and you are allowed to brainwash your citizens into using contraception. There is abstinence, and you are allowed to brainwash your citizens into using abstinence. There is adoption, and you are allowed to brainwash your citizens into using adoption.

If you disagree with abortion, as many do, you can do anything and everything to persuade women not to choose abortion. The point we are discussing is a different one. What happens if, despite all alternatives, all the brainwashing, all the education, all the religious fanaticism, though aware of the undeniable trauma it may cause, a woman makes the dramatic decision of terminating her pregnancy?

Shall we force her into a dark alley, where an unqualified criminal will perform the abortion with a coathanger? Shall we throw her in jail for hurting other people's "views," and bringing "moral shame" upon society? Shall we pile up on the intensely distressing situation she finds herself in, and treat her as an outcast?

It is our view that a foetus is neither the same as a child, nor just another organ in a woman's body. We abstain from passing moral judgement on either position. More relevantly, we submit to this assembly that a woman who terminates her pregnancy is not a threat to society in any way, and should not be treated as a criminal.

No, it involes abstinence. If you really don't want to have a child, and then you have sex, you ARE taking the risk that you might have one, even with means of prevention. The baby should not be punished for your own problem.

And we have a winner!

And we have a winner!

Yes. The time to punish the baby is after it's born, with a mother who can either not afford to take care of it, or doesn't care about it, or resents the fact that she has to have it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Hannibal the Greatest
No, it involes abstinence. If you really don't want to have a child, and then you have sex, you ARE taking the risk that you might have one, even with means of prevention. The baby should not be punished for your own problem.

And we have a winner!


Not sure of what you mean?
Do you want to mandate everyone in the world to have masturbation, oral sex or same-sex sexual practices instead of opposite-sex intercourse everytime they not want a baby?

No, I want people to take responsibility for the results of their actions.

Not sure of what you mean?
Do you want to mandate everyone in the world to have masturbation, oral sex or same-sex sexual practices instead of opposite-sex intercourse everytime they not want a baby?
Don't forget sodomy. Never forget the sodomy.

The Empire of Kirisubo is suporting this repeal since we feel that Abortion is an issue that each nation needs to deal with itself without outside interference.

Kirisubo may have a right to abortions but just because it works for us means it will work in other countries.

As has already been pointed out there are many ways that pregnancy can be prevented and each country can find a method or a combination of methods that will help them achieve a workable local solution.

supporting the repeal will free up nations all across the NSUN to decide this issue for themselves which can only be a good thing.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

No, I want people to take responsibility for the results of their actions.

May I suggest you to read the following interesting study, maybe more related than one can think at first sight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3546007.stm

People are saying things like "it doesn't effect you so leave them alone!" Well lots of things don't effect everyone. Looking at child porn doesn't effect anyone else, prostitution doesn't effect anyone else. The difference here is abortion DOES EFFECT SOMEONE ELSE. What about the unborn baby? Do they not have any rights? The answer to unwanted pregnancy is adoption. It is not murdering the baby. What if I had a son, and when he turned 16 I decided I didn't want him anymore? Am I allowed to kill him?

I have been here for over 200 days and this is like the 5th repeal/resolution/amendment that tries to redo the abortiong thing:headbang: . Can't we get some resolutions in that will ahve a much larger effect? We have argued this topic to death! I vote NO to this as I am sick of not seeing big picture resolutions on here.

I have been here for over 200 days and this is like the 5th repeal/resolution/amendment that tries to redo the abortiong thing:headbang: . Can't we get some resolutions in that will ahve a much larger effect? We have argued this topic to death! I vote NO to this as I am sick of not seeing big picture resolutions on here.

Huh?

I've been here since august 04, and this is the first abortion anything to hit the floor since I got here.

The original resolution is an old one, and any ammendments/resolutions on the same subject would have been illegal under the duplication rule.

Brace yourself though, because if this repeal passes, there will be a swathe of new proposal attempts to legalise it (including a very serious attempt from me), ban it or nat sov it.

Abortion is one of those hot topics that won't go away, no matter how sick some people get of the subject.

As stated before, that's precisely why we oppose this repeal.

People are saying things like "it doesn't effect you so leave them alone!" Well lots of things don't effect everyone. Looking at child porn doesn't effect anyone else, prostitution doesn't effect anyone else. The difference here is abortion DOES EFFECT SOMEONE ELSE. What about the unborn baby? Do they not have any rights? The answer to unwanted pregnancy is adoption. It is not murdering the baby. What if I had a son, and when he turned 16 I decided I didn't want him anymore? Am I allowed to kill him?

Slippery slope, appeal to emotion, unstated assumptions, unfounded conclusions. You believe embryos and foetus are people, others don't. If you don't have any other contribution for the debate, abstinence might work for you...

Slippery slope, appeal to emotion, unstated assumptions, unfounded conclusions. You believe embryos and foetus are people, others don't. If you don't have any other contribution for the debate, abstinence might work for you...

Well, for one, we could try talking english and just use the term 'unborn baby' instead of Latin words like Fetus that only means 'Unborn baby.' I guess we should define what is a human then? I always assumed it was a human baby that would be born to a human mother. Maybe that's too large an assumption to make, but I'm not aware of there ever being a human mother with in-utero oak trees or guppies.

If you didn't laugh at that, try taking a break and maybe you're the type that needs to go visit a page that blames Bush for the snow storms in New York to make you smile.

Well, for one, we could try talking english and just use the term 'unborn baby' instead of Latin words like Fetus that only means 'Unborn baby.'

Instead of advertising your ignorance, I suggest you buy a dictionary. Your repeated use of the term 'unborn baby' is once again a cheap appeal to emotion and bad debating style. If you don't understand why fetus is more accurate, I will henceforth think of you as an undead corpse. I do not debate with corpses.

I guess we should define what is a human then? I always assumed it was a human baby that would be born to a human mother. Maybe that's too large an assumption to make, but I'm not aware of there ever being a human mother with in-utero oak trees or guppies.

You fail at reading comprehension. Your tonsils are clearly human, that doesn't make them persons. Nor does it make a murderer of the doctor who removes them.

If you didn't laugh at that, try taking a break and maybe you're the type that needs to go visit a page that blames Bush for the snow storms in New York to make you smile.

I did not laugh simply because the joke was not funny. I suggest you run a poll with that joke to verify whose sense of humour is at fault. Ad hominem makes you appear like an idiot, by the way, and spoils your attempt at humour.

Fonzoland,

I do not wish to demean you on a public forum.

Fact: Black's Law Dictionary defines Fetus as "Unborn Child"

Fact: Tonsils do not have the DNA to form a person. Unborn babys are not like tonsils or appendixes or anything else, since they will grow into a mature adult and I doubt my tonsils will ever do that.

Comment: Nah, I won't run the poll just because you didn't laugh. Sorry you feel the need to attack me personally for my comments.

Fonzoland,

I do not wish to demean you on a public forum.

Dorksonia,

You presume too much. But fine, I will take the bait.

Fact: Black's Law Dictionary defines Fetus as "Unborn Child"

... thereby proving that fetus is an established word in the English language, and totally voiding your argument. Rather than calling something by its established name, you wish to refer to its potential future state. Fine, call it a possible basketball star, if you prefer. Your motives are not innocent, as is plainly evident: you wish to appeal to emotion, and stifle rational debate.

Fact: Tonsils do not have the DNA to form a person. Unborn babys are not like tonsils or appendixes or anything else, since they will grow into a mature adult and I doubt my tonsils will ever do that.

As you may have read in one of my previous posts, I do not believe a fetus is just another organ. Still, you and the other chap base your reasonings in flawed logic. Your old assumption, that as long as the fetus is human, it is a person, is unreasonable. Your new assumption, that anything with unique human DNA is a person, is unreasonable. The mantained conclusion, that abortion is tantamount to murder, stands unfounded.

Comment: Nah, I won't run the poll just because you didn't laugh. Sorry you feel the need to attack me personally for my comments.

Cause and effect, my friend. I am civil to those who are civil to me. If you don't understand why I took objection to your remarks, I suggest you take a break and watch some Sesame Street videos. (See, this is ad hominem, with no relevance for the debate. I will look like an idiot for making this statement. Silly me.)

This is going too far; I will try to keep my arguments for those who have rational objections to offer. It was a pleasure meeting you.

Cause and effect, my friend. I am civil to those who are civil to me. If you don't understand why I took objection to your remarks, I suggest you take a break and watch some Sesame Street videos. (See, this is ad hominem, with no relevance for the debate. I will look like an idiot for making this statement. Silly me.)

This is going too far; I will try to keep my arguments for those who have rational objections to offer. It was a pleasure meeting you.

If I have not been civil in this debate I sincerely apologize. I am unaware that I have not been civil. I have not called you "unreasonable", one without "rational objections" to offer, "idiot", "ignorant", "bad debating style", "cheap base" or one that "fail(s) at reading comprehension."

I also have not basically said, "I'm not talking with you any more because you're unreasonable (my interpretation)."

You can choose to be a part of the discussion if you wish, but please do not make your remarks against the debater, but actually keep them to the debate. With that said, I guess you have the freedom to call me whatever you want, but I won't respond to personal attacks but only to arguments you make. I will attempt to respond to the arguments and not attack you for making them as I believe I always have.

... thereby proving that fetus is an established word in the English language, and totally voiding your argument. Rather than calling something by its established name, you wish to refer to its potential future state. Fine, call it a possible basketball star, if you prefer. Your motives are not innocent, as is plainly evident: you wish to appeal to emotion, and stifle rational debate.

I'm sorry you are failing to understand my point. That may be a failure on my part to communicate it. Let me make myself clear. I have never said that "fetus" is not an established word in the English language. I'm just saying that it's an intentional dehumanizing word because most people are unaware that the latin word means "unborn child." Why do we have to use latin terms when the common english ones do just fine? Could it be that the choice of words are not always innocent and a desire to stay away humanizing the unborn as much as possible? That's not necessarily an accusation on anyone here. Just something to think about. Also, I laughed at your comment about calling the unborn future basketball star or whatever, but obviously we do not know what that child will grow up to be. But we know it will grow up to be an adult human. At present it is a smaller one developing in the womb.

As you may have read in one of my previous posts, I do not believe a fetus is just another organ. Still, you and the other chap base your reasonings in flawed logic. Your old assumption, that as long as the fetus is human, it is a person, is unreasonable. Your new assumption, that anything with unique human DNA is a person, is unreasonable. The mantained conclusion, that abortion is tantamount to murder, stands unfounded.

Sorry, you appeared to be comparing the fetus to a tonsil in the post I was responding to.

Your Words: You fail at reading comprehension. Your tonsils are clearly human, that doesn't make them persons. Nor does it make a murderer of the doctor who removes them.

I didn't realize that believing a fetus is human and therefore a person was unreasonable. Perhaps you would like to put that up in a poll? I'm used to this logic being used before in our history. Slaves were not called 'persons.' At one point they were counted as 3/5 a person. It comes down to who gets to define personhood I suppose, and the point here is that I do not wish for the United Nations or you to make that determination for my nation. I find the rhetoric you use here unreasonable. But I will point to the first point in my repeal that I have discovered that good people disagree on this issue. You appear to be very sincere. Of course, in my opinion, I believe you are sincerely wrong. I respect your right to disagree.

I found this link interesting in light of recent discussion here:

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/human

Basically it defines "human" as "person" - lol!

And then most definitions like this one of "person"
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=person
define that word as "human" - lol!

Other links:
http://www.answers.com/topic/human-1

Here it distinguishes humans from other animals as one of the definitions. Like the comment I said before of being unaware of human mothers with in-utero oak trees or guppies.

http://dict.die.net/human/

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/person

These were not selected definitions, but the first ones I came across.

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!

After that, the Xtraordinary Gentlemen, Randomerica, and I all left to form a region that would be safer from invasion. :)

The quality and style of resolutions have changed over time. So even when a new one like the Anti-Terrorism Act comes around, there are still some old ones that pale in comparison.

There are a examples of repeals that were made with plans to move a replacement forward.

The quality and style of resolutions have changed over time. So even when a new one like the Anti-Terrorism Act comes around, there are still some old ones that pale in comparison.I think we will have to accept that regular repeals are going to be the status quo for the time being - this is partially a good thing as we can improve resolutions, at the same time it is a bad thing as many nations are tired of going over the same stuff again.

I suppose it is a bit like house cleaning, not many people like it, but it is something that needs to be done once in a while.

Personally, I like the whole repeal thing, as there are some very bad resolutions out there, and we have much higher standards nowadays.
__________________
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

Here are two solid reasons to vote no: 1) As a protest against the possibility of interminble future debate once the replacements and then their repeals start rolling in. 2) Because you want to. I think it's obvious that the majority of the people of this forum feel that abortion is inevitable, sad, and private. Theses facts are not altered by public outrage or criminalization -- all that can be altered is that safe and sanitary conditions can be available, and we can prevent having two tragedies where there was only to be one. It's the adult, rational response to an issue. Perhaps we can get on to solutions to the true problems of society, those that actually affect the likelihood of an abortion being sought.

Pres., Armed Republic of Creechmark

No, I want people to take responsibility for the results of their actions.
Here we see the paucity of your argument - and it is an all-too-common poverty of thinking. You assume as a default position, good Sheikh, that the would-be mother is responsible for the actions that lead to her pregnancy. This is patently not always the case. Do I really need to bring up the issue of rape?

Or are you arguing that the rapist should take responsibility and bring up the child himself?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

It's obvious some have resorted to scare tactics - resorting to emotional blackmail of "coat hanger abortions" and "back alley abortions." Many have heard this rhetoric their whole lives and are unaware that major studies have been done showing the maternal deaths due to abortion were unaffected by the legalization of abortion.

This also ignores the number of women who die to "safe and legal abortions" today. Women die having abortions. Many women are unaware of the risks involved with having an abortion. Many women are unaware of the development of the unborn child she is carrying since they hear some of the same things mentioned in this thread like "it's only a glob of cells."

The major reason to vote FOR this repeal is because regardless of your opinion about abortion and the great number of laws that could surround it (partial birth, parental consent, tri-mesters, etc.), this issue is best left as a daily issues for individual nations to decide rather than the world body of the United Nations. If the UN decides issues like this, there might as well not be any daily issues for your nation to decide, but just abdicate all ruling authority to the United Nations to rule your nation for you. Those that are Against this repeal believe they should be able to impose their morality concerning abortion on every UN nation in this world. Voting FOR this resolution is not imposing anyone's morality on you, but rather leaving the decision up to local governments to rule on behalf of the people of different areas that believe different things. Some may want to limit abortion in their nations. Some may want to make it more accessible and even tax-payer funded. This should not be decided by the U.N.

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.


So what you're saying is that proposals can't ban nations claiming to be [for example] Christian but can then stop them actually running on Christian principles? That still looks like an effective ban on Christianity to me...

So what you're saying is that proposals can't ban nations claiming to be [for example] Christian but can then stop them actually running on Christian principles? That still looks like an effective ban on Christianity to me...
OOC: Excellent idea - I'll get drafting straight away... ho, ho.

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.


So you insist that you know the minds of every nations' citizens better than their own governments do? Tell me, do you know the meaning of the words "arrogant presumption"?

So you insist that you know the minds of every nations' citizens better than their own governments do? Tell me, do you know the meaning of the words "arrogant presumption"?I think every government can be guilty of that to some degree. I’m sure some of the dictatorships think their populace wants them to rule with an iron fist. Without elections how do they really know?

If your citizens oppose abortion, then simply having the option available to them does not mean they have to start having abortions.

I think every government can be guilty of that to some degree. I’m sure some of the dictatorships think their populace wants them to rule with an iron fist. Without elections how do they really know?

If your citizens oppose abortion, then simply having the option available to them does not mean they have to start having abortions.


St Edmund has elections. Before becoming bound by UN resolutions St Edmund already had democratically-passed laws which allowed abortion under a range of circumstances (such as rape, statutory rape, incest, or continued pregnancy posing a serious threat to the mother's health...) but not just when a woman changed her mind after voluntarily getting herself pregnant, and illegal abortions happened only very rarely. However we understand that some other nations have differing views which may be based on ideology, and that the UN's rules supposedly recognise the right of nations to run according to any ideology that they choose (unless this would require legalised slavery), and therefore hold that this matter should be left for individual nations to decide upon separately.

St Edmund has elections. I was not making a point about democracy, I was making a point about arrogance. Certainly was not making a point about a specific nation, it was just the easiest example I could think of.

Before becoming bound by UN resolutions St Edmund already had democratically-passed laws which allowed abortion under a range of circumstances (such as rape, statutory rape, incest, or continued pregnancy posing a serious threat to the mother's health...) but not just when a woman changed her mind after voluntarily getting herself pregnant, and illegal abortions happened only very rarely.That's fair enough, although I don't think women always get themselves voluntarily pregnant - sometimes contraception fails. It happens, I should know (in RL that happened to my ex). What happens in those circumstances? It's not voluntary, but it's hardly rape or any of the other examples you listed. It's a grey area. There will always be grey areas. Which is why I think the best judge of a situation is the person actually involved in the situation, not some government detached from the realities of the situation and generalising a set of guidelines which might not clearly apply to the reality affecting an individual.

A government cannot legislate for all the scenarios. It's arrogant to think it even can - which is why I don't think they should.

(Not that I'm having a go at your legislation pre-UN, it's just that's the first example I had to hand - so please do not assume I am attacking how your government ran things pre-UN)However we understand that some other nations have differing views which may be based on ideology, and that the UN's rules supposedly recognise the right of nations to run according to any ideology that they choose (unless this would require legalised slavery),And anything else which is legislated upon. and therefore hold that this matter should be left for individual nations to decide upon separately.I hold that this matter should be left for individuals to decide upon, not governments, for the reasons I outlined above, and because an individual will always be better qualified to decide than a government on individual matters.

Here we see the paucity of your argument - and it is an all-too-common poverty of thinking. You assume as a default position, good Sheikh, that the would-be mother is responsible for the actions that lead to her pregnancy. This is patently not always the case. Do I really need to bring up the issue of rape?

Or are you arguing that the rapist should take responsibility and bring up the child himself?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Rape is another case, and you know it damn well, my dear Mr. Vergniaud.

I was not making a point about democracy, I was making a point about arrogance. Certainly was not making a point about a specific nation, it was just the easiest example I could think of.

Okay, fair enough.

That's fair enough, although I don't think women always get themselves voluntarily pregnant - sometimes contraception fails. It happens, I should know (in RL that happened to my ex). What happens in those circumstances? It's not voluntary, but it's hardly rape or any of the other examples you listed. It's a grey area. There will always be grey areas. Which is why I think the best judge of a situation is the person actually involved in the situation, not some government detached from the realities of the situation and generalising a set of guidelines which might not clearly apply to the reality affecting an individual.

A government cannot legislate for all the scenarios. It's arrogant to think it even can - which is why I don't think they should.

Which is why my listed of allowed circumstances said "such as" rather than "which are": St Edmundan law did allow for some other cases too, within defined limits, at the discretion of the courts.

And anything else which is legislated upon.

Anything else which was legislated on before the rule against banning ideologies was made explicit, yes, unless & until any such measures get repealed... but I still hold that that ban -- which was already in place when St Edmund joined the UN -- was supposed to set a limit on how far subsequent legislation could go against National Sovereignty.

No, I want people to take responsibility for the results of their actions.

So if a woman is raped, that's here responsibility? If a condom rips, it's the mother's fault? If anti-conception methods fail, whose responsibility is that?

So you insist that you know the minds of every nations' citizens better than their own governments do? Tell me, do you know the meaning of the words "arrogant presumption"?

You misunderstand. I do not need to know every opinion, every thought of citizens. All I know is that they should be free to make a choice. A mother choosing to have an abortion has no negative impact on her religious neighbours. They can still go to heaven and they aren't forced to have an abortion. Everyone wins.

I concur completely with the representative from Groot Gouda. The representative from St. Edmund values your "Right" to restrict someone elses decision over the Right to actually make that decision, and calls it pro-choice. That point has been made quite clearly several times now and it is getting tedious.
-Aram Koopman

You misunderstand. I do not need to know every opinion, every thought of citizens. All I know is that they should be free to make a choice. A mother choosing to have an abortion has no negative impact on her religious neighbours. They can still go to heaven and they aren't forced to have an abortion. Everyone wins.

But why should they automatically be "free to make a choice" in this matter when they aren't allowed to do in other, arguably more important matters such as the actual nature of their nation's government? Would you also argue that democracy should be forced on all nations?

Would you also argue that democracy should be forced on all nations?

A UN Resolution that mandates democratic governance at *some* level has already been passed. I cannot say that I would lose any sleep over a resolution democratising UN governments either. Would you?
-Aram Koopman

But why should they automatically be "free to make a choice" in this matter when they aren't allowed to do in other, arguably more important matters such as the actual nature of their nation's government? Would you also argue that democracy should be forced on all nations?
No, but I don't think the comparison is fully valid. Control over one's own body is a different matter to whether or not one has a stake in the body politic. Degrees of importance don't really come into it; one ought also to consider distance here.

MV

So if a woman is raped, that's here responsibility? If a condom rips, it's the mother's fault? If anti-conception methods fail, whose responsibility is that?It's exactly those scenarios which suggest to me a government is not qualified to make those decisions - mainly because it involves the government having to micromanage peoples lives.

So if a woman is raped, that's here responsibility?

I know the representative from Groot Gouda isn't this ignorant. There is, of course, no responsibility on the part of the women in such a case, and thus, my earlier statement about responsibility would not apply.

If a condom rips, it's the mother's fault? If anti-conception methods fail, whose responsibility is that?

Those who engaged in sexual intercourse. Those are the risks of such behaviour.

A UN Resolution that mandates democratic governance at *some* level has already been passed. I cannot say that I would lose any sleep over a resolution democratising UN governments either. Would you?
-Aram Koopman

Yes.
Not because of any opposition to Democracy, which is [after all] the basic system under which St Edmund itself is governed, but because the precedent which that would set for allowing the UN to decree how nations should be run could subsequently -- if the balance of power within the membership shifted significantly -- be abused to let it impose some other, more coercive system on all member nations instead.
Also, any such resolution would probably cause quite a high proportion of the current members to withdraw and thus not only make this body less representative of NS at a whole but deprive the UN of any influence within those nations...

Now, if you want to set up a separate supra-regional organisation specifically for UN member-nations with democratic regimes, that would be another matter...

But why should they automatically be "free to make a choice" in this matter when they aren't allowed to do in other, arguably more important matters such as the actual nature of their nation's government? Would you also argue that democracy should be forced on all nations?

Yes and no. Yes, because a democracy provides the most safeguards against limiting of choice, but no because a population can also choose dictatorship.

I know the representative from Groot Gouda isn't this ignorant. There is, of course, no responsibility on the part of the women in such a case, and thus, my earlier statement about responsibility would not apply.

Yes, but removing this resolution will inevitably that in some nations (and even 1% of 35000 means 350 nations, millions and millions of people) it will be considered the woman's responsibility. Are you willing to take responsibility for that happening by supporting this repeal? And don't say you're not responsible for what other nations do, because you are, by participating in the vote on this resolution, by supporting this repeal.

If a condom rips, it's the mother's fault? If anti-conception methods fail, whose responsibility is that?Those who engaged in sexual intercourse. Those are the risks of such behaviour.

Bollocks. If I go out in the street and get run down by a car that drives on the pavement, you can hardly say that going outside is taking the risk of dying in a car accident. I take my precautions (walk on the pavement), so I can't be held responsible for that accident. Just like when I take precautions when I have sex.

Bollocks. If I go out in the street and get run down by a car that drives on the pavement, you can hardly say that going outside is taking the risk of dying in a car accident. I take my precautions (walk on the pavement), so I can't be held responsible for that accident. Just like when I take precautions when I have sex.

Gonig outside is often necessary. Sexual intercourse is not. Yes, it is necessary to promulgate the species, but that's not the goal if one is using contraception, now, is it?

When you have sex... you run the risks of getting pregnant... and you know it... no matter how many precautions you take there will always be risk.

If two consenting people realize this... and the female concieves... Yes. It IS her fault... and she needs to take the responsibility for her action.

Thus is the belief of the President of Geneticon.

When you have sex... you run the risks of getting pregnant... and you know it... no matter how many precautions you take there will always be risk.

If two consenting people realize this... and the female concieves... Yes. It IS her fault... and she needs to take the responsibility for her action.

Thus is the belief of the President of Geneticon.

Actually, responsibility lies with both parties involved.

Gonig outside is often necessary. Sexual intercourse is not. Yes, it is necessary to promulgate the species, but that's not the goal if one is using contraception, now, is it? Crossing the road is not always neccessary either, especially if there is a subway or bridge nearby. ;)

Gonig outside is often necessary. Sexual intercourse is not. Yes, it is necessary to promulgate the species, but that's not the goal if one is using contraception, now, is it?

There are many things that aren't strictly necessary for survival, yet are fun and entertaining. I don't need to go outside in a few minutes, because I could eat bread and water tonight. Yet here I go, spoiling myself with fresh vegetables.

I'm still not responsible if the supermarket happens to explode.
(I'll deny everything anyway).

There are many things that aren't strictly necessary for survival, yet are fun and entertaining.

*snip*

People shouldn't have to pay when your fun and entertainment goes awry.

People shouldn't have to pay when your fun and entertainment goes awry.

Pay? So does that mean you objections are about the funding of abortions? By all means, let the private sector handle it...

Pay? So does that mean you objections are about the funding of abortions? By all means, let the private sector handle it...

That is one of my objections, yes.

That is one of my objections, yes.So let the private sector handle it - as long as prices do not go out of control, then it's perfectly fine :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneticon
When you have sex... you run the risks of getting pregnant... and I you know it... no matter how many precautions you take there will always be risk.

If two consenting people realize this... and the female concieves... Yes. It IS her fault... and she needs to take the responsibility for her action.

Thus is the belief of the President of Geneticon.


Actually, responsibility lies with both parties involved.


Agreed... excuse me for not making myself clear. Geneticon does feel that both parties are responsible... but teh female usually has to live with the more obvious consequence of their actions.

This topic is intended to highlight a potential viewpoint - it is not my own, but it makes interesting reading. I don’t agree with the conclusion, but some of the points have been raised on this topic, and it provides some useful answers

WHY BIRTH, NOT VIABILITY, IS THE POINT OF ORIGIN OF RIGHTS

By Thomas Gramstad
Copyright 1993


The aim of this article is to demonstrate that the attempt to define viability as the point of origin of individual rights constitute a degradation of the woman and a violation of her individual rights.


The fundamentals of abortion rights are:
(1) The embryo/fetus is not a person, it is a body part, i.e., property.

(2) Even if the fetus were a person, nobody has the right to invade somebody else's body. (If the unwanted fetus is not a person, it is dispensable property. If the unwanted fetus is a person, it is an intruder -- a rapist as it were (this unavoidable conclusion illustrates the absurdity of the premise that the fetus is a person).)

(3) The owner of the body determines what constitutes an invasion of it.

(4) There is no moral or legal justification for making a human being a slave or a serf of another.

(3) and (4) follow directly and immediately from the principle of individual sovereignty.


Viability is the point at which the fetus can maintain its basic biological functions (such as breathing, blood circulation, and excretion of wastes) independently, i.e., as
an individual.

Medical technology might push ex utero fetus survival beyond (prior to) that point, substituting the dependence on a womb with a dependence on some machine. This would not change the reality of the point in time at which bodily autonomy, and thus individual existence, comes into being.


An embryo or fetus (e/f) placed in such a machine and an e/f placed in a womb are in significantly different situations or contexts. In the latter case, the absolutism of the woman's individual sovereignty and her right to self-determination and bodily integrity supersede all other concerns. Anything less would constitute a violation of her rights and reduce her to a reproductive apparatus, a slave of the e/f. As a person, a conscious autonomous individual with individual rights, the pregnant woman has metaphysical primacy in the pregnancy; giving the e/f primacy in this situation is a degradation of the woman, reducing her to a reproductive apparatus.

However, the machine _is_ a reproductive apparatus; it is made for that purpose and we can therefore consider it a slave of the e/f. Thus, such a machine would be metaphysically secondary to the e/f.

Does the metaphysical primacy of the e/f when placed in a machine this way make the e/f an individual? My answer is: The fetus becomes an individual when it can survive without the machine, i.e., it becomes an individual when it reaches the point in time that would be called viability in a pregnancy. Until this point in time, the fetus is the equal of any other organ or body part connected to a machine -- like a heart or a kidney.

Thus, the e/f-machine complex is to be considered property until viability; from then on the fetus is to be considered a legal person, i.e., an infant. This is different from a pregnancy, where the woman's individual sovereignty and bodily integrity take precedence even over fetus viability. Fetus viability is factor number two in priority in a pregnancy; when the woman's bodily integrity is not an issue, as is the case in the machine, fetus viability is number one.

If the fetus is viable, has the pregnant woman then the right to abort it and decide that it shall die? Or does the fetus then have a right to live?

I see the viability of a fetus in the womb as a _potential_ viability rather than an actual one (birth being the moment when this potential becomes actual or real). I see this as different from a viable fetus in a machine, because such a machine would be secondary to the fetus, while a woman is not. (To be precise, a fetus in a machine stops being a fetus when it becomes viable and no longer needs the machine. A fetus in a womb stops being a fetus when it is born.)

If a fetus can be kept alive by some technology even _before_ biological viability, does this fetus have a right to life in a society in which this technology exists? No, only individuals can have rights.

Note that even if the non-viable embryo/fetus _were_ to be considered an individual when placed in a machine rather than in a woman, it still does not not follow that the e/f should be considered to be an individual when being a part of a woman. Those are two different situations. Indeed, I can foresee a biomedical science that can keep _any_ body part alive outside the body. Would then any body part be an individual? Is a woman a population of individuals?

Given that the fetus is either a part of the woman's body or a visitor which cannot claim any right to access or use somebody else's body, it follows that the woman has the right to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever. This does not mean that all abortions are moral -- only that they should be legal. In the same way and for the same reasons that a woman has the right to change her mind at any stage during an intercourse -- it is her body, her right to decide who is to be permitted to enter it and for how long, and she retains the right to change her mind at any time.

It should be noted that:
a) in cases where the couple has used prevention or one or both are sterilized the fetus is _not_ an invited guest to the woman's body (I would say that if, and _only_ if, reproduction is a main deliberate motive for having sex, the fetus can be said to have been "invited". The couple without any prevention is as silly as the house owner who leaves his house with unlocked doors; an unlocked door is a poor defense against intruders, but it is still not an _invitation_ to intruders.)

b) with respect to abortion rights, it does not make any difference whether the fetus was invited or not. Even a kidnap victim who were placed in your small one-room apartment cannot claim any right to live there.

The nature and moral status of the fetus (whether it is a person or not) does not affect a woman's right to abortion, because a person's right to remove an entity from her body does not depend upon the nature of the entity, but upon the fact that it is her body.

(Occasionally the question about separation of Siamese twins is brought up in abortion debates. If one twin wants to separate, and separation would kill the other, then separation is not permitted. This is clearly the right answer to that problem, since the combined body of equal Siamese twins is a joint-property or co-ownership to which neither twin can make first or exclusive claim. For the same reason, the case of Siamese twins is irrelevant to and has no relation to pregnancy and abortion, even in the hypothetical case of considering the fetus a person. A woman and her fetus do not share a joint-property. The fetus is not a co-owner of the woman's body. The "fetus-as-person" would at best have been a guest.)

Whether the entity to be removed from one's body is a vital or non-vital physical part of the body, or a strange object inserted into it, or a person intruding into it, or a person involuntary placed within it, and whatever happens to the entity when it is removed -- all these factors are irrelevant with respect to one's _right_ to remove it. These factors may affect the _morality_, but not the _legitimity_ (and should thus not affect the _legality_) of the removal. An example will clarify this point.


If your child contracts a disease or is involved in an accident, and requires a kidney or lung transplantation in order to be saved or to restore health, you may be willing to give up a kidney or lung. But you are not -- and should not be -- compelled by the law to do so. Such a law would be a monstrous and perverse violation of your sovereignty, your right to your own body. And that is the point, the whole point and nothing but the point.


A fetus can have no more rights than a child -- and indeed, anti-abortionists claim that fetuses _are_ children and therefore have the same rights as children have. It follows
that a fetus does not have the right to use or access anybody else's body against their will. So even if the fetus _were_ a person (which it is not), it would not have a right to be kept alive by exploitation of another person's body.


Therefore a woman has the right to disconnect and remove the fetus from herself. If no positive action is taken after removal, the fetus will die. The woman and her helpers have the right to abstain from action.


Alternatively -- if the woman so permits -- an aborted fetus may be pre-natally adopted and transferred to another woman's womb, or it may be freezed and stored. Or, as we shall see, it may be used for medical transplants or research.


It is now established that the "fetus-as-person" would not have a right to exploit anybody else's body, just as any other person may not. This means that the whole "pro"-life crusade for the "fetus-as-person" is futile, helpless and a gigantic digression. From the "fetus-as-person" premise one might conceivably argue that one may not actively kill the fetus, or perform actions on the separated fetus that would
cause death (one might still, however, let it die through inactivity). The time has come for a reminder that the fetus is _not_ a person, and thus may be "killed" actively. This fact is, of course, ample grounds for celebration, since it
means that actual and real human lives may be saved or improved due to transplants from and research upon fetuses.

Why would anyone want an abortion at such a late stage as the third trimester? The most common reasons are:

- Fetal malformation
- The fetus is a threat against the life or health of the mother
(It goes without saying that if there is a threat against the woman, anything should be done to save her, no matter what happens to the fetus. Any other attitude is a Nazi perversion.)
- Teenager denying or being ignorant of pregnancy
- Mistake of due date

Summary and conclusion:
If the fetus is a part of the woman, her right to her body gives her the right to do whatever she wants with it. In this case, by abortion the woman removes a body part
of hers.

If the fetus is a person, it is a visitor in the woman's body, and her right to her body gives her the right to decide who is permitted to enter and stay in her body, and for how long. The host decides whether the visitor is a guest or an intruder. A host who does not have this right is a serf or a slave. In this case, by abortion the woman removes a parasite.


The fetus is a body part until it is viable outside the uterus; from that point in time until birth it is a parasite.

Birth is the moment of individualization, the origin of a new individual with rights.


From a rights-perspective, abortion rights is not a very complicated issue. The sabotage of and antagonism to abortion rights demonstrate that we live in an age and a
culture which do not value women very much. If we for a brief moment engage in the thought experiment of imagining that _men_ were the ones to be pregnant and give birth instead of women, everything else remaining the same, we can be certain that abortion would not only be recognized as the natural and obvious individual right that it is -- it would probably even be conceived of as a sacrament, some holy procedure, when performed by those who elected for it. This is a sad reflection on the wide-spread sexism and the power imbalance between the sexes in current society.

OOC: I'm going to make this a general address to the assembly.

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.

IC: The government is a greater entity. You yourself continue to admit that the government holds more power, the critical difference between the lesser and greater entities. You're skirting around but missing the only genuine--and very easy to argue into irrelevacy--objection to my argument, which is that unlike the relationship between individuals and government or nations and the UN, the foetus has no free will at all to determine its own fate through revolution or participation in the decision-making process. This objection would just lead to a debate over whether, like the foetus, we don't have free will or to what extent we have free will, and I doubt you'll want to take that route with me. I may believe in free will, but I can sure as hell make a case for it not existing (for individuals and governments) despite that, from principles of logic or science or even theology.

Your objection that in the case of individuals, they are the source of power for the government and are thereby more special than a foetus, is simply nonsensical. Governments do not necessarily need the support of the people to maintain their power. Governments have in the past hired mercenary armies to that end. Also, in many nations, individuals are either too poor, passive, or pissed off at the government to support the government and reinforce its power, but those individuals still have their lives respected unless the governments are the oppressive ones.

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.

Ah. I love the issue of property. It's always fascinating. Let's take a deeper look at the situation to help elucidate the problem of property, or to use your phrase, "belong to". To what extent does the woman belong to the government? To the same extent that the foetus belongs to the woman. The government can, possibly in only rare situations depending on the legal system and how well it's adhered to, do a number of things to an individual. If say, an individual woman constitutes a serious and threat to the health of the government (for the sake of argument we'll assume for the moment that the government is one that you would approve of) and the most reasonable way to remove that threat to the government's health is to end the woman's life, then do we not have a situation analogous to abortion? Still unsure? Well then draw some more parallels. Let's further say that some time in the past the government granted this woman citizenship and allowed her into the country, made a choice that would lead to the woman existing under the government's power and thereby obligating the government to take responsibility for her. Without this choice, the government (like a rape victim) could be argued to have no responsibilty for the individual, no obligation to try and find some way to not destroy the lesser entity's life. Somehow I suspect that you would want the government to try and find a way to resolve the situation without loss of life to the lesser entity. Likewise, I would want the woman (even a rape victim) to try to resolve the situation without loss of life to the lesser entity.

If you think it's worth having the UN tell governments to respect the individuals, I think you're just going to have to understand that some governments think it's worth telling a woman to respect foetuses, and that the only basic difference between the entities is analogous (ie. power differential). The government is more powerful than the individual, and the woman is more powerful than the foetus. Both should act in the best interest of the lesser entities if you're going to be rational and consistent.

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.

You hardly need to continue to point out that you are ignoring basic logic in favor of adherence to extreme individualism. I've already picked that up.

And besides, when some folks consider making decisions about abortion, they look at it from the point of view of the foetus, not the mother. Again, it is analogous to what you do with governments and individuals (the greater and lesser entities, one of which has more power than the other).

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.

More of the extreme individualist rhetoric that ignores basic logic. Wonderful.

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".

A government is responsible for providing basic necessities for continued life for people who can't make a choice, but a woman isn't responsible for doing the same thing for a foetus that can't make a choice. Fascinating.

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?

Sigh. You realize that without being able to make a solid case for your extreme individualism this argument falls apart, right?

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.

To summarize:

1. The only critical difference between a greater entity and a lesser entity is that one has more power than the other.
2. A government has more power than an individual. A woman has more power than a foetus.
3. A government is a greater entity than an individual, and in relation to the government the individual is a lesser entity. A woman is a greater entity than a foetus, and in relation to the woman the foetus is the lesser entity.
4. If a woman should have the freedom to destroy a lesser entity (foetus) based on her free choice, then a government should be able to destroy a lesser entity (individual) based on its free choice.

That's all folks. Ignore the logical consequences of your beliefs all you want, but keep in mind that the problem with those beliefs is out there for everyone to see, and it ain't looking real pretty given the amount of painful inconsistency.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

OOC: Thanks for an amusing debate, Michel. :) I don't have any more time for this now, so this will be my last post here.

4. If a woman should have the freedom to destroy a lesser entity (foetus) based on her free choice, then a government should be able to destroy a lesser entity (individual) based on its free choice.

You missed the final logical extension of that
5. If a government should have the freedom to destroy a lesser entity (woman), then the UN should be able to destroy a lesser entity (government).

You missed the final logical extension of that
5. If a government should have the freedom to destroy a lesser entity (woman), then the UN should be able to destroy a lesser entity (government).

No, because the UN is not a greater entity than a national government. It is composed of national governments, whereas a national government is not necessarily composed of individual citizens of a given nation.

No, because the UN is not a greater entity than a national government. It is composed of national governments, whereas a national government is not necessarily composed of individual citizens of a given nation.
On the contrary, it almost always is (in a sovereign, independent state).

On the contrary, it almost always is (in a sovereign, independent state).


Maybe in a pluralistic democracy, but not all nations are pluralistic democracies.

Maybe in a pluralistic democracy, but not all nations are pluralistic democracies.
Let's take a dictatorship. The individual(s) in control of the nation are/were ordinarily citizens of that nation, yes?

Sorry, I might be misunderstanding your point.

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.And yet some laws, such as laws against murder, can have a basis in imposing a value. In the case of the example the value would be the sancitity on human life.

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%.I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but if you're saying that it's not the government's responsibility to provide the birth control methods then I fully agree with you.

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.
Actuslly you're reading too much into my previous statement here. All I said was that I've never said that life begins at conception, even though that is what I believe, I've just never said it here until now.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No, because the UN is not a greater entity than a national government. It is composed of national governments, whereas a national government is not necessarily composed of individual citizens of a given nation.

just because a government can comprise of one person or 100 people is irrelevant.

just because a government can comprise of one person or 100 people is irrelevant.

As is everything, it appears, that doesn't conform to the world view of those who believe the UN should be legislating on abortion rights. :rolleyes:

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.

Why is it that any "discussion" about this issue quickly degrades to the most extreeme opposites, from the pro-coathanger view to the pro-abortion mill view? Abortion is like any other industry ... I never trust them and wouldn't touch them even with a 10' pole. I mean at least there has been one thing the UN resolution has done for Tzorsland ... pro-life protesters seem to be the most nicest people you would ever want to meet, they walk by with their cute signs (ok some of those signs are just gross) and smile at me. The pro-choice people tend to make the Violets seem civilized. (Oops did I just say that out loud?)

I'm sorry but I personally feel that there is no such thing as a "free lunch." The moment a woman has become pregnant as the fetus implants in the womb, embryonic cells of that infant migrate into the mother's body, remaining for years, even decades. What do they do? Apparently they rush to the aid of the mother whenever there is serious problems. They help in a number of significant life threatening cases including cancer. That's what the fetus does for the mother. And what does the mother do in return? ... Play the tape.

(Tape showing the shower scene from Psycho.)

Oops that was definitely the wrong tape, although the medical procedure is similiar I suppose. By the way did you know that her pastie came off during the shooting? Only it is not on the tape. Now where was I? Oh yes, the mother KILLS the fetus that has already planted the cells that might save her own life. That's ingratitude for you. Of course it's not ingratitude because it is done in ignorance encouraged by an organization that makes a living off of doing the procedure. Pro-choice is no choice when there is no informed choice.

Therefore we come to a logical conclusion. Abortion should not be legal under "any" circumstance. Nor should abortion be "illegal" under "any" circumstance. There is no "Constitutional Fairy" that bonks a person with a magic wand of "right" the moment they completely pop out of the mother. The decisions as to when and how abortions should be performed should be no more and no less the same as decisions for how organ donations should be performed, determined by individual states based on science.

VOTE FOR THIS REPEAL.

You missed the final logical extension of that
5. If a government should have the freedom to destroy a lesser entity (woman), then the UN should be able to destroy a lesser entity (government).

OOC: I'm glad I had a spare moment here.

Hirota is correct. Groot Gouda's view, when logically extended further, leads to the UN being able to make the choice to destroy a government just as the government can make a choice to destroy the woman and the woman can make a choice to destroy the foetus. In this scenario, no one has real security or safety from a greater entity. We (foetuses, individuals, governments) are all subject to those with more power.

OOC: I'm glad I had a spare moment here.

Hirota is correct. Groot Gouda's view, when logically extended further, leads to the UN being able to make the choice to destroy a government just as the government can make a choice to destroy the woman and the woman can make a choice to destroy the foetus. In this scenario, no one has real security or safety from a greater entity. We (foetuses, individuals, governments) are all subject to those with more power.
Saying the foetus is being controlled by the woman is like saying I control my chair.

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World

I think the whole idea of abortion is ridiculous if the mother wishes to no keep the baby fine by me but why no just put it up for adoption? There ar plenty of people who wish to have a baby but do not have the ability to do so. Who gave the mother the right to play God annyway?

Saying the foetus is being controlled by the woman is like saying I control my chair.

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World

Fortunately, the issue isn't one of control, but of greater power. You have the power to destroy your chair, should you choose to do so, and the chair does not have the power necessary to prevent its destruction.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

I think the whole idea of abortion is ridiculous if the mother wishes to no keep the baby fine by me but why no just put it up for adoption? There ar plenty of people who wish to have a baby but do not have the ability to do so. Who gave the mother the right to play God annyway?


I second this!

Fortunately, the issue isn't one of control, but of greater power. You have the power to destroy your chair, should you choose to do so, and the chair does not have the power necessary to prevent its destruction.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith


Question:

why would you want to destroy a perfectly good chair when you can give it to someone who needs one. Hey! kinda like a unborne chiled

pro-life protesters seem to be the most nicest people you would ever want to meet, they walk by with their cute signs (ok some of those signs are just gross) and smile at me.

Do they smile before or after the public lynching outside the abortion clinic? Is it somehow related to the fact that you brought the rope yourself?

(This is meant as a joke, not an accusation. ;) Serious opinion follows.)

There are extremists on both sides, and they can all be quite unpleasant. Don't make an argument based on which group seems more friendly to you. And definitely do not argue that one group smiles at you more than the other, after you openly admit to share the views of said group.

Fortunately, the issue isn't one of control, but of greater power. You have the power to destroy your chair, should you choose to do so, and the chair does not have the power necessary to prevent its destruction.
I understand that. Why should I act upon the supposed rights of a chair.

why would you want to destroy a perfectly good chair when you can give it to someone who needs one. Hey! kinda like a unborne chilled
There isn't a stigma attached to giving up a chair…

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World

I understand that. Why should I act upon the supposed rights of a chair.

Samuel,
Assistant UN representative,
The Black New World

Why should you act upon the supposed rights of any thing, individual, or aggregate entity (ie. government)?

I suspect that you will find that the true question you will have to answer for your nation and yourself is: what is a right and why does any thing have one? Perhaps when you have answered that question we can quickly resolve both of our questions.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Women have the choice of either having an abortion or not, but it is highly encouraged. We need to show those young girls that there is another choice. It is important for us to vote against the bill!

Women have the choice of either having an abortion or not, but it is highly encouraged. We need to show those young girls that there is another choice. It is important for us to vote against the bill!
This is a repeal. It sounds a lot like you want to vote FOR the bill.

This is a repeal. It sounds a lot like you want to vote FOR the bill.

Sounds a lot like someone had her brain aborted.

Women have the choice of either having an abortion or not, but it is highly encouraged. We need to show those young girls that there is another choice. It is important for us to vote against the bill!

May i point out to the honourable member from Analee Power that if the repeal is sucessful their nation will have the freedom to define their own policy on abortions free from NSUN interference.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I think its dumb that this minority conserative group gets to make all these repeals and its so obvious that this small group is against any liberal agenda. :gundge:

Whats next OMGTheykilledkenny you gonna repeal civil rights?

I notice it says Anti-UN in there region as well wonder how long the admins will allow these shannigans.

Oh Pro-Choice all the way vote against this and any repeals that have to do with unions, civil rights, abortion ect.:rolleyes:

You do know Omigodtheykilledkenny is voting against this repeal don't you?

OOC: I'm glad I had a spare moment here.

Hirota is correct. Groot Gouda's view, when logically extended further, leads to the UN being able to make the choice to destroy a government just as the government can make a choice to destroy the woman and the woman can make a choice to destroy the foetus. In this scenario, no one has real security or safety from a greater entity. We (foetuses, individuals, governments) are all subject to those with more power.

<nods>

This is exactly the relationship between national soverignty and individual soverignty, with a variation on the scale. I feel that if a government has the right to tell it's citizens what to do, it's only fair that the UN can do the same to governments :)

As is everything, it appears, that doesn't conform to the world view of those who believe the UN should be legislating on abortion rights.No, not at all, only that which is a currently flawed arguement. But please, do argue your point further - hopefully using more characters - there is not a character limit on posts you know, and whilst keeping it brief is generally considered a good thing, there is always a benefit to being able to expand on points using more words. ;)

As is everything, it appears, that doesn't conform to the world view of those who believe the UN should be legislating on abortion rights. :rolleyes:

You still haven't answered my question (at least, I'm pretty sure I asked it somewhere). By voting for this repeal, you are taking responsibility for those nations who will use it to forbid abortion completely. That will mean a lot of nastiness. More than when the resolutions stays. You take responsibility because you know this is caused by the repeal, and you support a nation's right to do whatevery they please with their citizens.

How do you feel about that?

OOC: I'm glad I had a spare moment here.

Hirota is correct. Groot Gouda's view, when logically extended further, leads to the UN being able to make the choice to destroy a government just as the government can make a choice to destroy the woman and the woman can make a choice to destroy the foetus. In this scenario, no one has real security or safety from a greater entity. We (foetuses, individuals, governments) are all subject to those with more power.

Could I have a say in what my view means? Thanks. :)

Most importantly, I don't think you can reduce it so easily in a power-based relationship. It's more complex. People delegate power to a government. They still have influence (elections, revolution). So everybody is subject to those with more power, but that power isn't fixed, it can shift.

But I disagree about the analogy with the mother and the government. A foetus in my opinion is part of the mother, a bit like her hand or whatever bodypart. So I don't take the foetus into account in a hierarchy of entities. Just like the UN is in a way higher than a national government (being able to overrule national legislation), but also not (a nation can leave the UN). In fact, the UN is an extreme example of the special power relations that are involved here. Just like people can emigrate, revolt, or elect someone else, a nation can vote for or against a resolution, or leave the UN. It's freedom, but at the same time giving away a bit of freedom for some greater good - but that's everybody's own free choice.

If you look at the line that says "ACKNOWLEDGES that this will not prohibit any abortions and it will come up as a daily issue and you can decide for youself whether you want abortion or not." Or something like that. A lot of people seem to be thinking, "Wow, this is stupid. They want me to prohibit abortion." But they don't look close enough:headbang: Anyway, I would vote FOR and then take the time later to read over the issue's sides and THEN think about whether I want it or not. Now go out there and vote FOR!

But I disagree about the analogy with the mother and the government. A foetus in my opinion is part of the mother, a bit like her hand or whatever bodypart. So I don't take the foetus into account in a hierarchy of entities. Just like the UN is in a way higher than a national government (being able to overrule national legislation), but also not (a nation can leave the UN). In fact, the UN is an extreme example of the special power relations that are involved here. Just like people can emigrate, revolt, or elect someone else, a nation can vote for or against a resolution, or leave the UN. It's freedom, but at the same time giving away a bit of freedom for some greater good - but that's everybody's own free choice.I'm pretty certain it is an simplification of the various relationships, but there are similarities between them all. It's only when you add what each level of relationship actually entails that things get distorted.

I don't especially agree that a foetus can be added to the chain, but it's similar system that just about fits in the context of this repeal.

You still haven't answered my question (at least, I'm pretty sure I asked it somewhere). By voting for this repeal, you are taking responsibility for those nations who will use it to forbid abortion completely. That will mean a lot of nastiness. More than when the resolutions stays. You take responsibility because you know this is caused by the repeal, and you support a nation's right to do whatevery they please with their citizens.

How do you feel about that?

My government voted against this repeal, however, we do not agree with the opinion that by voting in favour of this resolution that nations are taking responsibility for the domestic decisions in other nations.

It is a very slippery slope to argue that in granting self-determination in another state that we are responsible for the successes and failures of those nations. The analogy I'd like to use is if you are a parent, and your child comes of age, in most cultures that child goes out and makes his or her own decisions and takes his or her own actions. If that child ends up breaking the law, but is considered an adult in the eyes of others, should the parent be held accountible?

It is easy to see that in some cases the answer will be yes and other cases the answer will be no ... and the differences in these answers should help illustrate that making a black-and-white statement that nations are accountible for events in other nations isn't truely fair.

In particular, if Mikitivity is aware of genocide in a non-UN member nation and chooses to not send in military troops to intervene (even though the Miervatian Air Force is very capable of carrying military forces elsewhere), are my people then responsible for the genocide?

While I understand that my example is for a non-UN nation, I believe the principle of self-determination shouldn't only apply to nations that share UN membership. My government actually recognizes that in the event that this resolution is repealed (which appears likely) that if some UN members seek to take away the choice of a woman to have an abortion that there are in fact other ways that pro-choice nations can peacefully still not be responsible. For example, if Mikitivity were to outlaw abortions based on child gender (which I believe are second trimester abortions, and probably dangerous to begin with), Groot Gouda could officially protest.

UN resolutions, by the voluntary nature of UN membership and complete lack of any enforcement powers (remember there is and will never be even a UN police guard -- see the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary General from GMC Military Arm's arguments about that, as silly as my government feels they are), are nothing more than recommendations. They are really just protests or agreements that happen to have the signatures of thousands of governments.

My government would surely acknowledge a reasoned request from a trusted ally, and in attempting to sway our domestic policies via the UN or more traditional bilateral agreements, I think most nations would argue that your government was putting forth a good faith effort to be a responsible mentor or parent from my previous example of the child who made a mistake.

Now for those of you voting in favour of this proposal, I do not feel my government is superior to yours and when the vote is over, I hope you will convey to your people that the difference in your nation's vote and my government's vote is nothing more than a difference in opinion, and bearing that in mind, I would hope that our people's would continue to communicate with one another with the ultimate goal of better understanding each other. I also hope you will recognize that with the exception of one Mikitivity canton, that it is fair to describe the people of the Thuvian and Solace mountains as being pro-choice and that we do feel the right of self-determination of a state is in this situation similar to the right of self-determination of an individual, and it is very likely that non-governmental organizations from Mikitivity might try to promote (within the limits of your nation's laws) the idea that even without a UN resolution requesting that abortions be legal, that people should have say in this matter and that government's should see to it that proper medical facilities exist.

Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Aside: I swear some people create an account for the sole purpose of making one argumentative post, then never log on to that account again.

Back on topic: The Socialist Republic prefers that states are allowed to make their own decisions about the legality of abortion rather than be compelled to legislate around the issue or engage in campaigns of disinformation with their citizens in order to keep abortion rates down. That said, unless there are adequate welfare programs in effect to support all dependents in a nation regardless of their parents' ability to care for them, abortion is a necessary tool, in the proper hands, to ensure the common good. If such programs are in place, we believe abortion to be a moral issue, one to be decided by the individual or the state, depending on the culture concerned.

Above all other arguments, the current United Nations resolution on Abortion Rights is flimsy, providing no protection to the right of abortion for those in favor of its legality and a source of ire for those who support its defeat. It should be repealed, and a replacement considered on its own merits before the United Nations assembled. Whether such a replacement passes or fails, it will be on the will of the body.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

If you look at the line that says "ACKNOWLEDGES that this will not prohibit any abortions and it will come up as a daily issue and you can decide for youself whether you want abortion or not." Or something like that. A lot of people seem to be thinking, "Wow, this is stupid. They want me to prohibit abortion." But they don't look close enough:headbang: Anyway, I would vote FOR and then take the time later to read over the issue's sides and THEN think about whether I want it or not. Now go out there and vote FOR!
This was happening in my nation's same region and I had to clear this up. Before all the pro-choicers went OMFG banning abortions!?!?!1111 My nation would like to give all nations the right to decide this issue for themselves. If not at least make a new resolution that goes into greater detail. My nation stands side by side with all those for this repeal.

Signed

SDF

The Honorale Delegate of the Honorable citizens of the People's Republic of Ebfan2

You do know Omigodtheykilledkenny is voting against this repeal don't you?Indeed he is. :cool:

...

My nation would like to give all nations the right to decide this issue for themselves. If not at least make a new resolution that goes into greater detail. My nation stands side by side with all those for this repeal.It’s all very well and good saying that you want nations to decide, but it’s not about the nation having the freedom to choose. It’s about ensuring that whoever is best qualified to make the decision is able to make the decision without censure from the UN and nations. In this case I argue it is the individual who is best qualified to make any decision. This current resolution prevents nations meddling into the affairs of their population – which if we repealed this resolution we would be allowing nations to decide.

What is the difference between the UN meddling in your affairs, and you meddling in your citizens affairs? Nothing, apart from a difference of scale. This resolution protects the sovereignty of the individual from the government, which in this scenario is only right and proper.

So whilst you want to give nations the right to decide for their population free from UN mandate, I want to give the population the right to decide on an individual basis free from UN and government mandate.

This repeal is not a bad idea, as it adresses that not ALL abortions are for a good cause, and that it can cause family stress. HOWEVER, a further, more DETAILED proposal will be needed after this one, whichever side wins

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 and many of the people who are in favor of forcing their view of the idea that a fetus is more important than a woman claim to be pro-life but yet their views lead to women using coathangers on themselves. A number of morons who bomb clinics and want women to be secondary citizens who also create bad lives for the offspring of these women forced to go through with an unwanted pregnacy are not pro-life. And by the way the only place in the United States where an overwhelming majority of the population want to limit abortion in some way would be in the DEEP SOUTH where things are already backwards as it is.

When you have sex... you run the risks of getting pregnant... and you know it... no matter how many precautions you take there will always be risk.

If two consenting people realize this... and the female concieves... Yes. It IS her fault... and she needs to take the responsibility for her action.

Thus is the belief of the President of Geneticon.

When you drive a car you have a risk of getting in a crash and breaking every bone in your body but you still have a hospital so you can have your wounds treated do you not? When a woman conceives and the guy's not wearing a condom but she refuses to take birth control it's BOTH their faults. If the woman conceives when she's on the pill but the guy's condom broke, that's HIS fault. Sometimes the best "responsibility" for an action is infact abortion. Imagine when that kid gets older and his or her mother considers it as a "responsibility for mom's bad actions". Well gee I think we'd have a pretty screwed up kid right there, and mother as well. So your position against abortion not only has a bad effect on the women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term but also on the child when they are older.

As for the last part, the original "Abortion Rights" law has no argument behind it, though I am pro-choice and stand by my position very firmly, had I wrote the bill there would be an extensive argument behind it. The repeal on the other hand allows backwards religious fundamentalist nations more concerned with a structure of cells within a womb than a living woman to force them into lives of poverty or death from a coathanger. If you are still in your right mind you should vote AGAINST this repeal, if this repeal does pass you should get anyone in the South Pacific Region to endorse me so I can make a proposal to reeinstate the abortion rights bill with an extensive argument behind it.

In defense of the position of national sovereignty, which ends up argued with every bill, and I believe is distorted to an extent by both sides of it:

1. I am as "fluffy" as "fluffy" can be.
2. My people live under a fair and honest--and liberal--democracy, where social welfare and people's rights are our first concern.
3. I personally agree with the context of most of the bills that I would like to shoot down and, in most cases, these are just as the laws of the USSA.
4. I, however, represent as a delegate to the UN a very diverse region, some of which entirely disagree with my platform, but expect me to be honest and compromising. I am only here by the grace of my neighbors.
5. The common argument of those who oppose national sovereignty is that they are defending the people of our nations against the ruthless leaders.
6. However, they are my people, I was born from their lot, and they chose me to represent them.
7. That being said, I am defending my people and the people of my region from the pen of a handful of bueracrats, locked up in a caged together like rats to duke it out for their own, self-serving interests. As unlikely as it sounds, no offense is meant.
8. While not all supporters of national sovereignty are as lenient or as representative of their people as I am, the point remains that we should do whatever is in our power to protect people around the world, without also using the UN to enforce our own morality, culture, and religious values onto each member nation.
9. Bills, frankly, pass by higher margins when you consider the needs and wants of all UN member states, rather than a block of voters with personal interest (such as the fluffies and cons and so on).

In the case of abortion, I can likely find many nations where the majority of women are firmly against the practice of abortion and demand that it be made illegal, especially in those nations that are highly religious in nature.

In fact, I find examples in my own region where it is likely that the vast majority of women wish for abortion to be illegal. These would include:

The Theocracy of Free Lurgia Island
The Holy Empire of Misjbar
The Holy Empire of Nabranoo
The Holy Empire of Papoitsi
The Holy Republic of Kallahorian
The Holy Empire of De las Virgencitas

While my nation isn't religious in nature, the region is highly religious. I'm lucky that they've instilled their trust in me.

If you look at the line that says "ACKNOWLEDGES that this will not prohibit any abortions and it will come up as a daily issue and you can decide for youself whether you want abortion or not." Or something like that. A lot of people seem to be thinking, "Wow, this is stupid. They want me to prohibit abortion." But they don't look close enough:headbang: Anyway, I would vote FOR and then take the time later to read over the issue's sides and THEN think about whether I want it or not. Now go out there and vote FOR!


yes that may be true, that the bill does not prohibit any abortions that come up as a daily issue, but the most obvious thing that this repeal is an anti-abortion nut stepping stone to repeal of abortion rights in general comes from this quote.

"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."

It already considers women to be unable to make informed decisions about what to do with their own bodies, and already makes a blatantly false claim that there are emotional and psychological side effects for every woman who has an abortion. Whereas yes there is such thing as women having this, not all of them do and anybody who claims things about Post Abortion Stress Syndrome forgot one thing, according to the American Psychiatric Association PASS is not even a psychological term. Another reason to vote AGAINST this resolution.

It's not a psychological term because there is no record of people suffering from the symptoms described as PASS or because it has yet to be thoroughly tested and found to be empirical?

I mean to say, if there's no record of women suffering anxiety from an abortion, then that argument is valid. If, however, you want to wait the decade or so before we have empirical evidence of such a thing.. well, that might be dangerous.

However, as an individual, I would still say the benefits of abortion being legal are well beyond the risk of social disorder, especially if the government has something in place to take care of the social disorder.

If only I could vote as an individual.

It's not a psychological term because there is no record of people suffering from the symptoms described as PASS or because it has yet to be thoroughly tested and found to be empirical?

I mean to say, if there's no record of women suffering anxiety from an abortion, then that argument is valid. If, however, you want to wait the decade or so before we have empirical evidence of such a thing.. well, that might be dangerous.

However, as an individual, I would still say the benefits of abortion being legal are well beyond the risk of social disorder, especially if the government has something in place to take care of the social disorder.

If only I could vote as an individual.

In the 1980's Ronald Reagan tried a strategy of his own to promote this myth of post abortion stress syndrome, headed by his like-minded surgeon general C. Everet Koop. To everyone's surprise, Koop determined that there was insufficient evidence of trauma. Psychological problems were "minuscule from a public health perspective," he said. The American Psychological Association followed up by asking a group of six experts to undertake a special review. The panel concluded in 1989 that terminating an unwanted pregnancy posed no hazard to women's mental health. The predominant sensation women felt following an abortion was relief, the group said.

In August 2000, a study conducted by Brenda Major at the University of California at Santa Barbara — the latest among many — confirmed those findings. Severe post-abortion psychological distress is extremely rare, affecting just one percent of patients. "Most women were satisfied with their decision, and believed that they had benefited more than they had been harmed," said Major, who, along with other researchers, tracked women for two years after they had first-trimester abortions (88 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and therefore represent the typical experience). The best predictor of post-abortion mental health, it turns out, is a woman's mental health prior to the abortion.

Basically if the woman's already gone through enough crap in her life there's a chance she will regret it dearly but usually they have to be in pretty bad shape as it is. So say that the woman was in fairly stable mental health the chances of them experiencing shame and grief related to abortion are rare, whereas a clinically depressed woman who got pregnant from rape and had an abortion who had a highly religious family who scorned her for her decision and refused to give her a moment's peace over the matter, that woman would likely have psychological consequences.

My government voted against this repeal, however, we do not agree with the opinion that by voting in favour of this resolution that nations are taking responsibility for the domestic decisions in other nations.

It is a very slippery slope to argue that in granting self-determination in another state that we are responsible for the successes and failures of those nations.

You're not responsible for everything. However, you know that in a number of nations this repeal will be abused to repress women. You know that keeping this resolution prevents that and offers a basic protection for women. So by making the decision to repeal this, you knowingly allow other nations to abuse that. In my opinion, that makes you responsible (together with the other for voters). If I vote for a resolution that I consider important, but may damage the economy, I am taking responsibility for that too.

In particular, if Mikitivity is aware of genocide in a non-UN member nation and chooses to not send in military troops to intervene (even though the Miervatian Air Force is very capable of carrying military forces elsewhere), are my people then responsible for the genocide?

There is a difference between conciously taking part in a system where we can create legislation that is valid throughout a large number of nations, and having to solve all the world's problems. There's always some unjustice being done somewhere, and you can't expect every nation to do something about that. However, we are here, we have a resolution up, and we can decide about it; we joined the UN to make those decisions. And with those decisions comes responsibility.

UN resolutions, by the voluntary nature of UN membership and complete lack of any enforcement powers (remember there is and will never be even a UN police guard -- see the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary General from GMC Military Arm's arguments about that, as silly as my government feels they are), are nothing more than recommendations. They are really just protests or agreements that happen to have the signatures of thousands of governments.

There's the gnomes. By joing the UN, you agree to implement the UN's resolutions, and not all of them are merely recommending. By joining the UN you agree to give some sovereignity away to the UN, and what part of that sovereignity it is, is decided by the UN. You're in it voluntarily, but as long as you're in it, you have to do what the resolutions tell you. You should know that.

In the 1980's Ronald Reagan tried a strategy of his own to promote this myth of post abortion stress syndrome, headed by his like-minded surgeon general C. Everet Koop. To everyone's surprise, Koop determined that there was insufficient evidence of trauma. Psychological problems were "minuscule from a public health perspective," he said. The American Psychological Association followed up by asking a group of six experts to undertake a special review. The panel concluded in 1989 that terminating an unwanted pregnancy posed no hazard to women's mental health. The predominant sensation women felt following an abortion was relief, the group said.

In August 2000, a study conducted by Brenda Major at the University of California at Santa Barbara — the latest among many — confirmed those findings. Severe post-abortion psychological distress is extremely rare, affecting just one percent of patients. "Most women were satisfied with their decision, and believed that they had benefited more than they had been harmed," said Major, who, along with other researchers, tracked women for two years after they had first-trimester abortions (88 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and therefore represent the typical experience). The best predictor of post-abortion mental health, it turns out, is a woman's mental health prior to the abortion.

Basically if the woman's already gone through enough crap in her life there's a chance she will regret it dearly but usually they have to be in pretty bad shape as it is. So say that the woman was in fairly stable mental health the chances of them experiencing shame and grief related to abortion are rare, whereas a clinically depressed woman who got pregnant from rape and had an abortion who had a highly religious family who scorned her for her decision and refused to give her a moment's peace over the matter, that woman would likely have psychological consequences.

Thank you. That is all that I needed to hear.

(This is meant as a joke, not an accusation. ;) Serious opinion follows.)
As was my own comment. It's hard to get serious without dragging too much RW data into the discussion. And yet my own humorous take has a significant basis in fact. I know a person who has been to both pro-life and pro-choice rallies in Washington DC USA and I can tell you it is really a night and day difference between the two groups.

You have un that same country, in a number of states therein, a situation where in order for a school nurse to give a 14 year old an asprin they need parental consent in writing! Yet that same 14 year old can go to any abortion clinic and get a medical surgical procedure (an abortion) without the parents ever knowing about it! Child rapists can hide under the protection of abortion laws because these clinics refuse to report the violation in law (because if you are pregnant someone obviously had sex with you) and are free to commit more crimes.

In other words there is more to the abortion issue than simply outlawing the procedure. Abortion is not a sacred right, and assuming people do believe in privacy it cannnot trump all others laws and, yes, rights of the individual.

Thus the individual nation, who can write laws better than most NSUN resolutions should be the proper place to decide these matters.

Thus the individual nation, who can write laws better than most NSUN resolutions should be the proper place to decide these matters.Huh, that's an optimistic view of member states.

Hirota takes the position that most nations are run by governments too dumb to know how to write laws, let alone make them better than resolutions.

Your scenario is flawed as it's not a problem with the procedure, it's a problem with medical confidentiality. 14 year olds could not have abortions, and still child rapists could be protected. You've pointed out the problem in your own post when you touched on privacy.

Yes, privacy is another battleground where national soverignty and individual soverignty will collide, but it's not directly related to abortion.

Huh, that's an optimistic view of member states.

Hirota takes the position that most nations are run by governments too dumb to know how to write laws, let alone make them better than resolutions.

On the bright side, national governments aren't limited to 3'500 characters [including spaces] per law...

On the bright side, national governments aren't limited to 3'500 characters [including spaces] per law...True.

I suppose if a million of these particular governments spent long enough in front of a typewriter, they'd eventually write a decent law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) :)

True.

I suppose if a million of these particular governments spent long enough in front of a typewriter, they'd eventually write a decent law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) :)

But then consider the apparent authorship of many proposed resolutions... ;)

But then consider the apparent authorship of many proposed resolutions... ;)It was looking a few times at the proposal queue which so filled me with confidence on the writing abilities of my fellow members. ;)

Mind you I have not looked recently, so I may be pleasantly shocked.

True.

I suppose if a million of these particular governments spent long enough in front of a typewriter, they'd eventually write a decent law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) :)

Ah, asymptotic theory... Therein lies the beauty of statistics. :)

(OK, I am a romantic today. Please remove me from your ignore list tomorrow, I promise to stop this.)

Personally, I think it's crazy that anyone would try to tell any country how to handle an issue that is as divisive and heart felt as this one.

It's ridiculous for either side to try and force the issue.
Repeal 61.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
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 and many of the people who are in favor of forcing their view of the idea that a fetus is more important than a woman claim to be pro-life but yet their views lead to women using coathangers on themselves. A number of morons who bomb clinics and want women to be secondary citizens who also create bad lives for the offspring of these women forced to go through with an unwanted pregnacy are not pro-life. And by the way the only place in the United States where an overwhelming majority of the population want to limit abortion in some way would be in the DEEP SOUTH where things are already backwards as it is.

Emotional blackmail and rhetoric. Show me any report of large numbers of maternal deaths due to abortion before it was legal. I have looked for this information and you will not be able to find it. Someone said, "If you tell a lie loud enough and long enough, people will believe it."

I also believe that being pro-life and “bombing an abortion clinic” is a contradiction. You won’t find many people who are “pro-life” that would ever want to do that. Your statement about pro-lifers wanting women to be secondary citizens is completely void of truth. Your whole post is filled with emotionally charged accusations that are the complete opposite of the truth. Your strategy here is to link anyone desiring to limit abortion with not caring about women dying and with those who would blow up abortion facilities. You totally ignore the fact that women die (In the real world - according to the National Center for Health Statistics) having abortions at the same rate with abortion being legal than when it is illegal (no difference in U.S. with numbers reported before 1973 and after 1973). Women die today from having abortions. I understand that there can be complications with any procedure - but the procedure that's legal today is a far cry from "safe and legal."

You say “the only place in the United States where an overwhelming majority of the population want to limit abortion in some way would be in the DEEP SOUTH where things are already backwards as it is.” Every single polling group will tell you the opposite. I’ll cite Zogby here: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982

Get some facts before arguing your position.

Some interesting figures on death rates with abortions - which might justify legislation as it is in the interest of the patients health. It also questions Dorksonias assertion about abortion pre and post 1973 fatalities. However it appears that we shouldn't rely on Rely on statistics to justify a position. You would expect that that pre 1972 abortions were performed in backstreets and alleyways, whilst after 72 were performed in clean medical conditions. The fact there is no major change would suggest (assuming the figures are reliable) that abortions were being performed in clean medical conditions before 72, just behind closed doors.

But, I think we have no way of knowing. I think everyone can agree it’s safer to have it done in medical conditions than anywhere else though.

Most Maternal Deaths from Abortion Could be Avoided If Procedure Performed Earlier


Washington, DC -- Deaths related to legal abortion are very rare in the US, but women whose abortions are performed at or before 8 weeks of pregnancy are significantly less likely to die of abortion-related causes than are women with abortions performed after that time, according to a study in the April issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Study authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that the annual death rate from legal abortion is extremely low. For the year 1996, for example, the number of deaths related to legal abortion in the US had dropped to seven out of nearly 1.2 million abortion procedures performed that year. Nevertheless, the authors estimate that for the years 1988 to 1997 up to 87% of the deaths in women whose pregnancies were terminated after 8 weeks of gestation might have been avoided if the women had obtained earlier abortions. The authors note that improving women's access to early abortion services -- such as early medical (non-surgical) abortions -- may further reduce the mortality rate.

The death rate from legally induced abortion was 0.6 per 100,000 abortions in 1997, compared to 4.1 per 100,000 in 1972 -- a decline of 85%. Researchers found that the greatest rate of decline in mortality rates occurred at the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

Among study findings:

There is a 38% increase in death risk for induced abortion with each additional week of pregnancy.

Minority women (including black, Asian/Pacific Islander and American Indian women) are 2.4 times as likely as white women to die of complications from abortion. Even after adjusting for the fact that minority women tend to have abortions at later gestational ages, their mortality rate still differs significantly from the rate for white women.

Women younger than age 20 tend to have abortions later in pregnancy than do older women. If women this age were to obtain earlier abortions at the same rate as do women age 30 and above, their mortality rate would decrease by 32%. (The authors note that by 2001, 33 states required either parental notification or consent or a mandatory waiting period after a woman's initial visit to the abortion provider.)

For abortions after 12 weeks, mortality rates for dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures are 2.5 times lower than rates for other types of procedures used in the second trimester (such as the instillation method).

No deaths were reported for medical abortions in 1997, the year they were first included in abortion mortality data.Source:http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr03-29-04-3.cfm



For a more global outlook, concentrating on developing countriesA new Global Health Council report is the first-ever global analysis of the impact of unintended pregnancies on maternal deaths in developing countries. The report, "Promises to Keep: The Toll of Unintended Pregnancies on Women's Lives in the Developing World," details more than 300 million unintended pregnancies and the resulting deaths of nearly 700,000 women between 1995 and 2000.

"Most of these unintended pregnancies and needless deaths could have been prevented had basic reproductive health services been made available to these women. Failure to provide women with the means to plan, prevent or appropriately space their next pregnancy poses an extraordinary public health threat, one that can readily be addressed with modest resources," said Nils Daulaire, President and CEO of the Global Health Council, who released the report on Sept. 25 at a Washington briefing.

"The report confirms the strong correlation between maternal mortality and inadequate access to quality reproductive health. Reproductive health is about saving lives," said Daulaire.

The Global Health Council conducted this comprehensive analysis as a statistical measure for assessing progress on pledges to reform and fund reproductive health services made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). The study was designed to determine whether the further extension of voluntary reproductive health services might play a significant role in reducing deaths of women due to complications during pregnancy and childbirth.

According to the Council's analysis, between 1995 and 2000, the world's 1.3 billion women between the ages of 15 and 45 experienced more than 1.2 billion pregnancies. Of these, more than 300 million - or more than one quarter - were unintended. Over those six years, nearly 700,000 women died from unintended pregnancies. While more than one-third died from the myriad problems associated with pregnancy, labor and delivery, the majority - over 400,000 - died as a result of complications resulting from abortions carried out in unsafe, unsanitary and often illegal conditions.

The deaths detailed in the report were the result of inadequate access to effective reproductive health services, poverty, ignorance, social and economic marginalization, and entrenched gender bias.
source:http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/2319

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Graf
In the 1980's Ronald Reagan tried a strategy of his own to promote this myth of post abortion stress syndrome, headed by his like-minded surgeon general C. Everet Koop. To everyone's surprise, Koop determined that there was insufficient evidence of trauma. Psychological problems were "minuscule from a public health perspective," he said. The American Psychological Association followed up by asking a group of six experts to undertake a special review. The panel concluded in 1989 that terminating an unwanted pregnancy posed no hazard to women's mental health. The predominant sensation women felt following an abortion was relief, the group said.

In August 2000, a study conducted by Brenda Major at the University of California at Santa Barbara — the latest among many — confirmed those findings. Severe post-abortion psychological distress is extremely rare, affecting just one percent of patients. "Most women were satisfied with their decision, and believed that they had benefited more than they had been harmed," said Major, who, along with other researchers, tracked women for two years after they had first-trimester abortions (88 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and therefore represent the typical experience). The best predictor of post-abortion mental health, it turns out, is a woman's mental health prior to the abortion.

Basically if the woman's already gone through enough crap in her life there's a chance she will regret it dearly but usually they have to be in pretty bad shape as it is. So say that the woman was in fairly stable mental health the chances of them experiencing shame and grief related to abortion are rare, whereas a clinically depressed woman who got pregnant from rape and had an abortion who had a highly religious family who scorned her for her decision and refused to give her a moment's peace over the matter, that woman would likely have psychological consequences.
Thank you. That is all that I needed to hear.

This is just another example of who it is that really cares about women. I cannot think of any other surgical procedure where the studies are so politically charged and care more about protecting an ideology than investigating if there really might be validity to PAS (Post Abortion Syndrome). I have a close friend with PAS, but other than that I am not a researcher in the area nor a doctor. However, I did come across this to put the breaks on dismissing the argument:

James Rogers, who analyzed over 400 published studies, pointed to the almost universal use of "poor methodology and research design" and "grossly substandard power characteristics." He concluded that "the question of psychological sequelae of abortion is not closed."

But I’ve heard that the American Psychological Association says that PAS doesn’t exist.
This group has been strongly pro-abortion, and this definitely colors its thinking. But during the past decade or more, there have been dozens of national conferences on PAS. There are many professional articles and about 15 books adding more and more authentication to its existence and knowledge about it. Further, every one of the almost 4,000 pro-life pregnancy help centers in the U.S. now has found that an increasing percentage of their time is now devoted to treating PAS women.

But so many studies deny PAS.
True, and most are invalid for two reasons:
(1) Timing: Most studies have investigated feelings for only a few weeks or months post abortion when she is still feeling relief that her problem is gone. Since the delay before PAS symptoms intrude is often 5 years or more, these studies are invalid.
(2) Superficiality: Her repression and denial push this deep into her subconsciousness. If the survey is done by questionnaire or single interview, she routinely denies problems. These studies are invalid. Only by lengthy psychological testing and counseling can she often admit to some symptoms, much less tie them to the abortion she so desperately wants to forget.

From: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_9.asp#What%20about%20psychological%20problems%20after%20abortion?

Some interesting figures on death rates with abortions - which might justify legislation as it is in the interest of the patients health. It also questions Dorksonias assertion about abortion pre and post 1973 fatalities. However it appears that we shouldn't rely on Rely on statistics to justify a position. You would expect that that pre 1972 abortions were performed in backstreets and alleyways, whilst after 72 were performed in clean medical conditions. The fact there is no major change would suggest (assuming the figures are reliable) that abortions were being performed in clean medical conditions before 72, just behind closed doors.

But, I think we have no way of knowing. I think everyone can agree it’s safer to have it done in medical conditions than anywhere else though.

(Real Life Stats:
* According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the legalization of abortion did nothing to lessen the number of deaths from abortions. One must go back to the pre-penicillin era to find a year during which more than 1,000 women died from abortions in the United States. Maternal deaths steadily declined as medical treatments for abortion complications dramatically improved
*Even the co-founder of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League), Dr. Bernard Nathanson, admits he lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions: "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to crrect it with honest statistics?"
*The National Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia says that, in the last full year when abortion was illegal, there were only 39 documented cases in teh entire United States of women dying from illegal abortions. In 1977, after abortion was legal for five years, 21 women died. The slowly decreasing number of maternal deaths continued with the legalization of aboriton having no affect.)

I'm sure one could question the accuracy of the government's figures. I have no doubt they are probably not absolutely perfect. However, let's say their stats were off by a large amount, it still wouldn't come anything close to what those who have always talked about "back alley abortions" and "coat hanger abortions" have always claimed.

As for the back alley abortion, no matter how rare it might be, it is an issue that my national government will address once we have the right to decide this for ourselves. We're concerned about any woman who would put herself in that situation because, after all, we're one of the ones trying to limit abortion, be they legal or illegal. So when we put the main stream abortionists out of buisness in our nation, we also intend to put the "back alley" ones out of buisness as well through education, legislation, and enforcement.

Questions: Those who are against this repeal - If you are against the repeal because of concerns of health and safety of women, do you fight equally as hard to require abortion providers to meet the same medical standards as legitimate out-patient surgery clinics? Hopefully you do, but I have found this not to be the case from real life experience.

(Florida is an excellent example. The Florida Health Department did a surprise inspection on four abortion facilities and found cockroaches in the sterilizing room, mold in the suction machine, and not a bar of soap in the place - the inspectors had to go next door to wash their hands. And when the Florida legislature introduced a bill to address this problem, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the pro-abortion extremists lobbied to kill it before it made it out of committee. Imagine a bill that would bring the standards of abortion clinics to that of other medical facilities - and at least force them to buy soap - blocked by a group of people who calls themselves "pro-women"!)

--snip--
OOC: I don't mean to be offensive, but providing info on how Americans - left or right, liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life - fuck up the simplest things isn't going to persuade me to change my views. It just goes to show that Americans fuck up. Well, on health, anyway. Those nations with rather more experience of providing abortion services (and via universal healthcare systems) would, I imagine, do a considerably better job.

But so many studies deny PAS.

I think one important factor of PAS, is because of so many people trying to state that if a woman have a baby which she didn’t want, it’s her fault because it’s her responsibility.

1st, it’s not her responsibility; it’s a shared responsibility between the man and the woman (not even mentioning rape cases)

2nd, even if you can consider that this man and this woman together didn’t take all necessary protections, it’s also not 100% their fault if humans are designed with a so important “SEX DRIVE” along with a so poor birth process design. As I already said this process is not well designed, so many unwanted child, so many miscarriages, and so many sterile couples.

And by the way the only place in the United States where an overwhelming majority of the population want to limit abortion in some way would be in the DEEP SOUTH where things are already backwards as it is.

OOC: Are you intentionally flamebaiting, or was that just an accidental slide into an offensive statement?

<nods>

This is exactly the relationship between national soverignty and individual soverignty, with a variation on the scale. I feel that if a government has the right to tell it's citizens what to do, it's only fair that the UN can do the same to governments :)

This sort of consistency is why I admire and respect your government even while disagreeing with it, Ambassador.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Could I have a say in what my view means? Thanks. :)

You've already had plenty of say in what you're view means, Ms. Lane. Unfortunately, that say has hardly been of help to either of us, being mostly composed of illogic and irrelevancy.

Most importantly, I don't think you can reduce it so easily in a power-based relationship. It's more complex. People delegate power to a government. They still have influence (elections, revolution). So everybody is subject to those with more power, but that power isn't fixed, it can shift.

Very well. The foetus causes shifts in the mother. It can weaken her, giving her morning sickness. It can cause cravings for particular kinds of food in her. I can keep extending the analogy for every attempt you make to deconstruct it.

But I disagree about the analogy with the mother and the government. A foetus in my opinion is part of the mother, a bit like her hand or whatever bodypart. So I don't take the foetus into account in a hierarchy of entities. Just like the UN is in a way higher than a national government (being able to overrule national legislation), but also not (a nation can leave the UN).

And what is an individual but a part of the state? Why do you insist on viewing the individual as the most significant part of a highly complex system in which it is but a small and relatively insignificant matter composite existing within a wide spectrum of life? My government does not value foetuses over persons, individuals over governments, or governments over the United Nations. We strive in all cases for balance and respect between the entities involved, whether greater or lesser, and seek to encourage them in operating within the proper scope of their authority and with respect for other entities.

Do you know why a nation can leave the UN or an individual can leave a nation in almost all cases? Because the greater entity respects the rights of the lesser entity and allows them to do so. Not because they intrinsically have more power.

In fact, the UN is an extreme example of the special power relations that are involved here. Just like people can emigrate, revolt, or elect someone else, a nation can vote for or against a resolution, or leave the UN. It's freedom, but at the same time giving away a bit of freedom for some greater good - but that's everybody's own free choice.

There is nothing special about power relations, and nothing special about repeating nonsense. In fact, it is sufficiently mundane that I will retire to the Stranger's Bar for a drink.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

There is a difference between conciously taking part in a system where we can create legislation that is valid throughout a large number of nations, and having to solve all the world's problems.


There's the gnomes. By joing the UN, you agree to implement the UN's resolutions, and not all of them are merely recommending. By joining the UN you agree to give some sovereignity away to the UN, and what part of that sovereignity it is, is decided by the UN. You're in it voluntarily, but as long as you're in it, you have to do what the resolutions tell you. You should know that.

In rebuttal to Ambassador Lane's statements, I'd like to state that differences between black and white are often awash is a sea of grey ... and while the people of Groot Gouda might see a difference between the UN legislating its will upon nations versus individual nations using peaceful means to influence the domestic politics in other nations, my government does not. Furthermore, my government doesn't see how actively calling upon the UN to legislate for nations actually means implementation of UN ideals.

There are tales of gnomes in Mikitivian lore. Rumour has it that some mischievious such creatures once stole the goddess Silvara's robes and in retaliation she transformed the gnomes into our beloved Den Jays (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Den_Jay).

Ambassador Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

OOC: The NationStates moderators have not once forced actual compliance of UN resolutions, however, one of them once participated in a Roleplaying event based on one nation choosing to not comply with a UN resolution -- Frisbeeteria. Seriously, the "gnomes" are just Hack's way of playing the game ... they take care of the behind the scenes details of the game like removing bad proposals etc. Though Hack isn't the only moderator to do so, Fris and GMC sometimes sweep through the proposal queue, and I would imagine others (maybe Euro) might as well.

OOC: I don't mean to be offensive, but providing info on how Americans - left or right, liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life - fuck up the simplest things isn't going to persuade me to change my views. It just goes to show that Americans fuck up. Well, on health, anyway. Those nations with rather more experience of providing abortion services (and via universal healthcare systems) would, I imagine, do a considerably better job.

Point taken. I was only trying to use some of the research I have heard to confront some of the opinions formed by many here based on faulty stats. I personally believe the United States has the best health care system in the world as far as medicine and technology go. I do believe the U.S. has a long way to go in learning preventitive medicine from other cultures. I suppose that's all debatable and for another thread.

I would be open to reading other studies from other real world nations on similar statistics if there are any. I'm not aware that there are. That doesn't mean they don't exist. My bias tends to believe maternal deaths due to "legal abortions" would be worse in many other countries as well as "illegal abortions". I cannot believe the differences would be more favorable to safer legal abortions elsewhere. That is my theory and bias though in answer to yours - again, I would be open to looking at any research from other nations out there (not done by pro-abortion politically charged groups).

My opinions, based on research I have studied, are that abortion being "safe and legal" is a myth.

"Safe abortion is a euphemism." - Dr. Beverly Macmillam, founder of first abortion clinic in state of Mississippi.

Physical Complications of Abortion:

Perforation - The American Journal OB/GYN of April 1977 reports, "One sequel to abortion can be a killer. This is pelvic abscess, almost always from a perforation of the uterus and sometimes of the bowel."

Infection - The fallopina tube is a fragil organ, if infection injures it, it often seals shut. The typical infection involving these organs is pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
According to John Hopkins University, "Occurence of genital tract infection following elective abortion is a well-known complication." They report up to 18.5% of infection rates

Infertility - The risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one induced abortion is 3 to 4 times greater than among non-aborted women. (Brittish Jour. OB / GYN, August, 1976.)

Miscarriages - A high incidence of cervical damage from the abortion procedure has raised the incidence of miscarriage in aborted women to 30 - 40% (Hilgers, et al., "Fertility Problems Following An Aborted First Pregnancy," New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publications of America, 1981.)

There is a double incidence of mid-trimester spontaneous losses.

Ectopic (Tubal) Pregnancies - among women who had aborted their first child, the University of Hawaii (Chung 1981) reports a 500% increase in subsequent ectopic pregnancies - causing internal bleeding and death without emergency surgery.

Death - According to the Center for Disease Control, as many as seven times more deaths have been caused by legal abortions than illegal. (Abortion Surveillance, 1975, CDC, 1977)

According to one survey, 47% of aborting women have physical complications:
6% have had total hysterectomies
6% reported cervical cancer
8% had blocked fallopian tubes
9% had infections
8% had cervical incompetence
15% had post-operative hemorrhage
22% miscarried a later "wanted" child

- quoted from Aborted Women, Silent No More (David Reardon, 1988).

In 1978, The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology issued the results of a study they conducted which showed over 90% of all illegal abortions were actually performed by licensed physicians and that legalization "has had no major impact on the number of women dying from an abortion." Their findings show that whether it should be legal in a nation or not, the perception that back alley coat hanger abortions were common is largely a myth.

"I want to point out to you, the abortion procedure is done blindly. You don't have a mirror, you don't see under direct vision, so you go by your feel and by your experiece, and I cannot really tell you that at this stroke you go up and down or at this stroke you do a circular motion. It's just - basically you go with your experience and your feel."

- abortionist Fareed Cadum, from a recent malpractice case

"The last eighteen months, one out of every 500 women either had a hysterectomy, a colostomy due to a perforated uterus, or urinary tract repair. ONe out of every 500 in the last eighteen months. And we had a death - a 32 year old woman with two children."

- Carol Everett, owner and operator of four abortion clinics

That's all research of "safe and legal" abortions. Most people are unuware how unsafe it can be because of the political hype surrounding the issue. Most women are unaware of the complications that she risks. And for even bringing this up in my repeal language, I have been accused of calling women ignorant in making their own choices. I don't place the blame for her lack of knowledge of these things on the woman. An uninformed choice is really not much of a real choice to make.

That's all research of "safe and legal" abortions. Most people are unuware how unsafe it can be because of the political hype surrounding the issue. Most women are unaware of the complications that she risks. And for even bringing this up in my repeal language, I have been accused of calling women ignorant in making their own choices. I don't place the blame for her lack of knowledge of these things on the woman. An uninformed choice is really not much of a real choice to make.

Point well stated, however this is the choice of the individual nations. It is not the place of the UN to dictate the lives of the individuals but to negoitiate between fellow nations so that war does not break out. Read the UN charter. Also, if a woman makes an ill-informed choice the point is that it is her choice to make. There will be consequences that she will be accounted for when and if the choice she made is a poor one. Morality is not the issue, what is the individual's right over their own body. If you are old enough to die for your country then you should have the ability to decide what is right for your body and still take accountability for your own actions. If you have health repercussions because of a medical procedure you chose to have and it was done correctly, then you have to deal with it.

I do not support state funded abortions, or welfare procedures. This policy will not be adopted in Alowia, however the age of legal abortions without parental or spousal concent will stand at 18. At this age a citizen is an adult and can make his/her own choices about their body.

The resolution Repeal "Abortion Rights" was passed 7,630 votes to 6,519

The resolution Repeal "Abortion Rights" was passed 7,630 votes to 6,519

Good. Now everyone can throw their support behind the replacement proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion%20legality) that Kenny just submitted. :D

Now everyone can throw their support behind the replacement proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion%20legality) that Kenny just submitted.
Which I'll be campaigning against.

Vote for this one (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Clinical) instead.

Which I'll be campaigning against.

Vote for this one (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Clinical) instead.

Pfft. Kenny's allows for every nation to be happy.

The DR of Geneticon is very pleased that this has passed... we will now see about the new proposals.

Good. Now everyone can throw their support behind the replacement proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abortion%20legality) that Kenny just submitted. :D
I have just added my support on behalf of Wyldtree & the Sea Of Madness. I am all for this issue being left to individual nations and it would be nice to get this on record.

Pfft. Kenny's allows for every nation to be happy.

I'm sure a teenage nation will be very happy to know that they can have an abortion if they want. They can go to their national abortion clinic and have their national embryo foetus terminated before it ever turns into a little nation of it's own which mamma nation never wanted.

Yup, nations are totally relevant in this matter. :D

At least Waterana's proposal has been here in black and white from the start of this whole debacle, and anyone could supply feedback, unlike proposals which are worked on in quiet corners outside of jolt. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=187)

At least Waterana's proposal has been here in black and white from the start of this whole debacle, and anyone could supply feedback, unlike proposals which are worked on in quiet corners outside of jolt. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?showtopic=187)

That doesn't make Waterana's better. *shrug*

Honored ambassadors!

The vote has been concluded, and while replacements are relevant to points discussed in the repeal, they also might have points relevant to the original UN Floor debates. Now bearing in mind that there are some 26 pages of records here for this single repeal (which is unusually high), I'm highly recommend that proponents of abortion rights replacement proposals start new threads where the pros and cons of the proposals can be the focus of our discussions.

Ultimately I fear that unless we have structured documents to discuss, that this particular topic will cause many ambassadors to say things that they may later regret.

Howie T. Katzman
CCSM

Well, let's see, Waterana's proposal wants to impose their view on abortion on every nation in Nationstates. That's kind of what those voting for the last repeal effort wanted to get rid of (and won)!

I know some mentioned being happy if this repeal passed so they could replace it with something more divisive (ok, my words added). And lo and behold! They've submitted something that is just that - Waterana's proposal is even more divisive!

Let's be honest, most of those who voted for the last repeal effort did not vote on it because they wanted something else to take it's place that would take even more power away from their nation's ability to rule themselves. Those who expressed that sour grapes attitude about the last repeal still voted against it.

We are in favor of a nation being able to decide divisive issues like abortion on their own and do not need the UN to rule over us. Now I can make the silly comments that others made before we succeeded in the last repeal, "If you don't like it now, drop out of the UN!" By the way, there's some nations that promised to drop out of the UN if this repeal passed and posted that on this thread. I will be looking forward to you fulfilling that promise now :)

Waterana's proposal to add a new law to the UN that is directly opposite what the will of the people just voted against not 15 minutes before it was added to the proposals list is a display of moral supremacy that we will reject again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You may, though, take your views and run your own nation the way that you choose now.

You're welcome!

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stands and loudly applauds the representative of Dorksonia.

Having reviewed the proposal submitted on behalf of the NSO, I'm afraid that I very much doubt Ecopoeia will vote in favour should it achieve quorum. This is purely because of article 3, which I find to be wholly unnecessary:

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure
Yes, it's an 'urging' clause only, but it establishes a UN opinion on the matter that we disagree with.

It's likely that we would abstain rather than oppose as it's otherwise a very reasonable draft.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Having reviewed the proposal submitted on behalf of the NSO, I'm afraid that I very much doubt Ecopoeia will vote in favour should it achieve quorum. This is purely because of article 3, which I find to be wholly unnecessary:


Yes, it's an 'urging' clause only, but it establishes a UN opinion on the matter that we disagree with.

It's likely that we would abstain rather than oppose as it's otherwise a very reasonable draft.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

We would respectfully ask our distinguished colleague and friend from Ecopoeia to refrain from characterizing the proposal in question as "submitted on behalf of the NSO". While we're sure that many members of the NSO would be in favor of the proposal, it was not submitted on behalf of nor endorsed by the organization. Ausserland, for one, is a member of the NSO and we do not support the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ecopoeia,

Just because a proposal is pro-sovereign, don't expect the National Sovereignty Organization to be behind it. Don't ask me to explain that one for you.

Ecopoeia,

Just because a proposal is pro-sovereign, don't expect the National Sovereignty Organization to be behind it. Don't ask me to explain that one for you.

Actually, at least three NSO members are behind it, myself being one of them. ;)

Apologies, Minister Olembe. A lazy mistake to make; heaven knows Ecopoeian delegates have complained enough about being falsely labelled in the past.

LC

Honored ambassadors!

The vote has been concluded, and while replacements are relevant to points discussed in the repeal, they also might have points relevant to the original UN Floor debates. Now bearing in mind that there are some 26 pages of records here for this single repeal (which is unusually high), I'm highly recommend that proponents of abortion rights replacement proposals start new threads where the pros and cons of the proposals can be the focus of our discussions.

Ultimately I fear that unless we have structured documents to discuss, that this particular topic will cause many ambassadors to say things that they may later regret.

Howie T. Katzman
CCSM

OOC: I have a similar concern. The abortion issue is incredibly divisive and complex, and there is a possibility that, as in the case of the "Gay Rights" resolution, it could cause division among the regular members of this forum. As I look at the initial furor over a replacement, I think it may be advisable for those who frequent the UN forum to do two things.

1. Be very careful to maintain roleplay etiquette. Keep your comments IC as much as possible, for the love of God/no God (depending on which you prefer). ;)

2. If part of the debate upsets you and you need to vent, it might be advisable to do so in a journal or private blog rather than letting it out on NS, particularly on the people with whom you are debating. Tensions will be running high enough without adding that fuel to the fire.

My two centavos.

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:

Listen Up. Abortion is violating the laws of humanity and is no less than killing innocent babies. If you don't want your kid, fine. Send it to an orphanage. But don't KILL him or her! It's inhumane

That doesn't make Waterana's better. *shrug*It means that it was subject a broader readership - the proposal drafted within the NSO was available to a very narrow readership, meaning it was stiffled during the creative process.

Well, let's see, Waterana's proposal wants to impose their view on abortion on every nation in Nationstates. That's kind of what those voting for the last repeal effort wanted to get rid of (and won)!

1. You don't know the motivation for those who voted for, so don't be so arrogant to presume - people will have voted for other motivations, for example the intent to write a resolution less vulerable to loopholes.

2. It's not imposing a view on a nation, it's supplying and protected a choice to every female in the UN.

3. Even put in the way you have presented, it does not "impose" a view on every nation in NS - because not every nation in NS is part of the UN.

I know some mentioned being happy if this repeal passed so they could replace it with something more divisive (ok, my words added). And lo and behold! They've submitted something that is just that - Waterana's proposal is even more divisive! Debatable.

Let's be honest, most of those who voted for the last repeal effort did not vote on it because they wanted something else to take it's place that would take even more power away from their nation's ability to rule themselves.That's arrogant to presume so.

We are in favor of a nation being able to decide divisive issues like abortion on their own and do not need the UN to rule over us.Yes you do, since the real issue here is the freedom of the individual - they don't need the government meddling in individual soverignty. The government is not best qualified to decide, it the individual.

Now I can make the silly comments that others made before we succeeded in the last repeal, "If you don't like it now, drop out of the UN!"You are right, it is silly. Even sillier to repeat it when you know it's silly.

By the way, there's some nations that promised to drop out of the UN if this repeal passed and posted that on this thread. I will be looking forward to you fulfilling that promise now And create a puppet and spend 3 minutes of their life accomplishing it. I don't think you need to look forward to it.Waterana's proposal to add a new law to the UN that is directly opposite what the will of the people...The will of nations, not people. just voted against not 15 minutes before it was added to the proposals list is a display of moral supremacy that we will reject again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You may, though, take your views and run your own nation the way that you choose now. Again, highly arrogant.Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stands and loudly applauds the representative of Dorksonia.Another one liner that fails to be constructive? That's totally out of character.....:rolleyes:

Hirota is finished with this topic, but felt it would be remiss not to reply to certain inaccuracies in this topic post repeal.

It means that it was subject a broader readership - the proposal drafted within the NSO was available to a very narrow readership, meaning it was stiffled during the creative process.

Personally I see no problem with coming up with such a resolution away from the main UN forum with like minds... especially if the end result is good. Posting such a resolution to the forum during the creative process does have it's benefits, but I approve of it as it is and would hate to see it lose it's teeth in compromise. It's well written and to the point of what it seeks. National sovereignity on the issue. It is what I seek on behalf of Wyldtree as well.

My two centavos.

2500 points for using the word centavos! :)

Pfft. Kenny's allows for every nation to be happy.Well, it's not exactly Kenny's proposal ...

The Holy Empire cannot believe that the United Nations is discussing Abortion, a topic that should clearly be dealt with at national level. It is up to the nation to decide whether or not a woman should be able to kill a foetus or not. There are some nations that like to think they are better and more liberal and allow the individual to make their own decisions, but The Holy Empire is one of the few nations that recognises that people should not be allowed to make choices.

"Laws have been enacted to bring the Republic of Dorksonia into compliance with the United Nations resolution "Repeal "Abortion Rights""."

Tee hee

The Holy Empire cannot believe that the United Nations is discussing Abortion, a topic that should clearly be dealt with at national level. It is up to the nation to decide whether or not a woman should be able to kill a foetus or not. There are some nations that like to think they are better and more liberal and allow the individual to make their own decisions, but The Holy Empire is one of the few nations that recognises that people should not be allowed to make choices.

Hopefully the people of the The Holy Empire are allowed to make the choice to leave it for a nation that recognizes people should be allowed to make choices.

Well, it's not exactly Kenny's proposal ...

Meh, your name's on it as the guy who submitted it. :p

Abortions are legal in all cases in my country, so this doesn't affect my people.

Abortions are legal in all cases in my country, so this doesn't affect my people.

This proves my point that the repeal of this abortion bill made the UN a more harmonious place. Waterana's bill is only seeking to make it divided again. Please approve "Abortion legality Convention" and we can live harmonious in the UN and not discuss abortion in the UN again (optimistic, I know).