Clinical Abortion Rights [Archive]

Waterana

10-02-2006, 23:16

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

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

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

DEFINES

1) A "potential person" as an embryo or foetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it;

2) A "viable foetus" as one capable of survival outside the womb of the woman carrying it;

3) A "clinical abortion" as a medical procedure performed on a pregnant woman, at any stage of the pregnancy prior to natural birth, with the sole aim of terminating the pregnancy;

Strongly encourages nations to reject the practice of late term abortion based solely on the gender of the foetus.

Stands firm in the belief that no state has the right to force women to bear unwanted children, and that the right of women to control their own reproduction and fertility is a basic human right;

Mandates the following:

1 Member states shall not restrict the right of a woman to control her own reproduction and fertility, unless she is suffering from a diagnosed and internationally recognised mental disease or defect and has been legally deemed incapable of giving informed consent. In such cases, informed consent may be given by her legal guardian or advocate and such consent shall be accepted by the state.

2 – Member states shall neither restrict the right of qualified individuals to perform abortions, nor prevent said individuals from setting up conveniently located, properly equipped, and universally accessible abortion clinics. No medical personel may be compelled to directly participate in an abortion if such a procedure goes against their personal ethics.

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

4 Member states shall ensure, by such measures as deemed adequate, that costs of clinical abortion are kept at a reasonable level and that all women can access abortion services, regardless of their financial situation. These measures may include regulation, state coverage, requiring private health insurance to cover abortion, and free competition..

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

Time to drag this out of mothballs. This is the replacement draft I wrote ages ago for a repeal/replace attempt of my own that failed. With the current repeal up for vote now, I feel it's time to get this ready for submission in the event it passes.

Any comments, improvements or loophole closing would be very much appreciated.

The thread on my last effort can be found here...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=440807

Compadria

11-02-2006, 00:15

Compadria would like to express its support, in the event of the passage of the relevant repeal to which this proposal concerns, for any resolution which in our view protects and enshrines the fundamental rights of women over their bodies and furthermore offers a reasonable recognition of the difficulties raised by abortion and how these can be reduced without resorting to oppressive restrictions.

Clinical Abortion Rights

Human rights

Strong

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

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

Strongly agreed.

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

Strongly agreed.

Mandates the following….

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

We agree with such a restriction, given the sensitive nature of such a disability and its debilitating effects on not just the sufferer, but the family and loved ones of individuals forced into this choice. An unborn child terminated is still a prospective life snuffed out and such a choice must be made in the utmost conditions of reason and with the woman in question not subject to undue mental impairment.

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

We wish to remind our fellow delegates of the fact that poorly conducted abortions can result in infertility, incontinence, mutilation and even death. Such a price is a tragedy and should be evited wherever possible.

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

Agreed.

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

We have two concerns, namely:

1). If the woman operates her finances under the aegis of a patriachal system that requires male consent for dispensation or access to her financial assets, would this not restrict her right to an abortion?

2). If the private health insurance is revealed to be fraudulent or inadequate, would the state make up any short-fall required for the woman in question to undergo the procedure?

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

We commend this resolution to the Chamber and congratulate the honourable representative for her clarity, sensitivity and humanity in tackling this difficult issue and hope that should this resolution need to be passed, the U.N. shall act to pass it and not deny women their legitimate biological rights, nor cause more tragedy through the inevitable health and social consequences of illegalised abortion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Ceorana

11-02-2006, 00:38

2 – All women must have access to clinical abortion services if they wish to use it. Premises allocated must be set up and equipped with everything necessary for the procedure to be performed in a safe and sterile environment. All staff directly involved with the procedure must be trained and licensed medical professionals.
I wish that this clause be edited to say that it must either be possible for a private corporation / citizen / doctor / whatever to set up and provide those services, or the government shall set it up. That accomodates both capitalists and communists, and also does not mandate the government to operate the clinics, which I believe to be undue force by the UN.

Otherwise, I fully support this.

Jey

11-02-2006, 01:09

Jey cannot support this proposal in any way. Sorry, we don't consider a desire of a woman to be a license to kill. No matter, we will find a loophole around any proposal that allows abortion in non-extreme cases.

Personally, I'd prefer a proposal that simply states that this issue will be left up to NatSov (although that really wouldn't do anything).

Waterana

11-02-2006, 03:40

I wish that this clause be edited to say that it must either be possible for a private corporation / citizen / doctor / whatever to set up and provide those services, or the government shall set it up. That accomodates both capitalists and communists, and also does not mandate the government to operate the clinics, which I believe to be undue force by the UN.

Otherwise, I fully support this.

Problems with that clause have been raised on the UNOG forum too and I will be looking at it. The original intention wasn't to force governments to operate the clinics, but just to ensure women had access to the service and it had the proper equipment and personel.

Compadria, thank you for your response and support. The part you had a problem with is simple. If the woman has the means herself to pay, then the state can insist she do so, but if she doesn't have the means herself to pay for any reason, then the state must cover the cost. This is to prevent abortion becoming a procedure only the rich can afford, or the state forcing medical officers to price it out of the reach of all women and effectively banning it by stealth.

Jey, your opinion has been noted, but I'm sorry, it has also been ignored. This is something that must be left up to individuals to decide, not the state.

Ceorana

11-02-2006, 03:46

The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and who does not have private health insurance.

I have a problem with this. Correct me if a UN resolution forbids this, but what if a nation is a complete anarchy and won't help citizens pay for any healthcare? Why should abortion be special?

Waterana

11-02-2006, 04:01

I have a problem with this. Correct me if a UN resolution forbids this, but what if a nation is a complete anarchy and won't help citizens pay for any healthcare? Why should abortion be special?

Good question. I see this as a basic human right more than just an aspect of healthcare. A question of a persons right to self, and to make their own decisions about what happens to their own body. In the case of a nation in anarchy, which won't have a government either, it will be up to the womans community to ensure she can have the procedure if she wants it. I suspect other resolutions will fall into this same sort of crack in anarchist nations too.

Grand Maritoll

11-02-2006, 04:59

A quick question: if none of the doctors/not enough of the doctors in a country are willing to perform an abortion, what is the state to do about it to be in accordance with mandate #2?

Waterana

11-02-2006, 05:26

A quick question: if none of the doctors/not enough of the doctors in a country are willing to perform an abortion, what is the state to do about it to be in accordance with mandate #2?

Train more doctors, import them from other nations, or whatever else it needs to do to satisfy demand.

I think in nations where there aren't many doctors willing to perform abortions, it will most likely follow that there is low demand for abortion in that society for culturall or religious reasons. Most women won't want abortions for the same general reasons doctors in that nation won't want to preform them. I think the supply and demand will be on an even keel in most nations.

Grand Maritoll

11-02-2006, 05:47

Ceorana

11-02-2006, 05:55

Train more doctors, import them from other nations, or whatever else it needs to do to satisfy demand.

I think in nations where there aren't many doctors willing to perform abortions, it will most likely follow that there is low demand for abortion in that society for culturall or religious reasons. Most women won't want abortions for the same general reasons doctors in that nation won't want to preform them. I think the supply and demand will be on an even keel in most nations.
I don't like this reason. Doctors form a completely different demographic than the average person. Doctors tend to need lots of education, and this means they tend to think a bit deeper than the average person, and maybe, because doctors generally cure diseases, not kill people, this may cause them to lean a little more pro-life than the average person. So I don't want this resolution to make that assumption.

Why don't you just say:

Nations must either not restrict the right of qualified individuals to perform abortions or set up conveniently located and universally accessible abortion clinics;

Windurst1

11-02-2006, 05:57

Windurst Will not support this resolution. It is no the Un's job to say woman can or can not have an abortion. This matter should be given to the nations and left at that. It is immoal to force a nation that is prolife to be prochoice when it goes agaist their moral and religious values. This mater sould be left to the nations and not to the UN.

From the Desk of Verienna Star Sybil and leader of Windurst

Dorksonia

11-02-2006, 07:42

I am for you having the right to enact this on your own nation, but completely opposed to you enforcing it upon mine. How about focusing less on enforcing your beliefs on devisive issues on others, and more on issues of international relations and security.

It appears that choice has been redefined here to be only your definition of choice on this issue to be allowed in all nations of the world. I doubt my opinion here will stop you from trying to assert moral superiority, but I disagree with this bill and believe the masses will vote against it.

Waterana

11-02-2006, 10:12

Nations must either not restrict the right of qualified individuals to perform abortions or set up conveniently located and universally accessible abortion clinics;

Ok, I have no problems with that, and it sounds much better than what I have written. I've changed it (or will when I've finished typing this).

Windurst Will not support this resolution. It is no the Un's job to say woman can or can not have an abortion. This matter should be given to the nations and left at that. It is immoal to force a nation that is prolife to be prochoice when it goes agaist their moral and religious values. This mater sould be left to the nations and not to the UN.

From the Desk of Verienna Star Sybil and leader of Windurst

It's not the governments job to say women can or can not have an abortion either. It's up to the individual. If your nation's women don't want abortions for religious or moral reasons, they don't have to have one.

I am for you having the right to enact this on your own nation, but completely opposed to you enforcing it upon mine. How about focusing less on enforcing your beliefs on devisive issues on others, and more on issues of international relations and security.

It appears that choice has been redefined here to be only your definition of choice on this issue to be allowed in all nations of the world. I doubt my opinion here will stop you from trying to assert moral superiority, but I disagree with this bill and believe the masses will vote against it.

This is the NSUN. I have as much right to attempt to get this passed as you do to attempt to repeal the old resolution. If the majority of UN members don't want the old resolution replaced, then they won't vote for this, but I do know some are supporting the repeal because they consider the old resolution is poorly written and do want it replaced. The masses will decide when/if the time comes.

Gruenberg

11-02-2006, 12:56

Well, I hope the people supporting the 'pro-choice' Repeal of "Abortion Rights" see this thread.

Although I will oppose this, I wish you luck, Waterana.

Cobdenia

11-02-2006, 13:47

Waterana

11-02-2006, 14:23

Two concerns:

1) The state may not refuse to fund the procedure for any woman who does not have the means necessary to pay for the operation herself, and/or does not have private health insurance.

I'm slightly concerned about third world nations being able to afford this, and that a state that has limited funds may have to pay for what is in effect elective surgery at the cost of someone elses life saving medication.
Sorry, but I won't budge on this unless someone can explain another way to ensure poor women can access this procedure and it won't become something only the rich can afford. That clause is essentially making all women equal, with equal access to abortion services if they want it. If someone can give me an idea that makes it cheaper for states, but still gives all women equal access to the service, I'm all ears.

2) nor prevent such people seting up conveniently located, properly equiped and universally accessible abortion clinics.

My concern here is about national property law. If someone refuses to sell someone land to build an abortion clinic, and the law says that in order to buy someone's land it has to be for sale, couldn't they just point the resolution and say that they have to sell the land because that law, in this instance, is preventing the setting up of a clinic. The problem is the same with government owned property. If the government refuses to sell them the presidential palace so a doctor can destroy it and build an abortion clinic, then they would be contravening this law. In fact, mandating that they pay would be contravening this law....
The proposal makes no mention of land ownership or forced selling. It only states that governments can't interfere if a doctor or group of doctors want to set up a clinic. This is to prevent governments demanding abortion clinics only be opened 1,000kms offshore, or on mountain tops where the only access is by parachute drop. Abortion isn't too populour in my RL state, in fact it's borderline illegal, but doctors still manage to find places to open clinics and most women in this state have resonable access to the service if they want it.

Cobdenia

11-02-2006, 15:27

Just because it doesn't mention it doesn't mean it isn't included. As it is at the moment, if a doctor demanded the presidential palace to build an abortion clinic, the government can't refuse because to refuse would be to interfer with the setting up of an abortion clinic.

Ceorana

11-02-2006, 15:45

Sorry, but I won't budge on this unless someone can explain another way to ensure poor women can access this procedure and it won't become something only the rich can afford. That clause is essentially making all women equal, with equal access to abortion services if they want it. If someone can give me an idea that makes it cheaper for states, but still gives all women equal access to the service, I'm all ears.
You have a good intention here, but it has a basic problem: it violates the very economic philosophy of extreme capitalism. Many governments don't give women equal access to heart surgery because they support an extremely free market. It doesn't make sense to force a government to give women free abortions if the women on the other side of the hospital can't afford and can't get a life-saving operation.

Waterana

11-02-2006, 17:03

You have a good intention here, but it has a basic problem: it violates the very economic philosophy of extreme capitalism. Many governments don't give women equal access to heart surgery because they support an extremely free market. It doesn't make sense to force a government to give women free abortions if the women on the other side of the hospital can't afford and can't get a life-saving operation.

Sorry, but I won't apologise for that. In my opinion, access to all health services should be equal and not based on wealth. If one poor woman can get an abortion, but another poor woman dies because she can't afford heart surgery, that is the fault of that nations unequal health services, not this proposal.

Perhaps equality in access to health services is an idea for another proposal. I won't be changing that clause in this one however, unless someone can give me an idea to reduce the burden on the state, but still ensure equal access to all women.

Fonzoland

11-02-2006, 17:28

Sorry, but I won't apologise for that.

Priceless. :p

Waterana

11-02-2006, 17:40

Priceless. :p

Bah, it was 2am when I posted. Thats my excuse and I'm sticking to it :p.

Now it's not far off 3am and I really should think about getting some sleep...maybe.

Yelda

11-02-2006, 18:30

Stick to your guns, Waterana. There is no point in changing the text in an attempt to pacify those who will vote against it anyway. This is a good proposal and I'm almost hoping the current repeal succeeds so that we will have a chance to implement it.

Western Mackinton

11-02-2006, 18:54

Abortion is wrong.
:mad: :( .

Cluichstan

11-02-2006, 19:43

Good question. I see this as a basic human right more than just an aspect of healthcare. A question of a persons right to self, and to make their own decisions about what happens to their own body.

Okay, so my nation won't be required to pay for the removal of someone's cancerous tumor but will have to pay for the removal of a fetus? No offense to the esteemed representative of Waterana, but that is ludicrous.

Cluichstan

11-02-2006, 19:44

Sorry, but I won't apologise for that. In my opinion, access to all health services should be equal and not based on wealth. If one poor woman can get an abortion, but another poor woman dies because she can't afford heart surgery, that is the fault of that nations unequal health services, not this proposal.

Perhaps equality in access to health services is an idea for another proposal. I won't be changing that clause in this one however, unless someone can give me an idea to reduce the burden on the state, but still ensure equal access to all women.

Wait a minute. I thought this was about basic human rights, not health care. Which is it?

Imperiux

11-02-2006, 22:27

Imperiux is undecided. We'd proably vote for but, ... yeah.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 00:31

Wait a minute. I thought this was about basic human rights, not health care. Which is it?

Basic human rights, but health care got dragged into it because abortion falls under it.

As I said in that post, ensuring equal access to health services for all people, not just women wanting abortions, is a subject for a possible future proposal. That sort of thing won't be included in this one however, outside the provision of abortion rights itself.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 00:44

Okay, so my nation won't be required to pay for the removal of someone's cancerous tumor but will have to pay for the removal of a fetus? No offense to the esteemed representative of Waterana, but that is ludicrous.

Don't blame me if your nation won't provide all its citizens equal access to health services. My proposal only deals with clinical abortion. Anything else is up to your government and if poor people are dying because they can't access health services, thats your governments fault, not mine. If you think this is ludicrious, then pay for the removal of the tumour. It's your choice. I find it a bit ludicrious that your government won't cover the cost of a life saving operation, therefore allowing a poor person to die, but now wants to use that death to try and argue against this.

I won't change this proposal to accommodate nations who would happily exclude poor women from abortion services while allowing it for the rich, or worse still price it out of the reach of all women.

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 01:28

All I'm saying is that it's ludicrous to pick just one medical procedure to force upon nations -- not to mention expecting national governments to pay for the cost of said procedure -- especially when the procedure isn't one that saves lives. Except under extreme circumstances, abortion is an elective procedure.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 01:47

Well, give me an alternative that takes the burden off governments, but still protects access for all women, and I'll be happy to use it. Until then, what is in the draft stays.

I do see your point though. I am a firm believer in universal health care for all people and not a "the rich live, the poor die" system. Perhaps after the abortion problem is solved, a repeal of RBH replacement, which does nothing, and a universal heath care proposal could solve the problem.

(OOC)
In Australia any medical procedure that isn't a point of entry emergency is an elective procedure. That includes everything from lancing a boil to a heart transplant.

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 02:05

Well, give me an alternative that takes the burden off governments, but still protects access for all women, and I'll be happy to use it.

It's simple. Strike the bits where the state must fund it. That doesn't remove access to an abortion. It just means the state doesn't have to pay for it.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 02:33

It does remove access for poor women. They can't access a procedure they can't pay for, so I won't do that.

If standing by my principals on this costs me a few capitalist votes, so be it, but I won't enshrine into UN law a proposal with my name on it, that in any way supports the right of states to effectivly shut people out of any form of medical care (abortion in this instance) on the basis of wealth.

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 02:36

I might consider agreeing with you if it were a necessary procedure (i.e., to save a patient's life), but it's not.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 02:41

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 02:54

Saving a persons life could well be what the governments are paying for, if the alternative is poor women resorting to cheap backyard butchers, coat hangers, squirting caustic stubstances inside themselves or suicide.

Okay, if you're going to resort to those sorts of arguments, there's clearly no reasoning with you, so I won't waste time trying.

Fonzoland

12-02-2006, 02:57

In my view, your reasoning is moving one step away from the right to choose. In most countries, there are significant factions who find abortion immoral, etc. Now, I have absolutely nothing against telling these factions to shut up and respect women's rights, but forcing them to actually finance said abortions through taxes is too much for a liberal society.

My suggestion:

1. Write a clause mandating that governments ensure clinical abortions are no more expensive than strictly necessary to cover costs (eg through regulation, tax exemptions, or free competition, but that need not be stated).

2. Urge governments to provide, or support NGOs that provide, access to clinics to women that cannot afford it.

Dittorush

12-02-2006, 04:15

Frankly, I don't see why the UN should make member states establish and support abortion. This resolution would be highly offensive in almost any Christian, Jewish, Musilim, or other traditional country. All resolutions like this do is encourage strife. Why can't you make decisions for your country, and let me make the decisions like this in mine? Use your excellent writing skills for something less controversial, like free trade or recycling.

No one should force their beliefs on other nations through the UN. If you must have this, send it in as an ISSUE proposal so we can all make our own decisions.

DRD

Fonzoland

12-02-2006, 04:26

No one should force their beliefs on other nations through the UN.

Why?

Waterana

12-02-2006, 04:48

Ceorana

12-02-2006, 04:58

4 – The state must ensure costs of the procedure are kept at a reasonable level
I would say "the state must make no attempts to raise the prices of abortion with the intent that it would not be affordable to women".

and all women can access abortion services regardless of their own financial situation.
Whoa. What if they have no money at all? They still need to access abortion services under this clause, so the state or NGO must fund abortions out of its own pocket? This is the same as the other one, just in a different guise.
These measures may include one or more of, but are not limited to, regulation, state coverage, requiring private health insurance to cover abortion, and free competition.
Good.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 05:04

Ceorana

12-02-2006, 05:07

Ausserland

12-02-2006, 05:55

Ok, I've climbed down off my high horse and had a go at rewriting clause 4

4 – The state must ensure costs of the procedure are kept at a reasonable level and all women can access abortion services regardless of their own financial situation. These measures may include one or more of, but are not limited to, regulation, state coverage, requiring private health insurance to cover abortion, and free competition.

Is that any better?

With this change in place, Ausserland's objection to the draft proposal has been eliminated. We will vote in favor of the proposal if it reaches the floor.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Waterana

12-02-2006, 06:19

What if the nation did not have an appropriate charity?

Then it finds another way. I've thrown the ball into the states court and funding is now up to it. All I am worried about it that all women have access, how the state achieves that is up to it.

Edit Draft in post 1 updated.

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 06:29

Then it finds another way. I've thrown the ball into the states court and funding is now up to it. All I am worried about it that all women have access, how the state achieves that is up to it.

Edit Draft in post 1 updated.

In other words, you still expect the state to pay for it, if it comes to that. That'll go over well in theocracies that believe life begins at conception.

Groot Gouda

12-02-2006, 14:59

Should the current repeal make it, this resolution has my full support.

Palentine UN Office

12-02-2006, 21:55

In other words, you still expect the state to pay for it, if it comes to that. That'll go over well in theocracies that believe life begins at conception.

Not to mention, some of us who believe in the concept of TANSTAAFL.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 22:22

In other words, you still expect the state to pay for it, if it comes to that. That'll go over well in theocracies that believe life begins at conception.

I know I'll never satify you here unless I give the state the direct right to refuse to ensure access all together, and that ain't going to happen.

If the state doesn't want to cover the costs, then it finds another way, end of story. This proposal has passed the buck and funding is now the states business. Make sure all women have access, and I don't care how it's funded. The state can use the tax money from its legal prostitution, sell an extra few tons of uranium and use that money if it wants to. The decision is theirs.

People bitched when I had mandated the government cover the cost of poor women accessing the service, and are still bitching now I"ve put the decision into the states hands. It's obvious the funding is a no win area for me and I can't please everyone. The current wording will stay. I believe it's the fairest way to go for both sides.

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 22:28

You're still confusing access with funding. They are two separate things.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 22:37

I'm not confusing anything, but suspect you and I are looking at it in different ways.

If a poor woman can't pay for the operation, then she can't access the service, so her operation needs to be funded in another way which is up to the state to decide.

That is how I am seeing access and funding.

Ausserland

12-02-2006, 22:41

You're still confusing access with funding. They are two separate things.

We're unclear as to just what the honorable delegate feels is confused. Perhaps something more than a one-liner comment would help us understand.

To us, it seems that there is some correspondence. If a service can only be obtained through payment of a fee, and I don't have the money to pay the fee, I don't have access to the service.

Some clarification would be appreciated.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Cluichstan

12-02-2006, 22:42

Then I want "access" to a new Bentley. Clearly, it's not fair that only the wealthy can afford one.

Hirota

12-02-2006, 23:03

HIrota will also support this proposal if the repeal passes, indeed Hirota will consider assisting in a TG campaign.

Flibbleites

12-02-2006, 23:07

Waterana

12-02-2006, 23:24

I have one simple question and I don't feel like reading the proposal to figure out the answer myself. Will doctors be required to perform abortions under this proposal?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No, I haven't touched that at all. They can't be restricted from performing them under clause 2...

2 – Nations must neither restrict the right of qualified individuals to perform abortions, nor prevent such people setting up conveniently located, properly equipped and universally accessible abortion clinics.

but there is nothing that says doctors have to perform them if they don't want to. The state can make that law if they want to.

Waterana

12-02-2006, 23:29

Thankyou for the offer of possible help Hirota. I appreciate it :).

My plan at the moment, if the repeal passes, is to take a copy/paste of the delegates voting against the repeal, as close to end of voting as possible, and make them the first TG targets. I know people have been voting against for all sorts of different reasons, but figure those delegates will be the most likely to support a replacement.

St Edmund

13-02-2006, 12:50

Yes, but under the very next line, the government decides how women with no money access the service. They can send them off to a charity if they want to (though I hate the thought of people depending on charities for any form of health care which is why I didn't mention it in the proposal).

Most "free" healthcare in St Edmund is run by various charities rather than by government bureaucrats, and (although the UN unfortunately seems to ignore this fact, just as it seems to ignore healthcare funded through private insurance, when compiling its statistics) they do a pretty good job.

Waterana

13-02-2006, 13:17

Draft in post 1 has been updated for hopefully the last time. I think it's pretty good to go now.

Have added a line to clause 2 in response to Flibbleites's concern about doctors being forced to perform abortions against their own ethics. While I am sure my proposal didn't allow that to happen, I have included a line to make sure.

Fonzoland

13-02-2006, 13:38

The numbering format is inconsistent.

Waterana

13-02-2006, 13:56

Fixed. I didn't notice those brackets :p.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez

14-02-2006, 06:33

I have a problem with this. Correct me if a UN resolution forbids this, but what if a nation is a complete anarchy and won't help citizens pay for any healthcare? Why should abortion be special?

Also what if the nation is a Theocracy and beleives abortion is wrong thus why should they be forced to fund and support such?

Also believe that education systems would be provided under this but not required of a person to attend them. I beleive that if a nation is going to avoid unwanted abuse of such a program as state supported/funded abortion clinics that it should have the right to require those who might need the services to attend these courses on basic reproduction not only to help avoid unwanted pregnancy but for other health reason in general; such as the spread of unwanted viral deseases passed through sexual conduct.

I think that once a woman request an abortion they must be reguired to attend such a course in an effort to education her so that she doesn't make the same mistake twice. Also I believe that any woman who may have 'three strikes' needs more than just to be let go as the state needs to be able to deal with the problem and abuse of the programs it funds.

Also I would see the father being brought in and required to attended such courses as well as be considered in paying for his 'play time'. As it takes two to create the need for an abortion not just a woman. This one like many have seen come up forget that and look only toward the mother/woman seeking the abortion.

As for the definitions of terms here like them as they are clear and to me leave no questions what they mean.

Also like the idea that you early on say nobody has to do them that opposes abortions, but then you go and require a nation to fund the clinics thus those that oppose abortion end up paying for them anyway. This takes majority rule away from the people and may force a majority to give up what it wants done with it's tax funds collected.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez

14-02-2006, 06:59

Train more doctors, import them from other nations, or whatever else it needs to do to satisfy demand..

Would it not be cheaper to send the woman to where she can get the procedure done rather than force a nation that may not have the desire nor resources to perform it properly. Why make every nation open abortion clinics when there will be willing nations to open them. Thus just fund a woman going there having her abortion and be done with it.

Why should we build thousands of abortion clinics, one in every UN nation some more, as then the cost of an abortion goes up because the demand for customers goes up due to so many clinics wanting to make money. As somebody will have to pay for all of them and the staff to run them thus cost rises.

How will the UN regulate cost and insure that it will be worthwhile to open a clinic everywhere. Also the more clinics open the bigger the change of abuse of the system as who monitors them all and insures each meet whatever standards for safe procedures might be deemed needed.

Hirota

14-02-2006, 10:47

Would it not be cheaper to send the woman to where she can get the procedure done rather than force a nation that may not have the desire nor resources to perform it properly.Sure, why not? Only problem is that international travel may be an issue, depending on your nation and the receiving nation. Plus it needs to be affordable.

Only problem I can see is medical confidentiality – how do you explain a trip to a neighbouring nation?

Why should we build thousands of abortion clinics, one in every UN nation some more, as then the cost of an abortion goes up because the demand for customers goes up due to so many clinics wanting to make money. As somebody will have to pay for all of them and the staff to run them thus cost rises.There would be a natural balance in these things, if there is a demand for customers than prices would go down to attract the number of customers, and those who cannot survive would close. Eventually you’d get a relatively stable abortion industry.

How will the UN regulate cost and insure that it will be worthwhile to open a clinic everywhere.If the health service is private, then they will be able to assess the value of a clinic, or an additional clinic. If your health system is publicly owned, then I imagine it would be down to your government to decide if it is cheaper to send people abroad or provide services within nationAlso the more clinics open the bigger the change of abuse of the system as who monitors them all and insures each meet whatever standards for safe procedures might be deemed needed.That’s irrelevant. They need the same standards as all your health institutes, regardless of if it is a public or private health system.

Aegohl

14-02-2006, 11:07

[...]but there is nothing that says doctors have to perform them if they don't want to. The state can make that law if they want to.

I foresee that doctors in the theocracies of my region will likely refuse to perform abortions, thereby forcing these nations into an expensive bidding war for foreign doctors--foreign doctors who then feel out of place, and constantly watched by the police, aside from the occasional violent act against them in the name of religion.

Waterana

14-02-2006, 11:38

I foresee that doctors in the theocracies of my region will likely refuse to perform abortions, thereby forcing these nations into an expensive bidding war for foreign doctors--foreign doctors who then feel out of place, and constantly watched by the police, aside from the occasional violent act against them in the name of religion.

I imagine the women in the theocracies of your region won't be having abortions in the name of religion either, so I doubt the lack of doctors will be a problem.

If some women in those nations are willing to defy the religion to seek abortion, then I find it hard to believe at least a few doctors won't do the same to provide them.

Fonzoland

14-02-2006, 13:48

I imagine the women in the theocracies of your region won't be having abortions in the name of religion either, so I doubt the lack of doctors will be a problem.

If some women in those nations are willing to defy the religion to seek abortion, then I find it hard to believe at least a few doctors won't do the same to provide them.

Demand generates supply. Therein lies the beauty of economics. :)

St Edmund

14-02-2006, 13:59

Demand generates supply. Therein lies the beauty of economics. :)

Even though many NSUN members follow socialist policies that deny this fact... ;)

Fonzoland

14-02-2006, 14:02

Even though many NSUN members follow socialist policies that deny this fact... ;)

No, they don't. They just argue against private ownership of supply. If anything, the principle of "to each according to their needs" is a perfect example of demand generating supply.

Ecopoeia

14-02-2006, 16:11

Even though many NSUN members follow socialist policies that deny this fact... ;)
I appreciate the comment was in jest and don't resent it at all - everyone's fair game in my eyes. However, I find that nations like my own are frequently labelled 'socialist' when, in reality, we are no more followers of Marx than Smith.

This of course works both ways. Very few nations are capitalist purists, either.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

[OOC: Imagine that Lata and the St Edmund delegate are discussing this over a pot of tea at the end of a long day... ahem. I ramble. Damn liquid lunches. End hijack]

Golgothastan

14-02-2006, 16:55

Delegates voting against so far. Maybe you can use these for TGing.

Medic17 [3], Michelandia [8], IIzik [2], The Maddox Clan [7], Jellydom [3], Kalibara [3], The Chippy [2], Agramerland [2], Queex [2], Breitenburg [4], Yootopia [4], Thiran [2], Wild Lands of North [13], Worldia555 [2], Princely V-Block [2], Eyefl4shi4 [5], The Protectorates [2], Czardas [9], Extinguishers [4], Dieshin [2], Biting and Kisses [2], Love and esterel [12], Caecilian [2], Coopertica [2], Saxist Saxons [5], SexNDeath [2], Edornia [2], 803iah [3], Dismental [2], Al Tira [5], Social Carolina [21], Hadristan [3], Republic of Freedonia [11], Zavyn [5], Yepd [2], The Great Bud [3], Stegallville [2], Hou Mian [2], Woolfenstein [2], Ruhtinatar [2], Ville Marie [8], Jesus Juice Bars [7], Scotts and Lyon [5], Hajoui [5], Babster [3], This laand [2], Of Cascadia [10], Kaiohan [9], Shocka-Drewloo [3], PR of South Africa [6], Ni hon [2], Firebert [6], Yeldan UN Mission [3], Jeff Weavers Bong [2], Gaiah [24], The Great Commonwealth [22], NotoriousOne [20], Trebligammocawoi [2], The Mysterious Whale [2], Analee Frith [2], Kindjal [3], Nevermoore [3], Frangiskos [2], Sentynel [3], Cormyriana [2], H0bbitton [3], Chapelonia [3], Dizziness [2], The Law Dawg [3], Outer Cuffeovia [7], Solowvia [10], Pirateovia [6], Elengwaith [2], Capitalist Fiefdoms [5], Bonguardunga [3], Darth Mall [8], Yissing Scalies [7], Estonia-Eesti [2], Marga Ragnos [14], Frestonia [39], Tinis [9], Nos Feratu [7], Shackleton [2], Chazzistan [14], Kitchener-Ontario [2], Siddhartha Gotama [3], QuestionableIndustries [3], Greater Valmiera [7], Gakuryoku [3], MarkDiamantia [3], The Occitan [5], Westenwales [4], Stanimir [3], Tel Aviv and Jerusalem [3], Yellow Dolphins [4], Giant Robotic Ninjas [2], Benfinan [9], Bernard Bear [4], Traffic Lights 2 [2], Tiber City [2], Dansimo [3], AST Kazuma [2], Auchleucharies [2], Free Soviet Peoples [5], Telephonic [2], The Tri Alliance [4], Fidelity Theory [3], Computer hackers4000 [2], Hedley Lamar [3], Omni-Palonie [37], Gin Rummia [2], Luggnagg [2], Crimetopia [2], Kajiua [2], Krovich [4], The Flaming Fhqwhgads [2], Afinogenov [2], Democracy Republican [2], Antrium [24], Big Dragonia [4], Greacegila [3], Xenious [4], Endless Forests [2], Ral Ixshida [2], A TARDIS [2], HP Obsessors [3], New York Jet Fanatics [15], The Beltway [3], Maciavely [2], New Summania [3], Tennisace [3], Haynja [3], The Rising Ghetto [5], Mihkrit [2], Chadlie [2], Post-Apocalypse W-Land [9], Former English Colony [441], Khalhazarus [3], United Action [16], Lykathea [4], Aaronice [2], Kooluk [4], Lord-General Drache [3], Titanburg [2], Montana Rojo [5], Unified Dakkania [4], Genova City [2], Santa Matilda [3], Apathetic Empathy [3], Anglachel and Anguirel [4], Ilyich [9], Carcrashistan [2], Menchekia [5], Nowherian [2], Rutland Isles [5], Jonchastan [3], New Secundus [3], ESAT [2], Be-To [3], Wolfhawk [2], Kawnitzad [2], Posthuman Discordia [3], The Whatevers [3], Spenardo [2], United States of Mars [8], Newbarn [2], Gwoor [2], Silverbowia [2], Betelgeuse XII [14], Wortegem-Petegem [2], Pastafariah [2], Socially Rejected Peop [2], RodSilvaland [3], Madnes and Insanity [5], Poloc [2], The Voltarum [24], Maultaschen [2], Elghinn [18], Pamopolis [3], Moumounland [2], Nikron [2], Iron Fist Dictators [2], Belarum [17], Anti-Psuedopolis [2], Atheismica [3], Nationalist Canadians [3], Sligeach [7], Lindlandistan [2], Tannu Tuval [32], Novo Sibirsk [5], Tso Itsited [9], Orserus [10], Tierra de la Luna [2], Admiral-Bell [5], Night Lude [3], Palentine UN Office [9], Jebinia [3], Outer Earth Colonies [5], Devilizationists [2], New Exford [10], The Bastard King [2], Jiva [2], Cresentos [2], Sinaasappel [3], Nixonburgh [5], Fredonistan [4], Humanistic Ideals [3], Ua Briain [6], Borradung-Shamprang [2], Jee Yuan [2], Taoziland [5], Brfitopia [5], Heaven Gate [3], Latouria [24], The Feather [6], Erehwon Forest [18], FWEDD [4], The Union Of The Free [2], Dobbyniania [63], Kaetoria [55], Kswissbob [3], Erythrophobia [2], LaFollette [2], Switzerstan [24], Deadsadam [2], Greater Tiki [2], Hermitistan [6], Copenhaghenkoffenlaugh [6], Socialist Rome [12], Antonyism [3], Afzengard [2], Palorrin [5], Nimurai [2], Strafe [2], Nicronia [4], Hungarie [2], The Father-Land [3], Mortego [2], Parma veritas [3], Waldenland [2], Qazox [2], Shantisthan [3], Curldom [2], A r m s t e a d [2], The Dog God [3], Red Heretic [3], Diciocoland [2], The real DragonFyre [2], Zutroy [3], PanzerOrta [3], Tau Ceta [7], Pivetta [2], Darpatia [2], Bulgarian Legion [3], Pansophia [4], Great Denizistan [8], MrPiddles [3], Ecosia [6], Kodou [4], Coconut Archers [3], Oiseaux Rochers [7], Alfarnia [2], Sephy Worshipers [3], Hedonisia [31], Better Quiche [2], Inflatable Furniture [6], Fuchsman [6], Mgd966 [2], Kyndcat [2], Biotopia [51], Odyssey2 [3], New Killiechrankie [3], Poletopia [2], Intangelon [4], Unbalanced Felines [2], Nag Ehgoeg [9], La Sandra [2], Toichmenistan [8], Geekopolous [2], Nick-land [2], Northern-Chittowa [22], Kendermore [2], Ragbralbur [5], Free Jedi Knights [3], Pigdestroyer [3], Blazealyse [2], Shanagolia [6], Ascetic Order [2], Sel Appa [3], Central Willistan [4], Pyro Monkies [2], Technocratic Thought [3], Pothenium [4], Taurains [2], Kleinekatzen [7], Dioxin [3], Powice [3], Vulkarn [3], Cooleman [3], Werebobs [4], Kurblecistan [2], Comica III [6], Usagi Cookies [2], Gaimo [5], The Poo-Covered Sloth [2], Wick3dity [4], Rnew russian exiles [2], AlCosta15 [3], New Mardol [2], Apage [2], Arrianetta [2], Kyle Broflovski [3], Zomnkeria [3], The Giant Pygmies [6], The Jersey Empire [25], Flamebaittrolls [40], Maxovia [14], SELFLING [2], Sir Lans [59], Drenos [2], Rannaghar [3], Moorebaby [2], LaDeSiDia [2], The Black New World [4], Guiuan [9], YenRug [7], Xerphania [4], Olduran [2], Jakada [4], Auquatuahc [2], Night RedXIII [3], Bingotastic Mates [2], Goreckiya [2], Flomany [2], New Mercedes [2], Cornflake Gremlins [2], Elympium [4], Randomplaceland [2], Pinko Liberals [2], Ryburn [2], Neostoria [6], Ronrovia [3], Lunar Destiny [14], Nukingtons [2], Fwuffy [13], Arbitus [2], Newcastle Seperate [3], The Dark Flame Dragon [2], Ditulandia [2], Egalitarians [3], Anda Carveria [2], Tefnutep [4], Kezzamier [2], Ddraig [8], Jamesburgh [30], Jean Reno [8], Cool Egg Liberalism [21], Sushi Shovelers [8], FyreStorm [3], Saxanglia [5], Cobainistic Freedom [19], Pacifist Cowards [26], Morgrande [3], 1388 [4], Kirovman [5], Lexiconhead [48], Inaia [2], Joopiter [2], TheJediMasters [2], Aurora Light [17], Liberty United [3], Pierre Auguste Renoir [11], Manical Mongeese [2], A name noone has taken [2], Stenburg [6], Gateborg [10], Flanagania [5], Tomin [9], Stalinikov [19], The Friggin Toby [3], MADFIGS [13], Sugarman [3], Bachonsia [2], Grabowstan [2], Anagoland [6], Judaxanmo [3], Southmoon [2], Aztec National League [6], The Kessler [2], Buffybots [7], Edgewood Dirk [3], Flecs [2], Emiliania [2], Moroboshi [3], Celticeagle [2], New Hamilton [2], Greenadore The Foul [3], Caer Rialis [363], Stufu [11], Warlike Wombats [4], Eretherya [11], Utopian Thoughts [13], Ness Snorlaxia [106], Mandarogo [5], CLU [5], Merapi [3], The Derrak Quadrant [35], JOSEPH 69 [2], Distantland [5], Carisbrooke[30], Wardor[3], Brega and Mide[37], Priggdom[3], Blauhimmel[2], Wickedly evil people[311], Orioni 2[51], QuantumSoft[4], New Endenia[2], Rosthern[2], , Kaharakhanakanstan[4], Zimbada[3], , Lightning Squirrels[2], The Lost Countries[2].

Hirota

14-02-2006, 17:37

Do we have any idea when this proposal will be submitted? I'd rather see this proposal than some half-baked which ignores individual soverignty for the benefit of national sov, or worst still, outlaws abortion outright.
__________________
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) http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/defcontag-A.jpg
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)
Author of the indigenous peoples resolution
I love individual soverignty

Yelda

14-02-2006, 17:43

If the repeal passes, I would suggest submitting it immediately.

Snow Eaters

14-02-2006, 17:43

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

My problem with this proposal would be the above line.
It is clearly and utterly false.

Waterana

14-02-2006, 21:16

This proposal has now been submitted.

It can be found here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Clinical)

Please support a womans right to choose. While a nanny or madame lash state may think it knows what is best for each and every one of its female citizens, those female citizens know perfectly well what is best for their own circumstances and are quite capable of making their own decisions without interference.

Dorksonia

14-02-2006, 22:16

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

My problem with this proposal would be the above line.
It is clearly and utterly false.

Lol! Stick around.

Dorksonia

14-02-2006, 22:36

Republicans Armed

14-02-2006, 22:48

Nice one Dork! This should be interesting.

Waterana

14-02-2006, 22:58

So let me take a moment to characterize your position here, and you tell me where I'm wrong:

With this proposal, you want to make it legal for women in all nations, regardless of the national, state, or local government's beliefs on abortion, to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (sex selection, age - a woman could be 27 and say, "I'm too young to have a baby" or "I'm too old to have a baby", for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, right up to the moment of birth (in other words throughout all nine months of pregnancy), and if she can't pay for it, you think the people opposed to this issue to begin with (the taxpayer) should pay it for her?

People just voted for the UN to take less of a role in this issue with their governments and you want to now impose the most extremist view of abortion on everyone. I might be wrong, but in light of the recent appeal, I don't think these extremist views will fly.

Lets get something straight. I am a UN member just like you. I have at least two endorsements just like you. I am allowed to submit a proposal that is legal under the rules of this game and try to get it passed just like you.

If people don't want this replacement, then delegates won't endorse it to the floor or the members won't pass it, but I still have the right to try. You have the right to refuse to support it if you want to.

Just remember though, UN members have a few times passed a resolution one week, then voted to repeal it the next. Not all those who voted for this repeal did so for nat sov reasons, just as not all those who voted against it did so for pro choice reasons. In the end, it's up to the voters to decide.

Cluichstan

14-02-2006, 23:13

Wow...someone rolled out of the wrong side of the crib this morning...

Ator People

14-02-2006, 23:22

I think this resolution violates national sovereignty and I would be strongly against it if it came to a vote. This is exactly what the Repeal of "Abortion Rights" was meant to stop.:(

Waterana

14-02-2006, 23:25

A repeal can't stop anything. All it can do is get rid of old legislation, which leaves the way open to a replacement, of any sort, if someone feels strongly enough about the subject.

Ator People

14-02-2006, 23:32

A repeal can't stop anything. All it can do is get rid of old legislation, which leaves the way open to a replacement, of any sort, if someone feels strongly enough about the subject.

I understand you have every right to propose such a resolution. However, I am against this resolution because we just repealed a similiar (though less extensive) resolution. I would be very disappointed if such a resolution passed, as I see no reason why the "right" to have an abortion should be forced on my nation through the UN.

Dorksonia

14-02-2006, 23:37

Originally Posted by Dorksonia
So let me take a moment to characterize your position here, and you tell me where I'm wrong:

With this proposal, you want to make it legal for women in all nations, regardless of the national, state, or local government's beliefs on abortion, to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (sex selection, age - a woman could be 27 and say, "I'm too young to have a baby" or "I'm too old to have a baby", for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, right up to the moment of birth (in other words throughout all nine months of pregnancy), and if she can't pay for it, you think the people opposed to this issue to begin with (the taxpayer) should pay it for her?

People just voted for the UN to take less of a role in this issue with their governments and you want to now impose the most extremist view of abortion on everyone. I might be wrong, but in light of the recent appeal, I don't think these extremist views will fly.
Lets get something straight. I am a UN member just like you. I have at least two endorsements just like you. I am allowed to submit a proposal that is legal under the rules of this game and try to get it passed just like you.

If people don't want this replacement, then delegates won't endorse it to the floor or the members won't pass it, but I still have the right to try. You have the right to refuse to support it if you want to.

Just remember though, UN members have a few times passed a resolution one week, then voted to repeal it the next. Not all those who voted for this repeal did so for nat sov reasons, just as not all those who voted against it did so for pro choice reasons. In the end, it's up to the voters to decide.

Yowzers! I don't think I ever attacked your right to propose a piece of legislation. I was questioning the specific legislation you proposed though, as that is kind of the purpose of the discussion thread. I'll spare you the rant about not telling me I cannot post questioning your proposal because I have just as much of a right to post here as ... and on and on...

I would just like to point out, however, that my original question was ignored and diverted with something about a defense of the right to submit the bill. I'm still curious for you to tell me yes or no if I'm fair in characterizing the position of the bill you submitted. The response will be either:
a) Yes, what you stated is an accurate assessment of what we want to pass
b) No, you got some of it correct, but you misunderstood about... because...
or
c) Divert again so you don't have to answer the question, to which I will just continue pointing out that you don't seem to want to answer my question.

Waterana

15-02-2006, 00:16

You're right and I apologise.

I was riled up by someone who's posts I no longer see, plus the, I'm afraid, tarnished view I have of you seeing I'm a female who strongly resented the sexist overtones of your repeal text.

To try and get this civil at least, I'll attempt to answer your question, most of which I must add are explained in this thread, the one linked in the first post or the proposal itself.

I'm not a nat sover, so don't care about any "rights" of the state where human rights are concerned. No, I have no problem trampling over a nation's government if it means more freedoms for the people to make these sort of decisions for themselves.

I do support nat sov in some areas, but human rights isn't one of them. If this repeal had been for hydrogen powered vehicles, or that replanting trees resolution for example, I would have been all for it.

I do believe women are intelligent creatures (I know because I am one) who are capable of making this decision for themselves, and yes, they should have the right to decide at anytime and for any reason. They aren't little children who should have to ask permission first.

Sex selection is addressed in the proposal, but not banned. If the state doesn't like that, it can educate against it, or even ban the procedures that determine the sex of the child like RL India is considering.

I've addressed the funding issue ad nauseum in this thread. At first, I did have the state cover the costs of access for poor women who couldn't afford it and didn't have private insurance. After that was opposed with a vengence, I put the ball in the states court. It doesn't have to use tax payers money, and can find other ways. One I mentioned in this thread is using the tax money from its legal prostitution. The methold of funding is up to the state.

This isn't an extremist view. That would be requiring all women to abort. This is leaving the ultimate choice up to the only one who can make the right decision for her circumstances, her family, her life and her health. A government can't know all that, so can't make the right decision for her.

Xanthal

15-02-2006, 00:17

The Socialist Republic gives the state overriding power to terminate a pregnancy when an apparent and pronounced physical or mental defect makes such action prudent. This government has no intention of giving up its discretion in matters of genetic screening given a reasonable choice. Now that Abortion Rights has been stricken from U.N. law, we encourage the United Nations to reject further legislation on matters of questionable moral and realistic value, abortion included. It is our firm belief that there is no "right answer" to the question of abortion, and to attempt forcing a single point of view will inevitably lead to widespread noncompliance, direct or indirect, while serving only the moral philosophy of the majority. This is an issue for individual nations to decide, and we will not support legal action condemning or condoning the practice of abortion on an international level.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 04:31

Okay, so my nation won't be required to pay for the removal of someone's cancerous tumor but will have to pay for the removal of a fetus? No offense to the esteemed representative of Waterana, but that is ludicrous.

Meh. Your nation can pay for the removal of someone's cancerous tumor if it likes. It can also support a UN resolution for universal health care.

You have not given a serious reason for objecting to the proposal. Instead, you have made one up.

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 04:34

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 04:39

So let me take a moment to characterize your position here, and you tell me where I'm wrong:

With this proposal, you want to make it legal for women in all nations, regardless of the national, state, or local government's beliefs on abortion, to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (sex selection, age - a woman could be 27 and say, "I'm too young to have a baby" or "I'm too old to have a baby", for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, right up to the moment of birth (in other words throughout all nine months of pregnancy), and if she can't pay for it, you think the people opposed to this issue to begin with (the taxpayer) should pay it for her?

People just voted for the UN to take less of a role in this issue with their governments and you want to now impose the most extremist view of abortion on everyone. I might be wrong, but in light of the recent appeal, I don't think these extremist views will fly.

Your "argument" makes clear that you haven't really read Waterana's proposal or you would be familiar with the provisions regarding viability of the fetus.

The UN Repeal was argued for on several grounds. One of them was the Resolution needed a replacement like this one. Hypocritical to trail for such votes and then object after the fact.

Fight on, Waterana, you have my support.

Xanthal

15-02-2006, 04:56

This is an issue for individuals to decide, and we will not support legal action condemning the practice of abortion on a national level.
Individuals are subject to the will of the state. It is the state's responsibility to maintain the social and economic order for the individuals under its rule in a manner most appropriate for the individual nation it appropriately commands with consideration to the circumstances at hand. The United Nations is unable to make fully informed decisions on complex social issues like abortion due to the sheer size of the population under its jurisdiction. Different structures of economy and society make abortion practical under different circumstances, or not at all.

The Socialist Republic supports the right to an abortion under its own laws, but we would not presume that another society would prudently wish to have the same policy. Similarly, the Xanthalian government reserves the right to screen out defective fetuses before birth and control its citizen population by acting to prevent conception; but would never suggest that other societies adopt the same policy without considering and approving of it of their own accord.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 05:01

Individuals are subject to the will of the state. It is the state's responsibility to maintain the social and economic order for the individuals under its rule in a manner most appropriate for the individual nation it appropriately commands with consideration to the circumstances at hand. The United Nations is unable to make fully informed decisions on complex social issues like abortion due to the sheer size of the population under its jurisdiction. Different structures of economy and society make abortion practical under different circumstances, or not at all.

The Socialist Republic supports the right to an abortion under its own laws, but we would not presume that another society would prudently wish to have the same policy. Similarly, the Xanthalian government reserves the right to screen out defective fetuses before birth and control its citizen population by acting to prevent conception; but would never suggest that other societies adopt the same policy without considering and approving of it of their own accord.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Individuals may be subject to the will of the state, but whether they should be is perfectly debatable.

Why is a nation any better equipped to decide the abortion issue than the UN?

If you support the right to abortion, then do just that: support the right to abortion. It is not simply a minor policy question. It is a question of human rights.

Ator People

15-02-2006, 05:18

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 05:20

However, I don't believe the UN has the right to determine for my nation if abortion is the answer to the "question of human rights." Some may say that abortion itself is a violation of human rights. Should the UN decide who is right or wrong? The nation of Ator People does not think so.

Meh.

If it is not the job of the UN to decide questions of international human rights, WTF good is it?

Ator People

15-02-2006, 05:25

Meh.

If it is not the job of the UN to decide questions of international human rights, WTF good is it?

The UN clearly voted (on the last repeal) that abortion was not a guarenteed right. The UN has voiced its opinion that it can maintain a neutral stance on this issue. However, by keeping this stance it is still "good." It focuses on human rights issues that less controversial and more universally accepted/rejected.

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 05:28

The UN clearly voted (on the last repeal) that abortion was not a guarenteed right. The UN has voiced its opinion that it can maintain a neutral stance on this issue. However, by keeping this stance it is still "good." It focuses on human rights issues that less controversial and more universally accepted/rejected.

Now your pulling at your own bootstraps. "What the UN just did was right b/c what the UN just did says so."

If the UN only deals with happy smiley issues that everyone agrees on already, then there isn't much point to the UN.

Ator People

15-02-2006, 05:34

Now your pulling at your own bootstraps. "What the UN just did was right b/c what the UN just did says so."

If the UN only deals with happy smiley issues that everyone agrees on already, then there isn't much point to the UN.

My point is, I don't believe the issue of abortion should be legalized by the UN. It would be forced upon nations and that itself would be a violation of human rights.

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 05:39

My point is, I don't believe the issue of abortion should be legalized by the UN. It would be forced upon nations and that itself would be a violation of human rights.

How is forcing a nation to respect a human right a violation of human rights?

(If your position is that abortion is wrong, just say so and quit hiding behind "natsov" args.)

Xanthal

15-02-2006, 05:59

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 06:04

There is a difference between humane treatment of sentient beings and the right to terminate the life of a being that has the potential to become sentient. Many would argue, with good reason, that the unborn's right to life overrides the woman's right to control her body. We are not prepared to tell our fellow nations otherwise, nor are we prepared to acknowledge that either "right" necessarily overrides the discretion of the state. While it is neither your place nor ours to make sweeping value judgements, the issue of abortion pits two important human rights against one another: the right to life and the right to liberty. Almost universally in this case, the protection of one means the sacrifice of the other. Which is more important may or may not be for the state to judge, but it is certainly not for the United Nations, a sprawling entity encompassing thousands of unique governments and cultures, to judge either.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

So a human right is no longer a human right because some cultures may disagree?

Have you noticed the provisions in the proposal to save the life of the unborn if at all possible?

EDIT: And since when do the rights of potential persons override the rights of actual persons? You aren't sounding pro-choice at all.

Snow Eaters

15-02-2006, 06:44

So a human right is no longer a human right because some cultures may disagree?

Is no longer?
The preample to this proposal pays lip service to the over whelming FACT that there is NO consensus on this issue as to where the human rights issue truly lies.

You can wrap yourself up in some imagined consensus, but in reality, you're as naked as the Emporer of fables.

The reality is that at some point, EVERYONE draws a line between what is "potential life" and what is "human life".
We all agree (let's ignore those that may disagree simply to be disagreeable for the moment) that before that line, a woman's reproduction is her own choice.
We also all agree that beyond that line the human rights of the new "human life" superceed the desires of the parent to extinguish it.

Typically, the 2 extreme postions set up camp at conception and at birth and glare at each other as they hurl invectives at each other like, "Murder!" "Choice!"
Others take postions around tri-mesters or nebulous concepts of awareness.

Regardless, before our individual lines, we are all pro-choice and after our individual lines, we are all pro-life.
We only really argue about where to draw that line, not human rights.

Since we CANNOT agree as to the proper place to draw that line, why do some of the U.N. delegates feel it is necessary to force their view of where the line "needs" to be on all nations?

Xanthal

15-02-2006, 06:47

So a human right is no longer a human right because some cultures may disagree?

Have you noticed the provisions in the proposal to save the life of the unborn if at all possible?

EDIT: And since when do the rights of potential persons override the rights of actual persons? You aren't sounding pro-choice at all.
Rights only exist when a people percieves them. What one culture may regard as a right, another may find reprehensible. While the proposal does give the state power to request that doctors attempt to save viable fetuses, it should be noted that the vast majority of abortions are performed long before the life of the unborn child is able to be sustained outside of the womb. Your reference to the unborn as "potential persons" shows your own bias. While there is certainly nothing wrong with your point of view, many would not agree that the life of a fetus or even an embryo is less important than the freedom of choice of the mother. The Socialist Republic takes an authoritarian approach to abortion. We believe that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, but we also believe that the state has the right to mandate an abortion when mentally or physically crippling birth defects are present, or when the mother's life is threatened. That is, in part, why a resolution giving jurisdiction to continue or terminate pregnancy solely to the woman is concerning to the Republic. It would require a substantial shift in our own policy to comply.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 06:47

Since we CANNOT agree as to the proper place to draw that line, why do some of the U.N. delegates feel it is necessary to force their view of where the line "needs" to be on all nations?

Because the lives and freedom of women are on the line.

Snow Eaters

15-02-2006, 06:54

Because the lives and freedom of women are on the line.

You realise that your opponents will simply respond with:

"Because the lives and rights of babies are on the line."

Right?

You've completely ignored my text and regurgitated the rote response.

So again, given that BOTH sides are fighting passionately for lives/rights/freedoms they hold as precious, why do you feel the need to IMPOSE your views on others?

The Cat-Tribe

15-02-2006, 06:57

You realise that your opponents will simply respond with:

"Because the lives and rights of babies are on the line."

Right?

You've completely ignored my text and regurgitated the rote response.

So again, given that BOTH sides are fighting passionately for lives/rights/freedoms they hold as precious, why do you feel the need to IMPOSE your views on others?

My view is that no one can IMPOSE their view on the individual. Why do you feel the need for some nations to impose their view?

Ceorana

15-02-2006, 07:18

Xanthal

15-02-2006, 07:25

Why do you feel the need for some nations to impose their view?
In the instance of those against abortion, for the same reason the state imposes its view that it is not acceptable to kill another person simply because they are an inconvenience to the killer. The state retains many rights that cannot be equitably entrusted to the individual; common among them the right to incarcerate and execute, the right to impose taxes, and the right to maintain armed forces. The will of the state must often be superior to the will of the individual so that a standard of safety and order can be maintained for the general population. In the case of abortion, if a sufficiently large portion of the community feels that an unborn child is a life, it would be negligent of the state to permit the mother to abort the child.

The United Nations, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over too many people to make an appropriate universal value judgement simply on the will of the majority. Because of the enormity of its membership in terms of sentient lives, it lacks the ability to effectively observe, consider, and judge all the cultural groups affected by its actions. The state, ideally a nation-state, has a much firmer grasp on all the issues at play for a particular group, and can make decisions according to the judgements of its own people. The argument made by the honorable representative of the Cat-Tribe is sound, but it must be understood that one person's way of seeing an issue, especially an issue so morally ambiguous as abortion, is not necessarily shared by a majority; and that the will of the overwhelming majority in one group may be opposed just as overwhelmingly in another. Thus, to legislate such matters on the state level is far preferable to doing so on the international level. Unfortunately, where the unborn are considered alive and viable members of a sentient species, simply allowing a small minority to carry out procedures tantamount to murder in the eyes of the majority is frequently not an option.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Xanthal

15-02-2006, 07:29

...Ceorana believes the opposite: that the state is subject to the will of the individuals. Certainly, the individuals must follow the laws of the state, but those laws are controlled by the collective intentions of the people.
Our views are not in contradiction as you imply them to be. While individuals are subject to the will of the state, the state is, or ought to be, subject to the will of its citizens. Where the authority of the collective state should end is what seems to be in dispute between us, not the manner in which it makes decisions.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Intangelon

15-02-2006, 10:02

If I'm reaading this right, and the jury's still out, the problem might be solved with a tweaking of the resolution that ignores funding altogether. It seems that both sides have arguments that never quite make it to the summit of conviction:

A) For cultures opposing abortion. "Why should my nation's tax money or effort requiring the use of tax money?" -- which is what this resolution is asking for, for how else will the state pay if not through some expenditure of public funds, by telepathically setting up a charity or tax on prostitution?

OR

B) If your nation's culture is anit-abortion, there won't be any demand for them.

I support this resolution not because I am anti-NatSov, but because I am pro-woman. However, I read and understand the legitimate objections to this resolution. Nothing in the resolution is forcing anyone to terminate a pregnancy, at least not by my reading. Rather, the resolution seeks to establish a safe, secure and female-universal access to the procedure, should the individual woman choose to have it done. It seeks decriminalization rather than enforced tolerance. If your culture shuns those who have abortions, then that will be part of the woman's decision...likely the physician's as well. The decision is between the woman and {insert divinity or what-have-you here}. The philosophical wrangling over the procedure itself is not at issue with this legislation. I would ask that this body deliberate the resolution as it stands.

Jubal Harshaw,
Magister Intangelon
Greater Seattle Delegate

St Edmund

15-02-2006, 12:34

OOC: Imagine that Lata and the St Edmund delegate are discussing this over a pot of tea at the end of a long day... ahem. I ramble. Damn liquid lunches.

OOC: Our ambassador, Alfred Devereux Sweynsson, was in the Strangers' Bar when last seen...

Cluichstan

15-02-2006, 13:24

So again, given that BOTH sides are fighting passionately for lives/rights/freedoms they hold as precious, why do you feel the need to IMPOSE your views on others?

That's why the proposal submitted by Omigodtheykilledkenny is the better one. It doesn't impose any view upon nations and, instead, lets each individual nation decide the issue for itself.

Groot Gouda

15-02-2006, 13:32

That's why the proposal submitted by Omigodtheykilledkenny is the better one. It doesn't impose any view upon nations and, instead, lets each individual nation decide the issue for itself.

The proposal by Omigodtheykilledkenny is bad, as it restricts the freedom of choice of the people. If anything is an example of how national sovereignity is misunderstood and abused, it is a resolution that leaves this up to a national government. Abortion isn't a government issue, it's a personal issue, and if nations can't handle that, the UN should step in and use their power to offer the freedom of choice to the people.

This resolution does that, and that's why I and my region support it. Omigodtheykilledkenny's proposal would be a setback of the UN.

Cluichstan

15-02-2006, 13:34

This resolution does that, and that's why I and my region support it. Omigodtheykilledkenny's proposal would be a setback of the UN.

Only if you see the goal of the UN to be imposing the "morally superior" views of some nations on all nations.

Snow Eaters

15-02-2006, 13:34

My view is that no one can IMPOSE their view on the individual. Why do you feel the need for some nations to impose their view?

Xanthal has adequately put forth the argument for why a state would impose a view in some instances.

Given your stated view, I would think that a position more consistent with it would be opposition to any laws regarding the abortion issue regardless of which side of the issue that might be supported.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez

15-02-2006, 15:52

2 – Member states shall neither restrict the right of qualified individuals to perform abortions, nor prevent said individuals from setting up conveniently located, properly equipped, and universally accessible abortion clinics. No medical personel may be compelled to directly participate in an abortion if such a procedure goes against their personal ethics.

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

4 Member states shall ensure, by such measures as deemed adequate, that costs of clinical abortion are kept at a reasonable level and that all women can access abortion services, regardless of their financial situation. These measures may include regulation, state coverage, requiring private health insurance to cover abortion, and free competition..

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

In section 2 why do you not require doctors and other medical staff to perform them or help in them, as you already have them paying for it and possibly training those who will do them even if they feel it is wrong on ethics for abortions to be done.

In section 3 you are again setting up doctors and staff to deal with issues they may oppose..

In section 4 you end up requiring those who may oppose all abortions to finance them through their taxes thus those funds that might be applied to other health issues could well be diverted to abortions thus causing citizens from being able to afford them due to fact that most of the funding is going to abortions instead of other medical procedures.

In section 5 find that they need to be allowed at some point to force a woman and man to take these education courses. As figure in abuse of the system if a woman has need for more than one abortion as she is doing something wrong because she don't know how to prevent the pregnancy. Also the man must be required to attend these as it takes two to get to the abortion point. Also on the finance of this you seem to put this all on a woman/mother and leave man/father out of it as they share in the problem and must be required to pay to play. Thus here a state keeps paying for them to have one and can't do a dang thing but pay each time they want one. So why education if nobody uses it?

Dorksonia

15-02-2006, 16:16

Your "argument" makes clear that you haven't really read Waterana's proposal or you would be familiar with the provisions regarding viability of the fetus.

The UN Repeal was argued for on several grounds. One of them was the Resolution needed a replacement like this one. Hypocritical to trail for such votes and then object after the fact.

Fight on, Waterana, you have my support.

Oh, yes. I've read the proposal. And what I've read and questioned and read in response is that this law while suggesting some things, would not prevent a woman from having an abortion for any reason whatsoever, for no reason whatsoever, throughout all nine months of pregnancy. What's more, my statement about the people who disagree with abortion being forced to pay for it through taxes was met with the response that it is up to me to determine how to pay for it. One suggestion was using funding through prostitution! My nation is not going to do fund raisers to raise support for something we do not believe in - especially by means of other ways we do not believe in.

Maybe you should reread the wording of my repeal. I never called for another resolution to replace mine on purpose. I never, in arguing for the last repeal courted those who would want to replace it with something else. If you read through that last thread you will indeed discover I argued my nation's position against abortion and supporting other nation's right to decide for themselves how they wanted to rule on abortion. Don't put a position in my mouth that I never backed and call me hypocritical in the public forum for doing otherwise. I have stated many times and will do so again - abortion is a devisive issue (this bill has managed to make it even more divisive by forcing those who do not agree with it to fund it) and should NOT be decided by the United Nations.

Snow Eaters

15-02-2006, 16:36

Abortion isn't a government issue, it's a personal issue, and if nations can't handle that, the UN should step in and use their power to offer the freedom of choice to the people.

That can only be true if there is agreement on where "the line" is drawn for describing human life vs. potential life.

We don't consider infanticide a "personal issue" and offer freedom of choice, because we can all agree which side of "the line" it falls on.

We don't forcibly impregnate women and deny them the basic right to choose when they reproduce because we can all agree which side of "the line" that falls on.

It's all of the messy ground in between that's at issue.
Declaring it a freedom of choice issue denies the issue even exists and declares your position the only reasonable one.

Just to be clear, declaring abortion murder creates the same issue.

In the absence of agreement, a body such as the UN needs to take a neutral stance and not enforce either view.

Hirota

15-02-2006, 16:40

In the absence of agreement, a body such as the UN needs to take a neutral stance and not enforce either view.If I felt that governments would do the same, I'd be totally for that.

I argue that it is precisely because of the absence of agreement that the individual should have the final say, not the state, not the UN. The UN is only involved to endorse the power of the individual to have the final say.

Dorksonia

15-02-2006, 18:32

Individuals may be subject to the will of the state, but whether they should be is perfectly debatable.

Why is a nation any better equipped to decide the abortion issue than the UN?

If you support the right to abortion, then do just that: support the right to abortion. It is not simply a minor policy question. It is a question of human rights.

I have tried to place myself in the position of one arguing for imposing their morally supremist view of abortion on all nations in an effort to try to understand. What it comes down to is the definition of "human rights" that is thrown around. Evidently, if I'm opposed to this bill or abortion being legislated at the UN level, then I am labeled in the view of others as being against "human rights." This is interesting since many of those nations who disagree with abortion, including mine, see abortion itself as the single largest human rights issue of our time. We see abortion as a violation of human rights.

Basically, that escalates from a disagreement over the definition of "human." It appears that those who support this bill only think about rights in terms of a woman's choice to kill her unborn child. They fail in their efforts to recognize the unborn child as human. Those of us who disagree with the bill try to balance the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child because we could not see the unborn child as anything other than human. Those who support the bill do not believe the unborn child should have any rights at all.

So why are nations better equipped to decide the abortion issue than the UN:

1. Roughly half of all UN nations believe abortion to be a human rights issue in the sense that abortion violates the rights of the unborn child. There is disagreement over the usage of the term "human rights" here. This is a deep divide and the UN only seeks to divide itself over ruling on this issue. Currently, a nation has the right to decide this for themselves and there is no division.

2. Government is best run at the local level. The further away from the local level, the less the views of those people are understood or represented. In my nation, all government positions (local, region, and national) are elected by the people. If the people do not agree with a person's views they will not elect that person or they will remove that person from office. In Nationstates, Government is best ran on the national level because the Government IS the people. The UN is composed of some moral elitists who desire to impose their values or lack thereof on all others.

3. In regards to the current bill, national government is required to fund it for those who cannot afford to have an abortion- even if they find abortion offensive and disagree with it. The one who pays the bill should decide.

Snow Eaters

15-02-2006, 19:36

If I felt that governments would do the same, I'd be totally for that.

I argue that it is precisely because of the absence of agreement that the individual should have the final say, not the state, not the UN. The UN is only involved to endorse the power of the individual to have the final say.

Perform a thought experiment with me.

Set aside personal views on abortion and let's consider the opposing views and the natural outcome of each.

If one believes that the line demarking "potential life" and "human life" is best drawn AT birth, then up until that point, the issue at stake will be a personal choice of the woman involved and one should properly place this issue in the realm of the right to choose and safeguard that right.

If one moves the line from birth to say, 3rd trimester, then again, the natural outcome should be freedom of choice, a personal issue, for the first 2 trimesters.

Agreed so far?

Conversely, if one believes that "the line" demarking "potential life" and "human life" actually exists at birth or even the end of the 1st trimester, then any abortion procedures that occur AFTER this line can only be viewed as the taking of a human life.
The taking of a human life cannot be declared a personal issue where the individual is guaranteed the right of choice.

Agreed? You don't need to agree with the stance, just that the natural outcome of this stance cannot allow for individual choice.

If you're with me still, then in closing, I can only point out that your insistence on allowing personal choice BECAUSE there is a lack of agreement is a logical fallacy because it is itself one of 2 opposing views on the issue and you ignore the other.

Ator People

15-02-2006, 21:57

How is forcing a nation to respect a human right a violation of human rights?

(If your position is that abortion is wrong, just say so and quit hiding behind "natsov" args.)

My nation does have a pro life position, as I think you've noticed throughout this discussion. However, I understand other nations do not and I do not think the UN has the authority to decide which nations are right and which are wrong. "Natsov" is the deciding factor that will ultimately pass/not pass this resolution.

Waterana

15-02-2006, 22:06

I've been reading the last 4 or so pages of this debate (the forum went down on me last night, so I couldnt respond earlier) and the majority of it seems to be "why should people who don't like abortion have to pay for it", and the oh so tired "the UN has no business telling the state what to do".

In answer to the first one, the state handles tax money, and decides what to do with it. If your nation went to war, would you refuse to use tax money to pay for that if some of your population didn't like war? Would you use tax money to support an arms industry if some of your people didn't like guns? Tax money should be used for the greater good of the nation, and if the state doesn't think this procedure is for the greater good of the nation, then it finds another way to pay.

In the case of the second, I am one of those who believes the state has no business telling the individual what to do. I don't trust states with human rights because there are just too many who would dole them out in bits and pieces or deny them totally. Human rights are just that, rights, not privilages and the UN does have a business ensureing all citizens of UN nations are equally covered, and in some cases protected from their governments. Nat sovers think differently, as is their right, but in the end the membership will decide, not a few of us on this, or an offsite, forum.

Cluichstan

15-02-2006, 22:26

That's a damn broad definition of human rights you've got there...

Oh, and "wah-wah, boohoo, a few guys from the NSO got their proposal submitted before mine!"

Groot Gouda

15-02-2006, 23:01

Only if you see the goal of the UN to be imposing the "morally superior" views of some nations on all nations.

I know you like national sovereignity, but first of all, I haven't seen anywhere in a debate where you have answered how you feel about the abuse of that sovereignity by national governments, and I really like to know why you are feeling so strongly about this at the cost of personal freedom. Secondly, no morally superior view is imposed on nations. A freedom that belongs to people is given back. No-one is forced to have an abortion. All that is done is give people a choice. Those who don't like abortion don't have one, fine. Their choice. But they have no right to impose that choice upon others.

Your view means restriction of freedom for people. My choice, and this resolution's, means choice. Not for governments, indeed, but considering they shouldn't be involved in this anyway (I haven't seen one proper argument why a national government should always decide about a private issue like this), that doesn't matter.

What you are arguing is NatSov for the sake of NatSov. By arguing that way, you are damaging the concept of National Sovereignity and the positive things that can come out of that. And you're not even giving a reason. All your arguments boil down to "because national governments should decide on it". I ask you: why should a private issue like this be a matter of state? And before you're bouncing the question: it becomes a UN matter because the UN can override governments and force the matter to be a private choice again, without government interference, because some governments abuse their power. But this resolution puts this back to where it belongs: a personal choice, made by a woman over her own body. There is no need for a government to decide about that for her.

Groot Gouda

15-02-2006, 23:05

That can only be true if there is agreement on where "the line" is drawn for describing human life vs. potential life.

Potential life doesn't matter. As soon as a baby is born, it is a citizen, a human being on its own. Before that, it depends on the mother, is part of the mother's body. Whatever bodily functions may already work, it's still a part of the mother's body. As soon as it leaves the body by birth, it becomes a citizen. Unless, of course, unborn babies are considered normal citizens like born babies in your nation, in which case you might end up in an interesting legal situation if this resolution passes. If you're not regarding unborn babies the same as children in your nation, you're being very inconsequent.

Cluichstan

15-02-2006, 23:13

What you are arguing is NatSov for the sake of NatSov. By arguing that way, you are damaging the concept of National Sovereignity and the positive things that can come out of that. And you're not even giving a reason. All your arguments boil down to "because national governments should decide on it". I ask you: why should a private issue like this be a matter of state?

If it's too private for the state, then it is even more so for an international body like the UN. That's not national sovereignty for national sovereignty's sake.

Cluichstan

15-02-2006, 23:16

Unless, of course, unborn babies are considered normal citizens like born babies in your nation, in which case you might end up in an interesting legal situation if this resolution passes.

Which is precisely why this proposal shouldn't pass.

Dorksonia

15-02-2006, 23:31

Quote by Waterana:
In answer to the first one, the state handles tax money, and decides what to do with it. If your nation went to war, would you refuse to use tax money to pay for that if some of your population didn't like war? Would you use tax money to support an arms industry if some of your people didn't like guns? Tax money should be used for the greater good of the nation, and if the state doesn't think this procedure is for the greater good of the nation, then it finds another way to pay.

What I'm hearing is that first of all you're saying that the taxpayers of Dorksonia has no buisness telling a woman she can't have an abortion, but if she decides to, they should have no choice but to pay for it (the money has to come from somewhere). A polling group back home totally rejected the idea of a national spaghetti Dinner fundraiser for abortions as well.

Potential life doesn't matter. As soon as a baby is born, it is a citizen, a human being on its own. Before that, it depends on the mother, is part of the mother's body. Whatever bodily functions may already work, it's still a part of the mother's body. As soon as it leaves the body by birth, it becomes a citizen. Unless, of course, unborn babies are considered normal citizens like born babies in your nation, in which case you might end up in an interesting legal situation if this resolution passes. If you're not regarding unborn babies the same as children in your nation, you're being very inconsequent.

Potential life? Are you suggesting the unborn child is not alive until it is born? And whereas we agree that an unborn child is dependent on his / her mother, isn't that also true for a newborn. If you leave that newborn all alone, it will die. As a matter of fact, people in comas are in the same situation, so are some people who are paralyzed. Are they not entitled to have their lives protected?

And yes, unborn babies in Dorksonia are treated as equally alive as anyone else. If someone were to kill an unborn child in Dorksonia, they will be charged with manslaughter. They are also counted in our National Census from the time a woman knows she is pregnant and can report that as it makes our Census the most accurate one in the world.

Dorksonia

15-02-2006, 23:36

Your view means restriction of freedom for people. My choice, and this resolution's, means choice. Not for governments, indeed, but considering they shouldn't be involved in this anyway (I haven't seen one proper argument why a national government should always decide about a private issue like this), that doesn't matter.

I posted this earlier on a different thread, but found it appropriate for here as well:

Individuals have liberty by electing their leaders. Whereas that cannot be done by abdicating this authority to the United Nations. Let's put a communist leader, military dicatatorship, democratic republic, socialist, and pychotic dictator in a room and come up with an agreement on "human rights" and make that binding on all nations. This leads to a tyranny by the majority of major differing philosophical viewpoints.

Government is best run on the local level, and by giving the United Nations authority to decide on anything but international issues the people are less represented and lose liberty.

Ator People

15-02-2006, 23:40

Potential life? Are you suggesting the unborn child is not alive until it is born? And whereas we agree that an unborn child is dependent on his / her mother, isn't that also true for a newborn. If you leave that newborn all alone, it will die. As a matter of fact, people in comas are in the same situation, so are some people who are paralyzed. Are they not entitled to have their lives protected?

Sadly, that is the pragmatic stance so many take. People are today judged based on what they can do, not who they are. :(

And yes, unborn babies in Dorksonia are treated as equally alive as anyone else ... They are also counted in our National Census from the time a woman knows she is pregnant and can report that as it makes our Census the most accurate one in the world.

Same in Ator People. If this resolution were to pass, it would deny the natural right of personhood to unborn children, a clear violation of human rights in itself.

Waterana

15-02-2006, 23:54

Quote by Waterana:

What I'm hearing is that first of all you're saying that the taxpayers of Dorksonia has no buisness telling a woman she can't have an abortion, but if she decides to, they should have no choice but to pay for it (the money has to come from somewhere). A polling group back home totally rejected the idea of a national spaghetti Dinner fundraiser for abortions as well.
The access assurance was put into the proposal to ensure poor women have equal access to the procedure, and this doesn't become something only rich women can afford. Surely the well off women in your nation can pay for the operation themselves, they certainly do in mine. How about private health insurance as well. The government can demand them to provide lower cost policies to poor women to cover more basic health concerns, including this one. I don't, and never did expect the state to pay for all abortions. If you look at the original draft in the link in the opening post, you will see that.

Potential life? Are you suggesting the unborn child is not alive until it is born? And whereas we agree that an unborn child is dependent on his / her mother, isn't that also true for a newborn. If you leave that newborn all alone, it will die. As a matter of fact, people in comas are in the same situation, so are some people who are paralyzed. Are they not entitled to have their lives protected?
Anyone can take care of a newborn child. Anyone can take care of someone who is paralysed. They aren't totally and utterly dependant on one life, in fact only existing because they are feeding on that one life, and aren't part of that one life.

And yes, unborn babies in Dorksonia are treated as equally alive as anyone else. If someone were to kill an unborn child in Dorksonia, they will be charged with manslaughter. They are also counted in our National Census from the time a woman knows she is pregnant and can report that as it makes our Census the most accurate one in the world.

I feel sorry for the women in your nation filling up the jails because they tripped going down the stairs in high heels and miscarried, or lost a wanted child in a car accident because they were driving a little too fast. If unborn children are citizens in your nation, then surely you make the would be mothers culpable for anything they might have done that would cause that citizen to die. This sort of thing really does turn women into nothing more than two legged incubators. This sort of attitude goes a long way to explaining the sexist paternalistic tones of your repeal.

Dorksonia

16-02-2006, 03:04

I feel sorry for the women in your nation filling up the jails because they tripped going down the stairs in high heels and miscarried, or lost a wanted child in a car accident because they were driving a little too fast. If unborn children are citizens in your nation, then surely you make the would be mothers culpable for anything they might have done that would cause that citizen to die. This sort of thing really does turn women into nothing more than two legged incubators. This sort of attitude goes a long way to explaining the sexist paternalistic tones of your repeal.

I am so glad you brought that up again aboutthe sexist tones of my repeal, because I remember reading that before and forgot to comment on that. We were making alot of progress towards understanding each other and you throw that out? Could you please cite which parts of my repeal were "sexist paternalistic" other than that they may have been views you disagree with? Because my wife sure couldn't understand where you were coming from.

Also, your comments on accidents that happen with pregnant women are hardly what I was commenting on when mentioning the rights of unborn children in our nation. There are many statutes on the books now protecting the unborn and they are quite complicated. For example, if a man were to punch a woman in the belly causing her to miscarry, that man would be held liable for the death of that child. I am told this is a common law in many nations. I am so sorry your view of pregnancy is calling women two legged incubators. My wife did take offense at that comment though. It may help me understand your attitudes toward pregnant women and unborn babies.

Dorksonia

16-02-2006, 03:16

Originally Posted by Snow Eaters
That can only be true if there is agreement on where "the line" is drawn for describing human life vs. potential life.

Alright, let ME ask a couple questions.

1. I've seen alot of verbal gymnastics in the midst of all these threads on abortion basically saying that while the unborn may be human, it's not a "person". The quote above referred to the unborn child as "potential life" (as if the baby were not alive). Can somebody give me a detailed description of the differences?

2. Does it bother any of you that abortion, as outlined in this bill, would be legal after the point where medical science has proven that the unborn child feels pain?

Waterana

16-02-2006, 04:35

I am so glad you brought that up again aboutthe sexist tones of my repeal, because I remember reading that before and forgot to comment on that. We were making alot of progress towards understanding each other and you throw that out? Could you please cite which parts of my repeal were "sexist paternalistic" other than that they may have been views you disagree with? Because my wife sure couldn't understand where you were coming from.
Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Dorksonia

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

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

PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs.

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

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

CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.
Their location is inside the body of a born, existing, living, breathing, intelligent, independant person, who seems to be playing second fiddle to the foetus here.

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.
The most insulting line of all. This paints women as stupid idiots who couldn't possbily be trusted to make a decision on abortion. I don't know about doctors in your nation, but in ours they give women information on the effects pre and post abortion, and encourage them to seek out more themselves. Just as they do for any surgical procedure. To hint that women can't make informed choices is just plain insulting to the intelligence of all women.

Also, your comments on accidents that happen with pregnant women are hardly what I was commenting on when mentioning the rights of unborn children in our nation. There are many statutes on the books now protecting the unborn and they are quite complicated. For example, if a man were to punch a woman in the belly causing her to miscarry, that man would be held liable for the death of that child. I am told this is a common law in many nations. I am so sorry your view of pregnancy is calling women two legged incubators. My wife did take offense at that comment though. It may help me understand your attitudes toward pregnant women and unborn babies.
Well done twisting what I said. I salute you.

You know full well that isn't my view of women at all, but is certainly the view you gave by the way you worded that paragraph. Not to mention what I have mentioned above.

Now I am done answering you. It is perfectly clear, in fact was from the start, that we won't find any common ground. Our views are just too different. All this sniping and snarling isn't achieving anything.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 04:51

Potential life doesn't matter.

If you read what I have said, you would find that for the sake of discussion I have never implied that potential life does matter.

What matters is the point at which potential life BECOMES human life.

As soon as a baby is born, it is a citizen, a human being on its own.

Clearly, that is where you decide to recognise a citizen, at birth.
Are you not aware that many others do not use the same criteria when assigning citizenship and rights?

The singular most maddening feature of these kinds of debates are those that discuss in some logical vacuum where it is assumed that everyone agrees on the supporting arguments so the only dissension can come from the dullards or devils.

If we all actually agreed with your decision to designate citizenship at birth, then this entire resolution would be superfluous.

Before that, it depends on the mother, is part of the mother's body. Whatever bodily functions may already work, it's still a part of the mother's body.

Regardless of the dependancy on the mother, it is never ever a "part of the mother's body". It is internal but that is entirely different than being a part of.

Unless, of course, unborn babies are considered normal citizens like born babies in your nation, in which case you might end up in an interesting legal situation if this resolution passes. If you're not regarding unborn babies the same as children in your nation, you're being very inconsequent.

Indeed, that would be inconsistent.
As inconsistent as allowing the termination of the life of a citizen to be the domain of personal choice on the part of the mother of said citizen.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 05:03

The access assurance was put into the proposal to ensure poor women have equal access to the procedure, and this doesn't become something only rich women can afford. Surely the well off women in your nation can pay for the operation themselves, they certainly do in mine.

Do you believe that you have a solid understanding of the views that oppose yours on this issue?

I ask because it doesn't appear to me that you do, but perhaps I simply have not seen enough of your work.

For those that believe that abortion is the taking of human life, that it is a denial of the basic human right that every citizen should enjoy, namely the right to life, how can you expect them to to be placated by saying you simply want to ensure that poor people are given the access to take lives just like the rich???

You don't have to agree with them, but surely you can see how disconnected the logic is that you're applying to them!

Waterana

16-02-2006, 05:05

Approvals: 125 (Yeldan UN Mission, Kalibara, Love and esterel, Xarvinia--Wurtemburg, Jellydom, Hou Mian, Great Britain---, Sephy Worshipers, Frangiskos, The Maddox Clan, Antrium, Firebert, Ni hon, Debaeremania, Saxist Saxons, Novo Sibirsk, Rejistania, Peace and Relaxation, Ferdinand Foch, Lady Qjira, Hadristan, Afzengard, Benfinan, Flamebaittrolls, Nevermoore, Elengwaith, The Flaming Fhqwhgads, Outer Cuffeovia, The Beltway, Arbitus, Spenardo, Ragbralbur, New Hamilton, Ilyich, Edgewood Dirk, Menchekia, Liberty United, Hajoui, Gaiah, PanzerOrta, Jonchastan, Frestonia, Intangelon, Elghinn, Olduran, La Sandra, Republic of Freedonia, Stufu, Randomplaceland, Omni-Palonie, Zutroy, The Great Commonwealth, Princely V-Block, Goreckiya, Maxovia, Mgd966, Darwinnaria, Onahere, Amy Arayra, Biotopia, Pamopolis, Borradung-Shamprang, Betelgeuse XII, Former English Colony, Zavyn, Neo Disneyland, Benthan, Tierra de la Luna, Gerbilmooses, Ronrovia, Nukingtons, Pastafariah, Silverbowia, Of Cascadia, Ascetic Order, Fredonistan, Priggdom, Left Wing Atheists, Erehwon Forest, Shanagolia, Devilizationists, Jesus Juice Bars, Blackened Evil, Quintessential piracy, Ecosia, Concordare, The Feather, Wortegem-Petegem, Kemmerich, HP Obsessors, Belarum, Communal Communists, Luggnagg, The Kessler, Darth Mall, Nikron, Dioxin, Kodou, Dragdon, Arapahoe Cove, Sinaasappel, Northcote, Ditulandia, Darpatia, Richard2008, Toodleedoo, Marxiston, Sugarman, Erythrophobia, Amishoria, Fidelity Theory, New Summania, Kyle Broflovski, Green Fuzzy Cows, Allentria, Greater Tiki, Sel Appa, Pothenium, Neo laputa, Dobbyniania, Pigdestroyer, Silly Jilly, Santa Matilda, Jamesburgh, Yissing Scalies)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

The Troubled Times of Kalibara has approved this proposal. [Withdraw Approval]

Thankyou to all the delegates above who supported this proposal.

and a very huge thanks to the two wonderful people who helped me with the TG campaign. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/Kyronia/482b1a40.gif.

Waterana

16-02-2006, 05:14

Do you believe that you have a solid understanding of the views that oppose yours on this issue?

I ask because it doesn't appear to me that you do, but perhaps I simply have not seen enough of your work.

For those that believe that abortion is the taking of human life, that it is a denial of the basic human right that every citizen should enjoy, namely the right to life, how can you expect them to to be placated by saying you simply want to ensure that poor people are given the access to take lives just like the rich???

You don't have to agree with them, but surely you can see how disconnected the logic is that you're applying to them!

I do understand their views, I just don't agree with them. If there was a way I could have assured poor women access without involving the government, and so tax money, at all, I would have included it.

To me this is a human rights issue for the woman, and human rights must be applied equally. To give rights to the rich, but deny them to the poor on the basis of money is wrong to me. Thats why this proposal seeks to give poor women equal access. Whether the government uses tax money for that or not is up to it.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 05:32

I do understand their views, I just don't agree with them. If there was a way I could have assured poor women access without involving the government, and so tax money, at all, I would have included it.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept your words at face value. You claim understanding with disagreement, but then you couple it with statements that fly in the face of any such understanding.

Perhaps you do understand and choose to not only disagree, but to also ignore that understanding?

Ceorana

16-02-2006, 05:52

I do understand their views, I just don't agree with them. If there was a way I could have assured poor women access without involving the government, and so tax money, at all, I would have included it.

To me this is a human rights issue for the woman, and human rights must be applied equally. To give rights to the rich, but deny them to the poor on the basis of money is wrong to me. Thats why this proposal seeks to give poor women equal access. Whether the government uses tax money for that or not is up to it.
That is a good statement. However, Ceorana is doubtful that it will fly well with many nations, or, in fact possibly, our own. You are not only forcing nations to allow abortion (which we agree is a right, although not necessarily a "basic human one"), but imposing your economic philosophy on nations. We will probably abstain from the vote on this issue, as we will not have a problem complying, but cannot in good conscience attempt to impose an economic philosophy on nations, even in a small regard, as a small regard is worse, in some senses, than a large regard, because it is a splinter in a nation; a fish swimming upstream; one economic philosophy going backwards from another when both are operating in the same state.

Waterana

16-02-2006, 05:55

This proposal is giving a human right to all women, the right of choice, and I believe equality in access is important. If that involves ignoring the feelings of those who disagree with me, then yes, I'll do just that.

Sometimes a hard choice has to be made, and this was one of those times. I would have loved to write a proposal that included everything I wanted it to, and everything everyone else wanted it to, but that is impossible. This proposal is pure pro-choice and has never pretended to be anything else.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 06:05

If that involves ignoring the feelings of those who disagree with me, then yes, I'll do just that.

Well, that's honesty at least.

But then why bother to include:
"Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion."

You continually tell those that hold opposing views that they are free to take the same position as you and exercise personal choice to not have an abortion when their convictions don't allow them to see this issue as personal choice anymore than you could accept the right to terminate the life of any sibling as personal choice.
That is a complete lack of understanding for the deep divisions.

Waterana

16-02-2006, 06:09

That is a good statement. However, Ceorana is doubtful that it will fly well with many nations, or, in fact possibly, our own. You are not only forcing nations to allow abortion (which we agree is a right, although not necessarily a "basic human one"), but imposing your economic philosophy on nations. We will probably abstain from the vote on this issue, as we will not have a problem complying, but cannot in good conscience attempt to impose an economic philosophy on nations, even in a small regard, as a small regard is worse, in some senses, than a large regard, because it is a splinter in a nation; a fish swimming upstream; one economic philosophy going backwards from another when both are operating in the same state.

Fair enough. I respect your position.

Waterana

16-02-2006, 06:24

Well, that's honesty at least.

But then why bother to include:
"Understanding the deep divisions and emotions surrounding the issue of clinical abortion."

You continually tell those that hold opposing views that they are free to take the same position as you and exercise personal choice to not have an abortion when their convictions don't allow them to see this issue as personal choice anymore than you could accept the right to terminate the life of any sibling as personal choice.
That is a complete lack of understanding for the deep divisions.

I don't know what you want me to say here. It is possible to see and understand the other side of such a devisive thing as abortion, but not agree with the views. Yes, I know there are people who strongly believe life starts at conception, that abortion is murder, that the foetus is not part of the womans body but its own seperate entity ect. I do understand all that, can accept without problems that some feel that way, and have no problems with anyone who believes that.

What I do have a problem with is when those people seek to impose those views on all women. Some have said this proposal is forcing one view on all nations, well that doesn't worry me. What does worry me is women being forced to bear children they don't want because someone else thinks abortion is wrong. In this case, I'd rather give the choice to all women to decide. Those who feel as above don't have to abort, those that don't feel that way can. The decision either way is no-one elses business.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 07:02

I don't know what you want me to say here.

Either admit that you are trampling on the views of others and forcing your views on them, or a retraction if you find that behaviour reprehensible.

If you believe that you have a moral obligation to force your views on others, that's your business, but I'm bothered by the hypocrisy.

What I do have a problem with is when those people seek to impose those views on all women. Some have said this proposal is forcing one view on all nations, well that doesn't worry me.

This is an almost perfect example of what I'm referring to.
My mind boggles that you openly admit that it bothers you that people seek to impose views on all, and in the very next sentence admit to doing the very thing that bothers you in others.

In this case, I'd rather give the choice to all women to decide. Those who feel as above don't have to abort, those that don't feel that way can. The decision either way is no-one elses business.

And here, you continue to offer something to those that disagree without recognising how ludicrous it is.
You're framing your statement from YOUR point of view. Allow me to say the VERY SAME thing, but I'll frame it from the opposing view and please tell me if any rational person could accept it:

In this case, I'd rather give the choice to murder to all women to decide. Those who feel as above don't have to murder anyone, those that don't feel that way can murder if they choose to. The decision to murder or not murder is no-one elses business

Waterana

16-02-2006, 07:56

This is getting stupid.

You have the right to your views, no matter how I feel about them, and I have the right to mine, no matter how you feel about them.

If you want to call me a hypocrite, go for it. I really don't care. The only way I could have this proposal reflect what the anti-abortionists feel is to be one myself and write this from their point of view, which would be banning abortion, recognising life from conception, and giving the foetus equal, or even superior rights to the woman it's inside of. I'm not and can't. That is the deepest divide in this issue, and I do recognise that. Of course I'm framing my response from my point of view. How else can I frame them?

I'm imposing my views on governments, not individuals, by telling them to get their noses out of the reproductive business of their female populations. Thats all.

Ardchoille

16-02-2006, 08:01

I expect it won't happen, but nonetheless I'd like a little discretion applied to the use of the word "murder" for the length of this debate.

Snow Eaters has made it clear that he's not paraphrasing Waterana's argument, but rather re-stating it from his point of view -- framing it the way he sees it. Fair enough.

Then he asks if any rational person could accept it. No. Not if the rational person believed that the word "abortion" was a synonym for "murder", and if the rational person lived in a place where murder was forbidden.

But many rational people do not accept that "abortion" is synonymous with "murder". Many rational people live in places where murder is forbidden but abortion is not. They have rational grounds for believing that abortion is not the same as murder. They argue on the basis of their experience.

For example, I'm Australian. Abortion is not murder in Australia's legal system. You may want it to be. So may many others within Australia. But not the majority, based on our laws.

Although our last election might give cause for thinking that the majority of Australians are not rational, I have to concede that, on the whole, most of my countrymen are relatively sane.

Perhaps a moratorium on the word "rational" would help keep this debate cooler, too, eh?

Menchekia

16-02-2006, 09:58

If you believe that you have a moral obligation to force your views on others, that's your business, but I'm bothered by the hypocrisy.

Forgive me if I sound like a smartass, because that's not my intention, but if the hypocrisy of forcing views on others truly bothers you, then why bother with the UN at all? That's pretty much what the UN does: passes law that effects all members even if you vote against it.....

Abortion, child labor laws, nuclear weapons.... Doesn't matter what the topic is, if more people approve than oppose it then you are brought into compliance with it even if you morally detest it.

Fonzoland

16-02-2006, 11:14

Either admit that you are trampling on the views of others and forcing your views on them, or a retraction if you find that behaviour reprehensible.

If you believe that you have a moral obligation to force your views on others, that's your business, but I'm bothered by the hypocrisy.

In every nation, some woman agree with you, some don't. Women who agree with you will naturally decide against abortion. In your nation, you wish to impose the view of those who agree with you on those who don't, and forbid them to act according to their own views. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Waterana is not forcing views on any person. She is forbidding governments from imposing their own views. That to me is a big difference.

James_xenoland

16-02-2006, 12:52

3 – While a member state may not refuse to allow a woman access to clinical abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it may, at its own discretion, request that doctors be allowed to take all necessary steps to deliver a viable foetus safely. The child shall receive all medical care it requires as a premature baby, and may then be placed for adoption if the woman who gave birth relinquishes, or the state removes the child from her custody. This clause does not apply to cases where such an operation would endanger the woman or in circumstances of deformities of the foetus.
So let me get this strait. Under this resolution. If a woman who was eight months and three weeks pregnant, walked into an abortion mill and wanted to kill her perfectly healthy, well past minimum viability, ready to be naturally born child... All the government can do is ask her not to kill it before it’s extracted, but she is well within her “right” to deny and there is nothing anybody can say or do about it?

This isn’t just a matter of difference of opinion about abortion, this is nothing less then legalized infanticide, not to mention ****ing sick beyond all words!

I’m sorry but I find the spirit and logic (or lack of) behind this resolution, in an extremely vile and sickening way, not only insulting but also offensive in its use of the term “human rights!”

I don’t see how anyone who truly believes in "human rights" could vote in any way but against it.

Waterana

16-02-2006, 13:13

So let me get this strait. Under this resolution. If a woman who was eight months and three weeks pregnant, walked into an abortion mill and wanted to kill her perfectly healthy, well past minimum viability, ready to be naturally born child... All the government can do is ask her not to kill it before it’s extracted, but she is well within her “right” to deny and there is nothing anybody can say or do about it?

This isn’t just a matter of difference of opinion about abortion, this is nothing less then legalized infanticide, not to mention ****ing sick beyond all words!

I’m sorry but I find the spirit and logic (or lack of) behind this resolution, in an extremely vile and sickening way, not only insulting but also offensive in its use of the term “human rights!”

I don’t see how anyone who truly believes in "human rights" could vote in any way but against it.

A bit melodramatic don't you think.

Please give me some factual statistics on exactly how many women go through a pregnacy till past the 8th month, then decide to abort on a whim. I'm interested in seeing some evidence it is happening at all, let alone a common occurance, as this arguement keeps getting thrown up so much in abortion debate threads, I can't help wondering if every second termination is a post 7 month partial birth abortion.

I had given the state the right to force the woman to allow a live birth in the original draft, but it was explained to me by others that late term abortions are rare, and almost always done for the sake of the mothers health or deformaties of the foetus. I can't imagine many doctors being willing to abort a child for no reason at that stage of the pregnacy either, and no, this proposal doesn't force doctors to paticipate in an abortion if they don't want to do it. The woman and her doctors are the best judges of what is right for her and her health. Giving the state control over her body at that stage could be dangerous to her health if it forces her to carry the child to term, or makes her go through with a live birth.

Do you honestly believe that a woman will go through 7 or 8 months of pregnacy, obviously wanting the child or she would have had it terminated early, then suddenly decide to kill it for no reason whatsoever?

Cluichstan

16-02-2006, 16:25

You are not only forcing nations to allow abortion (which we agree is a right, although not necessarily a "basic human one"), but imposing your economic philosophy on nations.

Yahtzee!

Dorksonia

16-02-2006, 17:26

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
I am so glad you brought that up again about the sexist tones of my repeal, because I remember reading that before and forgot to comment on that. We were making alot of progress towards understanding each other and you throw that out? Could you please cite which parts of my repeal were "sexist paternalistic" other than that they may have been views you disagree with? Because my wife sure couldn't understand where you were coming from.

Quote:
Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: Dorksonia

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

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

PRAISES the concern for women in crisis and with needs.

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

EMPHASIZES Resolution #61 does not limit abortion to "Women's health" during later trimesters, but allows a woman to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever (age, gender of the baby, etc.), for no reason whatsoever, without parental consent, without spousal consent, and at any any point up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy.
The permission question, especially the spousal.
Quote:
CONSIDERS the further medical technology of prenatal surgery deeming the unborn child as a "patient" and questions if abortion does not protect the rights of these individuals based on their location.

Their location is inside the body of a born, existing, living, breathing, intelligent, independant person, who seems to be playing second fiddle to the foetus here.

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.

The most insulting line of all. This paints women as stupid idiots who couldn't possbily be trusted to make a decision on abortion. I don't know about doctors in your nation, but in ours they give women information on the effects pre and post abortion, and encourage them to seek out more themselves. Just as they do for any surgical procedure. To hint that women can't make informed choices is just plain insulting to the intelligence of all women.

Quote:
Also, your comments on accidents that happen with pregnant women are hardly what I was commenting on when mentioning the rights of unborn children in our nation. There are many statutes on the books now protecting the unborn and they are quite complicated. For example, if a man were to punch a woman in the belly causing her to miscarry, that man would be held liable for the death of that child. I am told this is a common law in many nations. I am so sorry your view of pregnancy is calling women two legged incubators. My wife did take offense at that comment though. It may help me understand your attitudes toward pregnant women and unborn babies.

Well done twisting what I said. I salute you.

You know full well that isn't my view of women at all, but is certainly the view you gave by the way you worded that paragraph. Not to mention what I have mentioned above.

Now I am done answering you. It is perfectly clear, in fact was from the start, that we won't find any common ground. Our views are just too different. All this sniping and snarling isn't achieving anything.

1. Ok, you emphasize that the unborn child is a part of the mother's body. If that is so, why does it have a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it's own immune system? Why is it male about half of the time?

My position has never placed women second class to the unborn baby (I never use the word fetus as I generally try to use clear english when I'm writing - please don't take that as more than it is, you can say what you want, I just do not use latin phrases when a clearer more understood english one can be used instead). My nation has a law that a woman may have an abortion if her life is in clear danger. It only makes sense to us that being pro-life is being respectful of all life, but you are correct that I believe the unborn child's right to life is more important than the mother's "right to choose" to kill that child. In this case her right would infringe upon another's life.

So if that is a reason you used to classify my position as "sexist" - there's one misconception knocked away. We may simply disagree, but it's hardly fair to call my position sexist.

2. I'm afraid your bias has again colored your opinion of the repeal that passed. I would never suggest a woman is too stupid to make a decision. Instead, I am concerned that women are not being given the facts. This has been argued before and you either missed that or you are purposely trying to misrepresent my position. I will give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem like a nice person.

The point in the repeal you are referring to deals with the fact that in almost every nation I know EVERY surgical procedure details the risks to the patient before they undergo such a procedure. Unfortunately, politics has become more important than a woman's health by way too many and this is one of the only procedures I'm aware of where it is not required to tell a woman of the dangers of "safe and legal" abortion. There's obviously a problem with your understanding of this since cries were made of "back alley abortions" and "coat hanger abortions" and the statistics I cited earlier proved there was no difference between the number of maternal deaths and whether abortion was legal or illegal. All of the "back alley" abortionists just put their stores up front after abortion became legal and continued doing what they always did before. The hypocrisy is that those who claim they were concerned about women before are not concerned about women now about the dangers of abortion. They are either ignorant of the facts or purposely choose to mislead people in propagating misinformation about abortion.

My concern was that during the time abortion was legal and legal abortions were the law of the land in Nationstates upon all nations - women were being lied to about it being "safe and legal." They were not being given all the facts. Women should be alarmed by that - not by the fact I pointed it out.

Again, sexist claim misunderstanding #2 settled. I would think you would agree with me on this point.

3. I'm sorry. You are the one who twisted my words around about the laws in our land and I really didn't mean to twist your words around in return and did not realize I did that. If it's not your view that you see pregnant women as two-legged incubators, I am very pleased. Women are given a gift in childbirth and it's one of the special distinctions between womanhood and manhood. But do not take a misunderstanding then and refuse to acknowledge me for failing to understand my words (If it's a communication issue that would be on the fault of both of us. If I have not communicated clearly enough, I am trying to clarify more now.)

It is my opinion that your emotions are coloring the words you read and you are often taking offense at someone for things they do not even believe. Now abortion is a normally heated topic and I have been pleased that we've been able to discuss it in a mostly respectful manner here. We will make further progress by not jumping to conclusions and assuming things that are not true about each other. I will try to do that as well. I will work on asking you questions to clarify rather than responding directly to a disagreement on a point.

Unfortunately, the misunderstandings you have had led you to decide NOT to answer my other questions. In fact, nobody has. I will ask them again rather than assuming nobody is able to answer them:

Alright, let ME ask a couple questions.

1. I've seen alot of verbal gymnastics in the midst of all these threads on abortion basically saying that while the unborn may be human, it's not a "person". The quote above referred to the unborn child as "potential life" (as if the baby were not alive). Can somebody give me a detailed description of the differences?

2. Does it bother any of you that abortion, as outlined in this bill, would be legal after the point where medical science has proven that the unborn child feels pain?

Ecopoeia

16-02-2006, 17:36

St Edmund

16-02-2006, 17:36

Xanthal

16-02-2006, 17:54

After lengthy debate, it has been decided that the Socialist Republic will cast its vote in favor of the Abortion Legality Convention and oppose Clinical Abortion Rights, but, should Clinical Abortion Rights be passed, will yield to U.N. jurisdiction in this case.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

Dorksonia

16-02-2006, 18:01

OOC: Dorksonia, 'foetus' is standard English. It's the term used for an embryo from after the eighth week of development until birth. It is not unclear and, indeed, is the correct term to describe what we're discussing.

Straw man argument. I thought I made it clear that I don't care what you call it.

I did notice that you decided not to answer any of my real questions though. Maybe you are in the process of doing that? We are holding out hope for you on this.

Edited: Also, whereas we will continue to have fun discussing whatever else is brought up here, I cannot help but to state that this proposal will be illegal if the proposal that is before it that reached queue today is voted in favor. Believing that it will be voted favorably, we see the proposal this thread is based on as largely irrelevant.

Ecopoeia

16-02-2006, 18:04

Straw man argument. I thought I made it clear that I don't care what you call it.
Bollocks. I was specifically taking issue with one of your comments.

I did notice that you decided not to answer any of my real questions though. Maybe you are in the process of doing that? We are holding out hope for you on this.
Am I Waterana? No. Have I stated that I disagree with all of your contentions? No. Do you know how Ecopoeia will be voting? No.

Dorksonia

16-02-2006, 18:11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
Straw man argument. I thought I made it clear that I don't care what you call it.

Bollocks. I was specifically taking issue with one of your comments.

Alright :) Point taken.

Quote:
I did notice that you decided not to answer any of my real questions though. Maybe you are in the process of doing that? We are holding out hope for you on this.

Am I Waterana? No. Have I stated that I disagree with all of your contentions? No. Do you know how Ecopoeia will be voting? No.

You are right that I do not know your positions. However, the questions were not originally, nor above repeated directed soley at Waterana. They were addressed to anyone. I am learning that it is easy to assume things even when I'm trying not to.

Ecopoeia

16-02-2006, 18:14

Alright :) Point taken.

You are right that I do not know your positions. However, the questions were not originally, nor above repeated directed soley at Waterana. They were addressed to anyone. I am learning that it is easy to assume things even when I'm trying not to.
No probs - sorry about the 'bollocks' - intended to be fruity rather than aggressive language.

I'm kinda sick of the abortion discussions anyway (and I've been around long enough to experience a few), hence the lack of detail in my posts on the matter.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 22:03

You have the right to your views, no matter how I feel about them, and I have the right to mine, no matter how you feel about them.

Absolutely.

If you want to call me a hypocrite, go for it. I really don't care.

I don't actually want to call you a hypocrite, I'm hoping that you're in fact not hypocritical and had simply not considered where you were straying into that territory.

The only way I could have this proposal reflect what the anti-abortionists feel is to be one myself and write this from their point of view, which would be banning abortion, recognising life from conception, and giving the foetus equal, or even superior rights to the woman it's inside of. I'm not and can't. That is the deepest divide in this issue, and I do recognise that. Of course I'm framing my response from my point of view. How else can I frame them?

I don't fault you for any of that, I expect it.
But, you have repeatedly responded to concerns from opposing views that they can simply make a personal choice to not have an abortion.

That response completely ignores their concerns while sounding as if you feel it has addressed them somehow.

I'm imposing my views on governments, not individuals, by telling them to get their noses out of the reproductive business of their female populations. Thats all.

By imposing your views on governments, you ARE imposing them on the individuals those governements represent.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 22:14

Then he asks if any rational person could accept it. No. Not if the rational person believed that the word "abortion" was a synonym for "murder", and if the rational person lived in a place where murder was forbidden.

But many rational people do not accept that "abortion" is synonymous with "murder". Many rational people live in places where murder is forbidden but abortion is not. They have rational grounds for believing that abortion is not the same as murder. They argue on the basis of their experience.

Agreed, completely.
I'm not asking for anyone to accept that abortion = murder, I'm pointing out that for some it does equate. Asking them to accept that someone will declare their objections as inconsequential and to tell them to mind their own business isn't a logical stand to take.

Fonzoland

16-02-2006, 22:26

No probs - sorry about the 'bollocks' - intended to be fruity rather than aggressive language.

Bollocks are fruity? Interesting... :p

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 22:29

Forgive me if I sound like a smartass, because that's not my intention, but if the hypocrisy of forcing views on others truly bothers you, then why bother with the UN at all? That's pretty much what the UN does: passes law that effects all members even if you vote against it.....

Abortion, child labor laws, nuclear weapons.... Doesn't matter what the topic is, if more people approve than oppose it then you are brought into compliance with it even if you morally detest it.

Good point.

To be clear, it is the hypocrisy more than the forcing of views on others that bothers me.
If it is accepted that it is fine to force one's views on others, then whomever can either make the most compelling argument or muster the most strength will succeed in enforcing their views.
The issue I had with Waterana was the juxtaposition of stating outrage that someone would enforce their views with the response that Waterana enforce different views.

My own view is that the U.N. should avoid issues where it is plainly just one valid point of view opposed to another valid point of view and deal with issues where there is plainly a position of greater good.

Saint 0wn4g3

16-02-2006, 22:59

1 Member states shall not restrict the right of a woman to control her own reproduction and fertility, unless she is suffering from a diagnosed and internationally recognised mental disease or defect and has been legally deemed incapable of giving informed consent. In such cases, informed consent may be given by her legal guardian or advocate and such consent shall be accepted by the state.

I know it says the stuff about having a mental disease, but would being a minor count as being incapable of giving informed consent? This might have been brought up earlier, I just thought I'd point a small, er, flaw, if you will.

Snow Eaters

16-02-2006, 23:11

In every nation, some woman agree with you, some don't. Women who agree with you will naturally decide against abortion. In your nation, you wish to impose the view of those who agree with you on those who don't, and forbid them to act according to their own views. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Very true.
In reality, I haven't decided how I wish to deal with abortion in my own country. I believe it to be more complex than most want to boil it down to.

But, at whatever point of development I believe "human life" begins, I have no problem forbidding others from committing what I would believe to be murder.
If one believes someone is being murdered, I believe one needs to do something about it.

Windurst1

17-02-2006, 08:14

Xanthal

17-02-2006, 08:27

While this resolution may have gotten into the Queue it is right behind another one in the queue called Abortion Legality Convention. If Abortion Legality Convention is passed which will give the governments full contorl over Abortion this resolution will most liekly be droped cuse it will go agaist a passed one. this is indeed funny. 2 laws with oppsing ideas one saying the nation has control while one states it doesn't.
It's only natural that, with the old resolution gone, the two largest factions would submit replacement proposals in an attempt to safeguard their beliefs/policies in U.N. law. While the Abortion Legality Convention may have an advantage due to its place in the queue, I think it's a good thing that both individual sovereigntists and national sovereigntists can feel as if they have an honest option on the table besides simply rejecting a proposal they don't agree with. While I and Xanthal both have a disliking for resolutions that do nothing but affirm state rights, which exist in the presence or absence of such a resolution, in this instance I believe feelings on both sides are strong enough that Abortion Legality Convention is an important alternative to Clinical Abortion Rights, in the sense that the United Nations can be decisive on either position and in so doing lend a degree of stability to international law on the matter.

Ecopoeia

17-02-2006, 12:51

Bollocks are fruity? Interesting... :p
They appear to be in my world... oh, dear. See, this is why I shouldn't be allowed to post OOC. I only dig myself big holes.

Gruenberg

18-02-2006, 14:05

Having now returned to my office, I would like to shake the Wateranan delegate's hand, and wish her luck. May the best proposal win.

Groot Gouda

18-02-2006, 16:25

Having now returned to my office, I would like to shake the Wateranan delegate's hand, and wish her luck. May the best proposal win.

Ah great, you support Clinical Abortion Rights too? :)

Gruenberg

18-02-2006, 16:29

Ah great, you support Clinical Abortion Rights too?
No, I'd prefer the ALC to pass, because it will allow me to execute abortionists, flog (in public) and then execute women accused of having abortions, and generally reclaim state ownership over our people's bodies, as it should be.

Fonzoland

18-02-2006, 18:28

No, I'd prefer the ALC to pass, because it will allow me to execute abortionists, flog (in public) and then execute women accused of having abortions, and generally reclaim state ownership over our people's bodies, as it should be.

Uh? :confused:

But but but you said something about the best proposal winning...

[/gratuitous provocation] :p

Groot Gouda

19-02-2006, 13:27

No, I'd prefer the ALC to pass, because it will allow me to execute abortionists, flog (in public) and then execute women accused of having abortions, and generally reclaim state ownership over our people's bodies, as it should be.

You do realise that if that's your belief, than your body belongs to the UN?

*gets the thumbscrews out* :p

Gruenberg

19-02-2006, 14:02

You do realise that if that's your belief, than your body belongs to the UN?

*gets the thumbscrews out*
The UN isn't a state. The UN isn't a government. The UN is an organization, my nation's affiliation to which is eminently flexible.

Groot Gouda

19-02-2006, 14:55

The UN in its current form is a government. It makes laws which you have to follow as a member.

Gruenberg

19-02-2006, 15:02

The UN in its current form is a government. It makes laws which you have to follow as a member.
That's a perplexing logic. If you define a government simply as something that sets laws that must be followed, then I fail to see how when I go on a roller coaster, and am instructed to keep my arms inside the carriage, the fairground operators are not a government. A government is obviously much more than that: the UN, for example, does not hold a monopoly on the use of force. And it is little good as a government when we clearly can choose whether to follow it or not. Ooh, I've resigned, bye! Oh, I've chosen to come back. See?

The Cat-Tribe

20-02-2006, 13:09

That's a perplexing logic. If you define a government simply as something that sets laws that must be followed, then I fail to see how when I go on a roller coaster, and am instructed to keep my arms inside the carriage, the fairground operators are not a government. A government is obviously much more than that: the UN, for example, does not hold a monopoly on the use of force. And it is little good as a government when we clearly can choose whether to follow it or not. Ooh, I've resigned, bye! Oh, I've chosen to come back. See?

Neither the UN nor any nation has a monopoly on the use of force.

And citizens can come and go from nations. Does that make the governments nonexistent?

Your totalitarian view of nation governing only fits with your NatSov philosophy out of convenience -- not out of any actual consistency.

Gruenberg

20-02-2006, 14:15

Your totalitarian view of nation governing only fits with your NatSov philosophy out of convenience -- not out of any actual consistency.
Would you expect anything else? You're saying I should define a government by concepts I don't acknowledge?

Groot Gouda

20-02-2006, 16:47

That's a perplexing logic. If you define a government simply as something that sets laws that must be followed, then I fail to see how when I go on a roller coaster, and am instructed to keep my arms inside the carriage, the fairground operators are not a government.

That is because that's not a law. The UN is different: its laws are made into laws down a level, by nations.

A government is obviously much more than that: the UN, for example, does not hold a monopoly on the use of force. And it is little good as a government when we clearly can choose whether to follow it or not. Ooh, I've resigned, bye! Oh, I've chosen to come back. See?

Yes, just as citizens can leave a country if they don't like their laws.

Golgothastan

20-02-2006, 21:14

Seeing as Golgothastan is not that active, I'm a bit out of the loop. What's the campaigning status on this? I'm TGing the ALC endorsers to see if they'll drop their approvals, but I think losing eighty is, at this stage, a pipe dream. Do we have people in the Feeder regions who can try to win over votes against the ALC and for this? Do we have a draft repeal of ACL, just in case?

Tzorsland

21-02-2006, 00:11

The UN isn't a state. The UN isn't a government. The UN is an organization, my nation's affiliation to which is eminently flexible.

Of course the UN is a state ... the state of insanity!

Of course the UN is a government ... we have over two dozen floors of breucrats who will instantly write binding laws for your nation the moment a resolution passes.

On the other hand, I have not seen a single bit of "organizing" that would imply that the UN is an "organization." It is simply un-organized, hence the name UN. (In fact my advisors often call anything organized by the UN "UN-organized.")

(Hmmm I wonder if a resolution requiring manditory blood donations from the UN deligates would be legal. :cool: )

Cluichstan

21-02-2006, 00:35

Golgothastan

21-02-2006, 00:37

Yeah, good luck with that.
Thank you very much! :) Would you be able to help?

Cluichstan

21-02-2006, 00:44

Thank you very much! :) Would you be able to help?

Glad you can recognise sarcasm.

Golgothastan

21-02-2006, 00:47

Glad you can recognise sarcasm.
I know who you are. I was just trying to not let your tone drag down the thread. Obviously, that was a false hope.

Oh well. If I didn't have anything constructive, positive or negative, to say, I probably wouldn't post.

Cluichstan

21-02-2006, 00:50

I know who you are. I was just trying to not let your tone drag down the thread. Obviously, that was a false hope.

Oh well. If I didn't have anything constructive, positive or negative, to say, I probably wouldn't post.

Ah, it seems my reputation precedes me... *smirks*

The Most Glorious Hack

21-02-2006, 06:45

I'm TGing the ALC endorsers to see if they'll drop their approvals, but I think losing eighty is, at this stage, a pipe dream.Even if you manage 80, it might not matter. Granted, this type of experiment has never been done, but I don't know if Proposals leave queue once they're in it.

Cobdenia

21-02-2006, 14:31

Even if you manage 80, it might not matter. Granted, this type of experiment has never been done, but I don't know if Proposals leave queue once they're in it.

I also think it's rather unsporting...

Golgothastan

21-02-2006, 14:33

I also think it's rather unsporting...
Nothing to stop you TGing Clinical Abortion Rights approvers.

And I know it may not knock it out of queue anyway, but it's worth a try. So far, I've had one positive response, 8 "fuck offs" and a whole lot of silence. I don't think you need be worried yet.

Cobdenia

21-02-2006, 14:35

Nothing to stop you TGing Clinical Abortion Rights approvers.

Yes there is, my sporting nature.

Golgothastan

21-02-2006, 14:37

Yes there is, my sporting nature.
Haha. :)
Ok, well sorry. I'm sure my cricket team will disown me for this.

Fonzoland

21-02-2006, 15:26

Haha. :)
Ok, well sorry. I'm sure my cricket team will disown me for this.

Hmmm, I would see that as an added bonus. ;)

*refrains from anti-cricket rant*

James_xenoland

21-02-2006, 16:01

Nothing to stop you TGing Clinical Abortion Rights approvers.

And I know it may not knock it out of queue anyway, but it's worth a try. So far, I've had one positive response, 8 "fuck offs" and a whole lot of silence. I don't think you need be worried yet.Oh yay!
*goes to send 9th fuckoff reply*

;)

I don't really think that would work anyway, I found that most people don't like getting PMs asking them not to vote for things.

Waterana

09-03-2006, 08:33

Just logged into Kalibara and found a TG from the mods confirming the deletion of this proposal out of the queue, but which very nicely included a copy of those who had endorsed it (thank you whichever mod that was :)).

Approvals: 235 (Yeldan UN Mission, Love and esterel, Xarvinia--Wurtemburg, Jellydom, Hou Mian, Great Britain---, Sephy Worshipers, Frangiskos, The Maddox Clan, Antrium, Firebert, Debaeremania, Saxist Saxons, Novo Sibirsk, Rejistania, Peace and Relaxation, Ferdinand Foch, Lady Qjira, Hadristan, Benfinan, Flamebaittrolls, Nevermoore, Elengwaith, The Flaming Fhqwhgads, Outer Cuffeovia, The Beltway, Arbitus, Spenardo, Ragbralbur, New Hamilton, Ilyich, Edgewood Dirk, Menchekia, Hajoui, Gaiah, Jonchastan, Frestonia, Elghinn, Olduran, La Sandra, Republic of Freedonia, Stufu, Randomplaceland, Omni-Palonie, Zutroy, Princely V-Block, Goreckiya, Maxovia, Mgd966, Darwinnaria, Biotopia, Pamopolis, Borradung-Shamprang, Betelgeuse XII, Zavyn, Neo Disneyland, Benthan, Tierra de la Luna, Ronrovia, Nukingtons, Silverbowia, Of Cascadia, Ascetic Order, Fredonistan, Left Wing Atheists, Erehwon Forest, Shanagolia, Devilizationists, Jesus Juice Bars, Quintessential piracy, Ecosia, Concordare, The Feather, Wortegem-Petegem, HP Obsessors, Belarum, Communal Communists, Luggnagg, The Kessler, Darth Mall, Dioxin, Kodou, Dragdon, Arapahoe Cove, Sinaasappel, Northcote, Ditulandia, Darpatia, Richard2008, Marxiston, Sugarman, Erythrophobia, Fidelity Theory, New Summania, Green Fuzzy Cows, Greater Tiki, Sel Appa, Neo laputa, Dobbyniania, Pigdestroyer, Silly Jilly, Santa Matilda, Jamesburgh, Yissing Scalies, Usagi Cookies, Barca mi vala, Cobainistic Freedom, The real DragonFyre, Ravaged Cabbages, Dubya 1000, Xenious, Calabran, Oiseaux Rochers, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Mihkrit, Klompen, Delibird, Davane, Joopiter, Nominee, Baron Murat, Manical Mongeese, Neostoria, Chelucia, Elvish Viking Warlords, Kswissbob, Dragon Reborn Tech, No endorse, Viprota, Werebobs, Flanagania, 07LauAH, Eve the First, Guidology, Wolfhawk, Kezzamier, Judaxanmo, Tau Ceta, QuantumSoft, Yepd, Ville Marie, Trajasistan, Taoziland, Forgottenlands UN, Panaxia, Desert Storm Iraq, Tiber City, Emirtonvilley, Parma veritas, Rnew russian exiles, CrettiuS, Gnagnerosa, Trutonia, Antonyism, Psychotic Nekos, BenDaFatMan, Bane Maul, Marxist Rhetoric, Bordoria, New Zimbabwe, The Rising Ghetto, Be-To, Tatarica, Dansimo, Petisolandia, Nick-land, Nag Ehgoeg, Klashonite, Moroboshi, Cormyriana, Curldom, Hedonisia, Tycartau, Capitalist Fiefdoms, Tehmri, Elympium, The Black New World, Apoptygma Berzerk, Stenburg, Egalitarians, West-Bestonia, Mary jane69, Solowvia, Delta48, Equal Distributionists, Aztec National League, Montana Rojo, Deadparrotts, Arendias, Tannu Tuval, Czechotova, The Sages of the Grove, Lugdunuma, Logsta, Griffen Claw, Anubissokar, Guestistan, Nelvaan, The Belima, Kevin Island, Moshava, Classic Liberalism, The Weebl, Brookium, Hestrael, Sushi Shovelers, Amiele, Morlon, German korea, Alfarnia, Sugar Shane, Zaibatsu0, Brausi-mausi, Athens and Midlands, Rammstein the Land, Jyotika Hakan, Reasonable Prudence, Feever, Greenpeoples, IWork, Gaelen, Baiel, Traffic Lights 2, Listeneisse, Alconbury II, Ritonas, Drago Isles, Atlanas Fort, Phtshp, Capia, Marton Mar, FF Representative, Deselles, Legendary Rock Stars, Zanem)

Thanks for the support to all of you :).

Gruenberg

09-03-2006, 08:39

For the record, my apologies this 'ended'* with the deletion of your proposal. I do hope you weren't warned for it.

*We'll see.

Cobdenia

09-03-2006, 08:39

Well Waterana, and I say this as an ALC man myself, you put up a good shew.

Now, can we put all this abortion business behind and discuss important things, like UNSEAWORTHY and Dr Beeching...

Waterana

09-03-2006, 08:44

For the record, my apologies this 'ended'* with the deletion of your proposal. I do hope you weren't warned for it.

*We'll see.

No, no warning. It was completly legal when I submitted it. Just bad luck of the draw that Kenny was faster getting that other thing in first :p.

Prima Philosophi

25-05-2006, 01:04

I agree with most of your proposal.

I think abortion should be affordable and readily available.
I agree that the state should have no say in the decision of whether to have an abortion.

I do have a problem with the following:

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

First the statement seems to assume that a woman seeking an abortion will be agreeable with that abortion becoming a child.

If a woman chooses to abort a foetus which the state then decides to keep, how is this any different than making abortion illegal or unavailable?

If the intention of abortion is to avoid having a child, the government cannot then decide to make her a mother anyway by refusing to abort the foetus.

Even if the government makes attempts to protect the birth mother from future liability the fact is that recent court rulings have held anonymous sperm donors financially responsible for children resulting from artificial insemination. In fact, making that formerly anonymous donor a 'father'. Similar circumstances may occur to the 'mother' of a government-born child.

Who defines what is meant by 'viable' and 'all necessary steps' in regards to the foetus?

Where would the government stand if biological tissue from the 'birth mother' was required to achieve this goal?
Would the recipient of a forced birth then be required to assist in the health care of the foetus? Would the state make it mandatory? Would a woman desiring an abortion instead end up being required to undergo medical treatment or provide tissue, bone or blood in order to maintain an unwanted foetus?

Having an intended abortion become an unwanted child creates legal issues on many levels. Not to mention the personal and psychological effects to both birth mother and resulting child.

If a woman is truely in control of whether or not she has an abortion then an abortion must be performed no matter what the state of the foetus.

Respectfully
Prima Philosophi

Forgottenlands

25-05-2006, 01:19

This is, to my understanding, an abandoned project.

Waterana

25-05-2006, 01:23

Oh boy, did you really have to gravedig this mess? :p

First, I'll just say this proposal is a dead idea. Even if the current blocker abortion resolution is repealed, this one won't be resubmitted, especially as written.

The clause you are talking about was actually written as a bone for those that violently oppose late term abortion. Personally, I don't think a foetus is a person with rights until it is born, so do agree with abortion on demand at any stage of the pregnacy. Having said that though, late term abortions are rare, and 99% of them are because of danger to the mothers life, or gross deformaties of the foetus.

I could have written that better, I agree. It is supposed to be putting across that the state can request, not demand, that the doctors be allowed by the woman, with her permission, to attempt to deliver any late term foetus alive.

Zeldon 6229 Nodlez

25-05-2006, 02:06

5 – The state may at its own discretion, offer education sessions to all pregnant women. It may not at any stage of the pregnancy force women to attend such sessions. Information given must be factual, balanced, and presented without bias. If offered, the sessions must include, though not be solely limited to, all aspects of contraception, pregnancy, birth, adoption and clinical abortion. This would be my biggest concern here in that you say 'It may not at any stage of the pregnancy force women to attend such a session'.. I see the loophole in that we can First require all to attend sex classes or afterward reguire them to attend one; as an effort to avoid repeated problems of the woman coming back again and again for an abortion or having children she in no way can keep. But we feel that somebody will say post pregancy is a stage of the actual pregnancy and you can't force them even then. Also we didn't notice anything that makes the males pay for playing here as we feel they are as much a part of this as the female is. Thus when it comes to paying for needed medical care of the child under the care of the state then the player pays.

Waterana

25-05-2006, 02:13

This proposal is dead, please let it rest in peace :).

I really don't want to get into arguements on this subject again, especially concerning this paticular proposal. It caused enough bad feeling last time.

Sophista

25-05-2006, 02:52

No, no, no! A thousand times no!

Is there something in the water around here that makes people drag out their personal beliefs and opinions and wave them around here like a drunk waves their naughty bits. How can a group of people allegedly possessing intelligence sit back and justify the complete sidelining of a nation's ability to make decisions who's consequences remain explicitly within their own borders?

Yes. I understand. You think it's icky, or horrible, or wrong, or barbaric, or whatever particular adjective you get a big rubbery one for a the moment. What you've apparently forgotten is that there isn't a single one of us that has the right to claim moral superiorty over the other. Nations exist to define groups of people, to seperate this group from that group and let analogous people associate. Part of those definitions are their beliefs: their moral beliefs, and no matter how much you jump up and down, nothing you say or do can justify your action.

This resolution not only mandates that all nations allow clinical abortion, but demands that said nation also pay for those who cannot afford it! Are you actually aiming to deliver a swift kick to the bollocks of people with different beliefs than you, or is this just an unfortunate side effect of allowing you to fall into the sad, sad situation of assuming you know what is best for everyone?

Now, I don't want to hear a single person stand up and claim that I don't care about a woman's right to choose, or that I'm some crazy misogynist. I happen to support the reproductive freedom of both men and women, but I know bloody damn well that not everyone out there is like me, and I respect their positions as nations - and equals - in this assembly.

For the love of God . . . .

NationStates Jolt Archive

Clinical Abortion Rights