NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who wish to decide the abortion issue for themselves, there is this proposal behind which to throw support.

Abortion Legality Convention
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny2

Description: The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, that no one may be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment,

RECOGNISING that both scientific and moral opinion remains, and is likely to remain, irreparably divided over the issue of at what stage human life begins,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many societies within the NSUN that would consider a fetus, and especially a developed fetus in the third trimester, to possess human characteristics and be deserving of special protection, whilst others would not,

REGRETTING that such divisions render global resolution over abortion unlikely,

SEEKING to establish a fair compromise:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

2. RECOMMENDS that in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or where the continuation of the pregnancy poses severe medical risk to the mother, states permit abortion procedures;

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

4. CALLS FOR increased international research in fetal development, so as to develop greater understanding of the ramifications of abortion;

5. REMINDS states that in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities.

Authored by Gruenberg

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is severly disappointed about this resolution. By valueing national governments more than the freedom of citizens, even more concerned with national sovereignity than raped and abused women (DECLARES vs RECOMMENDS), this resolution degrades the UN into a toothless organisation.

I strongly urge all delegates to approve the far better "Clinical Abortion Rights" resolution, which gives freedom to the UN citizens without forcing a view or ideology on those citizens.

It's really sad to see national sovereignity go from something usefull and constructive when drafting resolutions (finding the right way of implenting something in a practical way that's best for the people, without wasting money on a solution on a high level or too micromanaging) to a more fundamentalist group who will insist on the national government as the perfect solution for everything, even if you know this will be abused by dictatorial regimes at the cost of freedom of the people.

As opposed to a dictatorial UN, right? :rolleyes:

at least a dictorial UN is democratic - resolutions are voted on.

you might not like the voting results, but at least there is a vote.

Besides, a UN which dictated would be to forbid outright, giving someone permission to do something does not stop them from choosing not to do it. If we left it to member states, they can forbid outright, thus affecting the civil liberties of the individual.

Dictatorship is not just forbidding things. Also, you claim the UN to be democratic, but who elected you to represent Hirota? I, for one, was appointed by Foreign Minister Sheik Retep bin Cluich.

Dictatorship is not just forbidding things.If a dictatorship permitted everything, then what would they be doing. A dictatorship tells their populace what to do without consultation from the populace.Also, you claim the UN to be democratic,It is, because the populace (member states) are consulted. but who elected you to represent Hirota?I was not elected by the masses, I was appointed by my government (who went through an elective process amongst available candidates for my position) - in that respect I am a civil servant, and perhaps not a true member of the government - although politics is something I will be considering entering in the next election, especially given job security in the civil service is not what it once was. We civil servants are a dying breed in Hirota - I do wonder if the foreign office will be outsourced to private contractors in the future.I, for one, was appointed by Foreign Minister Sheik Retep bin Cluich.Give me regards to the good sheik, but ask him next time to appoint someone with a bit more eloquence ;) :D

personally i believe that everyone should have a choice to abort or not, its their life, and if pregnancy causes a bit problem for them, whether it be because they were raped, or nmedical reasons or simply because their family wouldnt approve as she doesn't know who the father was.

im very liberal, so i think that people should have the right to choose what they do with their lives.

If a dictatorship permitted everything, then what would they be doing. A dictatorship tells their populace what to do without consultation from the populace.

Precisely my point. A dictatorship tells its people what to do and what not to do. It's not just forbidding them from doing things.

It is, because the populace (member states) are consulted.I was not elected by the masses, I was appointed by my government (who went through an elective process amongst available candidates for my position) - in that respect I am a civil servant, and perhaps not a true member of the government - although politics is something I will be considering entering in the next election, especially given job security in the civil service is not what it once was. We civil servants are a dying breed in Hirota - I do wonder if the foreign office will be outsourced to private contractors in the future.

Not all nations elect their governments.

]Give me regards to the good sheik, but ask him next time to appoint someone with a bit more eloquence ;) :D

Your (very) thinly veiled personal attacks are unnecessary.

Your (very) thinly veiled personal attacks are unnecessary.OOC: I hope my point has been made - not many people appreciate being attacked. It’s not just you(I’ve noticed many nations can be guilty of being a tad insensitive, including myself) but you do have a tendency to employ borderline flames when someone disagrees with you, so when you started doing them on a subject close to my heart, it provided an opportunity to point them out.

I wouldn’t do it ordinarily (especially to a fellow nation who I genuinely respect), but you actually started employing them against my comments, so I thought it would be nice for you to see how irritating and unconstructive they can be sometimes.

Now then….
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/hug3fw.jpg

OOC: Oh, Hirota! :fluffle: :p

EDIT: Incidentally, history has been made with this post, as it marks my first ever use of the fluffle smiley. :D

Bump!

UN delegates, approve this bill. It appears that if the alternative bill gets through first, then we must be subjected to their moralistic supremacy view of abortion being mandated in every nation whether we agree with it or not and even paying for them if a woman can't afford to pay for it herself.

Regardless of the wording of this bill, some of which I'm not extremely excited about, all it does is make abortion a national sovereignty issue instead of one's views of abortion imposed on everyone else and causing deep divisions within the UN.

We believe that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" groups can both be happy and tolerate this bill. Unfortunately, the extremist bill competing with it will only cause abortion to be a topic every day here from now on. There is no way that nations who disagree with abortion are going to tolerate it being mandated on them and yet they have to pay the bill as well.

Pass this bill and we will not have to hear about abortion anymore in the UN.

Pass this bill and we will not have to hear about abortion anymore in the UN.
Or we won't have to hear about it until someone tries to repeal it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yes, but repealing it would actually not do anything. It would add another barrier of protection for harmony of UN nations in Nationstates.

I know a statement of not talking about abortion ever again is a bit optimistic. But at least it would secure a position of neutrality for awhile.

This proposal is exactly what is needed and as I have said, has the full support of Wyldtree. This is a matter that should definetely be left to individual nations to decide. This talk of letting the UN decide what's best for every culture on an issue as open to interpretation as abortion is frightening to me. Just because the majority of the UN might decide abortion is right, doesn't mean the majority of my people would think the same.

Whether agreed upon or not, many do consider abortion as an act of murder. Saying that a culture who's majority thinks that way should allow murder to happen within their borders is ludicrous. If the majority of my nation feels it is an act of murder than the laws created should be respected. I implore representatives to let government's decide what's best for their unique cultures. I'm all for individual rights being protected, but they are protected under laws made by our government and Wyldtree's majority has decided that the developing child is one life that should be protected. You have to understand that both sides believe they are protecting individual rights whether you agree or not. Just in some cases it's protecting the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

You don't have to agree and I don't expect everyone to. We've already treaded this ground and no one is going to change anyone's mind on such deeply held beliefs. That is exactly why it should be left to nations. The pushing of prochoice and prolife resolutions will never end but at least this offers a fair compromise on the books. You decide what is best for your people as their government. "Individual sovereignity" in my eyes is not appropriate when the issue could possibly mean the end of a life. I urge everyone not to change their beliefs but to try to understand others and support this resolution.

Aberteifi concurs with the Right Honourable delegation from Wyldtree on all counts. The reality of the situation is that the Abortion debate is too unwieldy (and far too weighted down by cultural, social, and religious beliefs), to legislate efficently or practically through an international body to cater to the vested intrests of all parties.

We'll not get into yet another pro-life nor pro-choice debate. The current counter-proposals offer nothing of moderation. Indeed,they seek to inflict radical legislation too far to either degree.

We realise that this proposal is far from perfect, and will not make everyone happy (radical liberals and reactionary conservatives [we ourselves abhor abortion]), it is however by far more palatable to accomodation, thus our whole hearted support for its inception.

S.R.T. Jones
Magister Populi

UN delegates, approve this bill. It appears that if the alternative bill gets through first, then we must be subjected to their moralistic supremacy view of abortion being mandated in every nation

You are misrepresenting things. The better resolution gives freedom to the people to choose; it does not mandate abortion. It's be a rather emty UN if it did in a few decades.

You are misrepresenting things. The better resolution gives freedom to the people to choose; it does not mandate abortion. It's be a rather emty UN if it did in a few decades.

Lol! Fair enough. I see where you're coming from. I meant the view of abortion being legal mandated in member nations, not "forced abortions." Now I admitted my mistake, you can admit yours suggesting Waterana's proposal is "The better resolution." lol.

Now I admitted my mistake, you can admit yours suggesting Waterana's proposal is "The better resolution." lol.

:p I'm right and you know I am ;)

There's absolutely no way I can support this. Take a look at how they recommend abortion when the fetus is abnormally developing. Then take a look at Stephen Hawking.

I'm taking into account that this could also mean its genetics, in which case there is no way I could throw my weight behind this unless the abortions for abnormally developing children were taken out, or it were better defined in some way that the fetus would have no chance of survival after birth. :)

There's absolutely no way I can support this. Take a look at how they recommend abortion when the fetus is abnormally developing. Then take a look at Stephen Hawking.

I'm taking into account that this could also mean its genetics, in which case there is no way I could throw my weight behind this unless the abortions for abnormally developing children were taken out, or it were better defined in some way that the fetus would have no chance of survival after birth. :)
First off I'm not saying that I agree or don't agree with you. But if this doesn't make it through (pass both votes) then there's a really REALLY good chance that we'll get this crap (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468132) in its place. Then nobody wins.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468132 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468132)

The following clause is a deal-breaker for my nation:

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;
I understand that the Wateranan resolution is unacceptable to anti-abortionists for a number of reasons - well, this is the same from the other perspective. It establishes as UN opinion that IDX is to be frowned on. Too strong for my linking and therefore no support.

I'll note for transparency here that there is some dissent in the Ecopoeian ranks... I favour the Wateranan resolution, but my Deputy does not (neither, as it happens, does my predecessor).

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

The way I see it, it is a case not of natsov vs indsov, but of indsov vs indsov which could only be resolve by national governments.

Which is more important, the right of an individual to have an abortion, or the right of a foetus not to be killed? It's human rights vs. human rights. The UN should not rule one argument better then the other.

The way I see it, it is a case not of natsov vs indsov, but of indsov vs indsov which could only be resolve by national governments.

Which is more important, the right of an individual to have an abortion, or the right of a foetus not to be killed? It's human rights vs. human rights. The UN should not rule one argument better then the other.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich stands and applauds.

I would be very grateful if a proponent of the bill would offer a justification for the inclusion of article 3.

LC

The way I see it, it is a case not of natsov vs indsov, but of indsov vs indsov which could only be resolve by national governments.

Wrong. It can only be resolved by the people.

Which is more important, the right of an individual to have an abortion, or the right of a foetus not to be killed? It's human rights vs. human rights. The UN should not rule one argument better then the other.

It doesn't. It allows people to have an abortion, but it is those people that have to make a choice. Following your reasoning, a national government shouldn't rule one argument better than the other either. It's a personal decision. The tyranny of the majority shouldn't rule on personal freedoms.

This proposal is an excellent alternative to the far more divisive and dare I say even oppressive resolution sponsored by our colleagues in Waterana.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

This proposal is an excellent alternative to the far more divisive and dare I say even oppressive resolution sponsored by our colleagues in Waterana.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Pray tell who specifically is oppressed. (If you answer the fetus I will shoot myself.)

This proposal is an excellent alternative to the far more divisive and dare I say even oppressive resolution sponsored by our colleagues in Waterana.

This proposal is far worse than the freedom of choice resolution by Waterana. That resolution grants freedom to every woman living in a UN nation. This resolution is openly supporting oppression and limiting choice. It will limit freedom, limit choice, limit happiness. And all those supporting this resolution will be responsible for the oppression that will be supported by this resolution. The UN shouldn't be about oppression, it should give a choice to people. That's not what this resolution does, and that's why it should not be supported.

This proposal is far worse than the freedom of choice resolution by Waterana. That resolution grants freedom to every woman living in a UN nation. This resolution is openly supporting oppression and limiting choice. It will limit freedom, limit choice, limit happiness. And all those supporting this resolution will be responsible for the oppression that will be supported by this resolution. The UN shouldn't be about oppression, it should give a choice to people. That's not what this resolution does, and that's why it should not be supported.

I like how you bandy about the term "choice." We fail to see how this proposal -- the proposal itself -- limits anyone's choice, and although you like to rant about "choice" and "oppression, you fail to support such claims. This proposal limits nothing but the UN's ability to legislate on the issue of abortion. We are proposing giving that choice -- whether or not to legislate on the issue -- to individual nations.

I like how you bandy about the term "choice." We fail to see how this proposal -- the proposal itself -- limits anyone's choice, and although you like to rant about "choice" and "oppression, you fail to support such claims. This proposal limits nothing but the UN's ability to legislate on the issue of abortion. We are proposing giving that choice -- whether or not to legislate on the issue -- to individual nations.

The choice you want to give to nations is the choice of whether to oppress women with different beliefs or not. If you believe oppression is wrong, you should protect women from oppression. If the only way to prevent this oppression is restricting the power of national leaders, we should restrict the power of national leaders. You can hardly call that act oppressive in any way.

And before you start, yes, it is oppression to send people to jail for doing something that:
- has no direct impact in society;
- half of the world considers blameless;
- is only opposed for religious reasons.

The choice you want to give to nations is the choice of whether to oppress women with different beliefs or not. If you believe oppression is wrong, you should protect women from oppression. If the only way to prevent this oppression is restricting the power of national leaders, we should restrict the power of national leaders. You can hardly call that act oppressive in any way.

And before you start, yes, it is oppression to send people to jail for doing something that:
- has no direct impact in society;
- half of the world considers blameless;
- is only opposed for religious reasons.

It doesn't take a religious reason to believe that a fetus is worth protecting.

Oh, and um...

Quorum! :D

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

Congratulations. Now, you are seriously denying that the pro-life movement is religious??? :eek:

Pray tell who specifically is oppressed. (If you answer the fetus I will shoot myself.)

Oh my, a moral dilema. What should I do? Clearly having Fonzoland shoot himself is clearly wrong. But it would be so fun and entertaining! And it doesn't have to be fatal!

OK I'll be nice, because someone will insist that their fetus deserves the right to vote ... by proxy of course. (Perhaps if a fetus counted as 2/3 of a person for the purpose of electoral colleges ... now where have I heard that idea before? :p )

Oh my, a moral dilema. What should I do? Clearly having Fonzoland shoot himself is clearly wrong. But it would be so fun and entertaining! And it doesn't have to be fatal!

OK I'll be nice, because someone will insist that their fetus deserves the right to vote ... by proxy of course. (Perhaps if a fetus counted as 2/3 of a person for the purpose of electoral colleges ... now where have I heard that idea before? :p )

I would shoot myself if I heard it from TH. From you I expect anything... :p

2/3? I'd go with 3/5.

2/3? I'd go with 3/5.

Are we splitting babies? I'll take the leg, please. [/tasteless humour]

Pray tell who specifically is oppressed. (If you answer the fetus I will shoot myself.)

I do not recommend tempting me like that again. I may choose to activate your parenthetical out of idle curiosity.

But on to your request. You wish to know who would be oppressed by the "Clinical Abortion Rights" proposal. Many would be oppressed, sadly. Some nations would be forced to make laws that allow and financially support activities that they find abhorrent. Some nations would be forced to make laws that would have them act un-democratically to ensure that a woman's right to exercise control over her own body through medical treatment is not interfered with and even supported financially.

Unfortunately, the oppression does not end there. Many of these nations would choose to engage in some form of non-compliance with "Clinical Abortion Rights" in order to continue what many that support the proposal called "Clinical Abortion Rights" would see as their oppression of women. Many of these nations would choose to resign from the UN in order to continue said oppression. The most dramatic effect of the passage of "Clinical Abortion Rights" would be a division in this body, nations leaving and/or growing more hostile to the United Nations.

My nation and those who would vote FOR "Clinical Abortion Rights" would be largely unaffected by it, but other nations that would vote AGAINST the proposal were it to reach vote would likely be inclined to either resign or subvert the resolution in some way, possibly through a lack of enforcement of the laws or simply flouting them. In this way, the oppression continues much as it did before, and greater hostility and international tension is created, hardly what my nation would view as a positive result.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Congratulations. Now, you are seriously denying that the pro-life movement is religious???

I KNOW there are religious people and people of faith (who would not consider themselves religious) and atheists and agnostics who are pro-life. You are either misinformed or attempting to characterize a position as religious when it has clear basis to stand up on it's own merit.

I know many who are not religious that have decent values and respect human life. I am a Christian. But I debated the pro-life side of this issue long before I became a Christian and did not see it as a religious issue then. Since I have become a Christian, I have more reasons to disagree with abortion.

Funny thing is, I know many religious people who argue the pro-abortion side. Why are you bringing religion into this discussion?

But please be clear. Are you suggesting that if one is religious they should vote against any resolution that makes abortion legal everywhere, and FOR any resolutions that would give a nation an opportunity to limit abortion? I'm not sure if the religious people, regardless of their stance on this issue, will listen much to your answer, but please respond as you are the one who brought this up.

Why are you bringing religion into this discussion?

To further muddle things, obviously.

I would shoot myself if I heard it from TH. From you I expect anything... :p

OOC: Believe me, I could argue that the fetus is being oppressed, and easily live with the logical consequences of that. I just don't think it would be practical or partucularly relevant to the main point of the proposal under discussion, which is to promote the freedom of nations to make their own domestic policies.

To be fair, I don't really like Clause 3 either, but given my IC pro-sovereignty stance and the fact that it's an URGING clause means that it doesn't really matter.

OK here is my more reasonable response to the basic points of the argument.
1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

2. RECOMMENDS that in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or where the continuation of the pregnancy poses severe medical risk to the mother, states permit abortion procedures;

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

4. CALLS FOR increased international research in fetal development, so as to develop greater understanding of the ramifications of abortion;

5. REMINDS states that in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities.

Point 1: Agree

Point 2: Generally agree but I think that the case of severe medical risk (and death would be a medial risk) needs to be on a higher level than reccomends. This is a case of the principle of double effect.

Point 3: I hate the inclusion of specific procedures in the resolution. I would have preferred wording that would state (in effect) RECOMMENDS that abortions not be allowed when other procedures are available for the removal of a viable fetus from the womb that do not cause severe medical risk to the mother.

Point 4: Agree although awareness is also equally as important. Current research, for example is showing that cells from the fetus migrate across the umblical cord and remain in the mother for decades often helping the mother against a number of various diseases including cancer. Nothing gets me more upset with someone who claims to be "pro-choice" than someone who insists on an ignorant one. The time for awareness is long before a person is pregnant in the first place!

Point 5: Unfortunately I agree. (This would have been a good place to throw the bone of allowing the so called "morning after pill." Although I oppose it on moral grounds I also see it as a reasonable compromise.)

Minor nit pick: probably bad use of the term "mother." Although technically accurate from the dictionary definitions it is stil a potential source of argument that could derail the resolution.

Interesting. So now that this has reached quorum, Waterana's proposal will immediately become illegal if this is voted For by everyone.

Interesting. So now that this has reached quorum, Waterana's proposal will immediately become illegal if this is voted For by everyone.

Indeed. ;)

Interesting. So now that this has reached quorum, Waterana's proposal will immediately become illegal if this is voted For by everyone.

OOC: Interesting situation here -- and I don't think it's as clear-cut as it would seem. Both proposals have reached quorum. This proposal was submitted before Waterana's and appeared before Waterana's in the proposal list, but Waterana's obtained the required approvals before this one did. In other words, it went into the queue before this one. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which comes up for a vote first -- the chicken's rights proposal or the egg's rights proposal. (Sorry for the lame joke. I couldn't resist.) :D

I guess we'll just have to wait and see which comes up for a vote first -- the chicken's rights proposal or the egg's rights proposal. (Sorry for the lame joke. I couldn't resist.) :D
Ha! I think this comment was exactly what the discussion needed!

I do not recommend tempting me like that again. I may choose to activate your parenthetical out of idle curiosity.

But on to your request. You wish to know who would be oppressed by the "Clinical Abortion Rights" proposal. Many would be oppressed, sadly. Some nations would be forced to make laws that allow and financially support activities that they find abhorrent. Some nations would be forced to make laws that would have them act un-democratically to ensure that a woman's right to exercise control over her own body through medical treatment is not interfered with and even supported financially.

Unfortunately, the oppression does not end there. Many of these nations would choose to engage in some form of non-compliance with "Clinical Abortion Rights" in order to continue what many that support the proposal called "Clinical Abortion Rights" would see as their oppression of women. Many of these nations would choose to resign from the UN in order to continue said oppression. The most dramatic effect of the passage of "Clinical Abortion Rights" would be a division in this body, nations leaving and/or growing more hostile to the United Nations.

My nation and those who would vote FOR "Clinical Abortion Rights" would be largely unaffected by it, but other nations that would vote AGAINST the proposal were it to reach vote would likely be inclined to either resign or subvert the resolution in some way, possibly through a lack of enforcement of the laws or simply flouting them. In this way, the oppression continues much as it did before, and greater hostility and international tension is created, hardly what my nation would view as a positive result.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith
(emphasis mine, obviously)

While you present an intelligent argument (as usual), I cannot help but notice that you subverted the question completely in order to bring the debate to your familiar NatSov territory. The question, now in clarified form, is about people. Individuals. Who is, as an individual, oppressed by this proposal? Whose freedom is restricted?

I never denied that this proposal severely restricts the power of national leaders, but my political beliefs lead me to defend such actions, in situations where the will of the government is imposed, rather than endorsed by, the individuals in question. I have no problem accepting that other leaders defend other levels of intervention from this body. What I consider twisted is to claim such efforts are oppressive. If you take a NatSov stance in this issue, you are defending the sovereign right to oppress some individuals, if the government so chooses. If you abdicate of NatSov, you are doing so in order to protect individuals from governments that wish to oppress them.

Both positions are logically consistent; I will not call you an oppressor just because you defend the right to opress; but I am not amused by semantic games, namely the twisting of the concepts of "freedom of choice" and "oppression" to apply to nations, instead of individuals.

Finally, I would like to add that if Mr. Smith changes his position for the remainder of this debate, I will instruct thirty hand-picked belly dancers to perform a naked dance while hanging from the ceiling of this assembly, and THEN I will shoot myself.

OOC: Believe me, I could argue that the fetus is being oppressed, and easily live with the logical consequences of that. I just don't think it would be practical or partucularly relevant to the main point of the proposal under discussion, which is to promote the freedom of nations to make their own domestic policies.

OOC: I know you could argue it consistently. But I would expect better from you, hence my parenthesis. ;)

To be fair, I don't really like Clause 3 either, but given my IC pro-sovereignty stance and the fact that it's an URGING clause means that it doesn't really matter.

OOC: To be fair, I would still consider taking a NatSov stance on this issue, if it were not for that clause. I have picked up the debate on the pro-choice side because I have impulsive reactions to bad pro-life arguments. My feelings on abortion are driven by libertarian beliefs, rather than particular adherence to the more emotional arguments of either side.

Congratulations. Now, you are seriously denying that the pro-life movement is religious??? :eek:Much of it is religious, yes. But unfortunately, religious sensibilities are extremely important in many nations when crafting law (Gruenberg and the Eternal Kawaii are obvious examples). But this is not a proposal to impose their, or any other, religious views on all nations, nor is it a proposal to outlaw abortions anywhere. It simply offers nations something the UN offers very little of: the right to self-determination on a very painful and divisive issue. That is the crux of national sovereignty and the sovereigntist movement; it is not a right-wing crusade, nor does it favor the values of certain nations over those of others. It simply states that nations should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of domestic law. If HOCEK or Gruenberg want to outlaw abortions in their own nations, if they want to force all people to observe whatever concept of the Sabbath they hold, if they want to execute every fifth person, if they want to lock up all blondes for purposes of protecting their citizens from stupidity, if they want to sacrifice every firstborn son on pentagram-emblazened altars by the light of the full moon in the presence of the community at large assembled and beneath the specter of the Almighty Tiki God, it does not affect Fonzoland. These are not international issues; they do not affect people in other nations -- so why in hell should the international community be legislating on them??

Apart from that, religion is not the only reason for opposing abortion. I myself have major qualms about killing viable fetuses, yet I would be hard-pressed to name the last Sabbath I actually attended church, and I haven't prayed for anything in months. Even women who are pro-choice have told me it is not the choice they would make for themselves or their families. Why? Because they don't believe in abortion. Anti-abortion and pro-choice? How did they ever manage that? Because their conscience tells them it is wrong to kill an unborn child, yet equally wrong to impose their own values on other people. Wait a sec ... weren't we discussing something like this just a moment ago? Ah, yes. National sovereignty: the belief that even though some nations would rather restrict abortion in their own borders, they would not want all nations to be subject to any one nation's values.

As to your disagreement with the RL pro-life movement, it has about as much relevance to NationStates as Britney Spears teaching an abstinence course. NS ≠ RL. It's been said so often it has become a cliché.

Finally, lame jokes aside (sorry, Ausserland), if the opponents of this article could offer anything to this discussion other than meaningless sanctimony, I would really appreciate it.

OOC: Interesting situation here -- and I don't think it's as clear-cut as it would seem. Both proposals have reached quorum. This proposal was submitted before Waterana's and appeared before Waterana's in the proposal list, but Waterana's obtained the required approvals before this one did. In other words, it went into the queue before this one. I guess we'll just have to wait and see which comes up for a vote first -- the chicken's rights proposal or the egg's rights proposal. (Sorry for the lame joke. I couldn't resist.) :DIt's the first one on the list, regardless of which one made quorum first -- unless a UN vote ends, there is nothing else in the queue, and a proposal further up on the list hasn't reached quorum yet.

OOC: Kenny, I agree with your second paragraph almost entirely. Your first, well, I maintain that (some) human rights transcent national boundaries. Yeah, it's a hokey phrase (and I got it from Amnesty, who seem to attract pathological hatred from certain people, something I've never quite understood) but I believe in it.

So I'm somewhere in the middle. I think.

Honestly, though, I see no need for clause three. Had it not been included, I would have abstained (for OOC and IC reasons). As it is, I'm voting against.

You wish to know who would be oppressed by the "Clinical Abortion Rights" proposal. Many would be oppressed, sadly. Some nations would be forced to make laws that allow and financially support activities that they find abhorrent.

Dear Mr. Smith, you're going wrong already, so early in your statement. Again, you regard a national government as some kind of higher being which is near-perfect. Why else would you so easily proclaim that nations would have to do things that they find abhorrent. No nation is undivided about this issue, just like us. A nation is made of people. And each person of those people has their own opinion. So a national government might think something, but in a democratic system they only need support of 51% of the voters. Up to 49% might disagree with that government. Yet, you seem to be under the impression that that is good enough to deny them a choice, a choice which doesn't hurt the other 51%. And even if it is less, even if 95% of the people finds it abhorrent, still: why deny them that choice? That is the true oppression that takes place.

Forcing legality of abortion only gives choice; if truly a whole nations finds the practice abhorrent, no-one will use the possibility and the fact that it's legal has no impact on that nation. If people do want to use the possibility, then it proves that "the nation" doesn't find it abhorrent, just those in power.

First of all, for ease of reference:
And before you start, yes, it is oppression to send people to jail for doing something that:
- has no direct impact in society;
- half of the world considers blameless;
- is only opposed for religious reasons.

I KNOW there are religious people and people of faith (who would not consider themselves religious) and atheists and agnostics who are pro-life. You are either misinformed or attempting to characterize a position as religious when it has clear basis to stand up on it's own merit.

The clear basis is debatable. (Well, we are debating it, right?) But I acknowlege that I made a sweeping generalisation, and that is bad debating style. (OOC: The original statement would be essentially correct in my country of origin, but it still fallacious here.) I reformulate my statement to "is almost only opposed for religious reasons," and apologise to any nonreligious pro-lifers out there. Still, the nature of major social and political groups supporting this position is well known.


I know many who are not religious that have decent values and respect human life. I am a Christian. But I debated the pro-life side of this issue long before I became a Christian and did not see it as a religious issue then. Since I have become a Christian, I have more reasons to disagree with abortion.

Good for you. I will ignore your implied judgement about my values.

Funny thing is, I know many religious people who argue the pro-abortion side. Why are you bringing religion into this discussion?

I know them well. And I know that they need to make an effort to disobey their religious teachings (what I would in a more corrosive mood call brainwashing) in the name of libertarian values.

But please be clear. Are you suggesting that if one is religious they should vote against any resolution that makes abortion legal everywhere, and FOR any resolutions that would give a nation an opportunity to limit abortion? I'm not sure if the religious people, regardless of their stance on this issue, will listen much to your answer, but please respond as you are the one who brought this up.

To be clear: I have not used the fact that it is a religious position to prove that it is invalid. I do not lose respect for a well constructed argument because of the religious beliefs of the debater. I do not think the correspondence is one-to-one, just very strong. And I am definitely not telling people how to interpret their religious beliefs and translate them into a vote.

Taking for granted that some (not all) religions in the world actively present abortion as a sin, and that this is the major driving force behind the pro-life group, what we are discussing here is a fundamentally religious issue. I do not believe that science can establish the instant when a fetus becomes a child. (Please do not copy paste more statements from factious websites; there are plenty of equally dubious sources in the other side of the trenches.) As such, that is an belief of each individual, not a matter of fact. It can be defended, even rationalised, but not proven.

Other religions might see abortion as blameless. Most atheists see abortion as blameless. As such, imposing a ban on abortion is tantamount to imposing a religious belief on others. The belief that a fetus is a child. The belief that abortion is murder. Now, if abortion becomes legal, these beliefs are not challenged. You are simply forced to allow people to live their lives according to their own choices, rather than obeying the beliefs of others. The only problem this creates for members of the pro-life group is that old "dirty feeling" caused by the sins of others (aka selfrighteousness).

To further muddle things, obviously.
:rolleyes:

As to your disagreement with the RL pro-life movement, it has about as much relevance to NationStates as Britney Spears teaching an abstinence course. NS ≠ RL. It's been said so often it has become a cliché.

Actually, it is the first time I see it in answering an OOC comment. If you consider it irrelevant, you can try ignoring it instead of lecturing. The Britney part was funny though.

Dude, you said you opposed this proposal because it would allow nations to outlaw something that "is only opposed for religious reasons," then you backed it up by pointing out that "the pro-life movement is religious." Am I misreading something?

I could employ another cliché here ... something about "glass houses" ....

Your point?

Dear Mr. Smith, you're going wrong already, so early in your statement. Again, you regard a national government as some kind of higher being which is near-perfect. Why else would you so easily proclaim that nations would have to do things that they find abhorrent. No nation is undivided about this issue, just like us. A nation is made of people. And each person of those people has their own opinion. So a national government might think something, but in a democratic system they only need support of 51% of the voters. Up to 49% might disagree with that government. Yet, you seem to be under the impression that that is good enough to deny them a choice, a choice which doesn't hurt the other 51%. And even if it is less, even if 95% of the people finds it abhorrent, still: why deny them that choice? That is the true oppression that takes place.

Forcing legality of abortion only gives choice; if truly a whole nations finds the practice abhorrent, no-one will use the possibility and the fact that it's legal has no impact on that nation. If people do want to use the possibility, then it proves that "the nation" doesn't find it abhorrent, just those in power.

Ma'am, you must be under some misapprehension. I don't regard national government as some near-perfect being. On the contrary, I think most national governments are poorly administrated and often misguided. You'll just have to excuse me if I don't think the UN is any closer to perfect, and at the very least is farther removed from the biological, cultural, and technological circumstances that are important factors in making policies that are appropriate to the lives of the individuals within the domain of those national governments.

I don't deny the oppression that takes place, Ms. Lane. I never have, and my nation never has. We are of course saddened by it, and sponsored a resolution promoting the rights of those individuals, if you recall. Unfortunately, the United Nations is being used to make ineffective, impractical, and divisive laws that in the end don't really protect those individuals from oppression while oppressing some of the members of this body. In the context of the United Nations and its policies, which is what we happen to be discussing, perhaps we ought to consider the members of the United Nations in addition to the individuals within our nations.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

OOC: Oh, Hirota! :fluffle: :p

EDIT: Incidentally, history has been made with this post, as it marks my first ever use of the fluffle smiley. :D

C-stan used a fluffle.

I can die now, I've seen everything.

Congratulations on reaching quorum! This is a wonderful day for the NSUN!

Am I correct in assuming that as this will probably get to vote first, its passing will make the other abortion proposal illegal? :)

You got it. ;)

While you present an intelligent argument (as usual), I cannot help but notice that you subverted the question completely in order to bring the debate to your familiar NatSov territory. The question, now in clarified form, is about people. Individuals. Who is, as an individual, oppressed by this proposal? Whose freedom is restricted?

Of course I focus on nations rather than on individuals in the context of the debates in these halls. This body is the United Nations, a body composed of many nations, which we refer to as international. Hence the term "international law" for the text of resolutions. While the rights of individuals and the oppression of individuals are certainly important topics in my nation's view (we would not be an anarcho-socialist federation otherwise), within the UN, an international body, the focus is properly going to be on international matters. Critical questions with regard to a nation's freedom to determine its own policy are often going to be at the forefront of discussions in an international body.

I never denied that this proposal severely restricts the power of national leaders, but my political beliefs lead me to defend such actions, in situations where the will of the government is imposed, rather than endorsed by, the individuals in question. I have no problem accepting that other leaders defend other levels of intervention from this body. What I consider twisted is to claim such efforts are oppressive. If you take a NatSov stance in this issue, you are defending the sovereign right to oppress some individuals, if the government so chooses. If you abdicate of NatSov, you are doing so in order to protect individuals from governments that wish to oppress them.

Perhaps you could expedite this discussion and describe why you do not believe that a nation has rights just as a person has rights, and can be oppressed by having those rights denied.

Finally, I would like to add that if Mr. Smith changes his position for the remainder of this debate, I will instruct thirty hand-picked belly dancers to perform a naked dance while hanging from the ceiling of this assembly, and THEN I will shoot myself.

If I were to remain watching said naked belly-dancers, my wives would shoot me, which would ruin an otherwise amusing experiment in whether you would truly shoot yourself.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

OOC: To be fair, I would still consider taking a NatSov stance on this issue, if it were not for that clause. I have picked up the debate on the pro-choice side because I have impulsive reactions to bad pro-life arguments. My feelings on abortion are driven by libertarian beliefs, rather than particular adherence to the more emotional arguments of either side.

OOC: I understand completely.

Of course I focus on nations rather than on individuals in the context of the debates in these halls. This body is the United Nations, a body composed of many nations, which we refer to as international. Hence the term "international law" for the text of resolutions. While the rights of individuals and the oppression of individuals are certainly important topics in my nation's view (we would not be an anarcho-socialist federation otherwise), within the UN, an international body, the focus is properly going to be on international matters. Critical questions with regard to a nation's freedom to determine its own policy are often going to be at the forefront of discussions in an international body.

Again, you skilfully avoided the question. As such, I will assume you agree with my point, that any accusation of oppressiveness in Waterana's proposal is meaningless if interpreted as "this proposal oppresses individuals." If my assumption is correct, you are strictly arguing that "this proposal oppresses member nations," which is essentially a rhetorical substitute for (the more accurate) "restricts national sovereignty." More on that below.

Perhaps you could expedite this discussion and describe why you do not believe that a nation has rights just as a person has rights, and can be oppressed by having those rights denied.

I do believe nations have rights. While I understand it does not become apparent in the context of this particular debate, I hold sovereignty concerns in high regard. However, some of my reasons for expecting the UN to limit itself to international issues may be different from yours.

In my view, two of the most fundamental principles under which any political system should operate are self-determination and freedom of choice. In a representative political system, individuals voluntarily relinquish (to various degrees) some of their individual freedoms to higher entities, in hope that the augmented power of that entity over the collective will be put to good use. As an example, when individuals pay taxes, they expect the government to put the revenues to uses that yield benefits superior to those available to isolated individuals.

When an institution such as the UN, whose members are indeed nations rather than individuals, is imposing legislation, it should by default assume their members are representing the will of their citizens. If this holds, respecting the individual freedoms of said citizens can be best acheived by respecting the sovereign power of the nation. Establishing a parallel to the national system, the UN should, in most cases, restrict itself to legislating on issues where the aggregate effect on each nation, through international coordination and wide enforcement, exceeds the effect of implementing such legislation unilaterally.

Note, however, that in my view the primary responsibility of the UN is to citizens, rather than nations. As such, my understanding of national sovereignty crucially hinges on the assumption that the wills of nation and individuals are essentially one and the same. I see it as a means to a laudable end, of preserving the individual rights, rather than an end in itself.

In some issues (mostly, though not always, describable as human rights), this assumption is either questionable or should be dismissed altogether. In such issues, there is good reason to suppose that national leaders are not acting in the best interests of the individuals, or are ignoring the well being of those primarily affected. In such issues, preserving sovereignty is not the effective way to protect individual free will, and will in fact hamper it. In such issues, the UN should have the individual as the primary concern, and restrict the power of the national leader to harm the individual.

I believe abortion is manifestly one of those issues.

EDIT & OOC: Wow, this sounds like it's in the wrong thread... oh well, I was baited. ;)

If I may...

People should be able to have the right to abotion under the right cercumstances, I.E. if someone was, and please mind my words, raped. Although I do beleave people should be able to abort as they wish, if the country contridicting the law wishes other wise, take my advise that I have stated, "under the right cercumstances."

Thank you...

OOC: Please note this is my first post in the UN forums, any constructive critasism is apreaceated

*snip*

I do believe nations have rights.

So long as those nations agree with you, it seems.

*snip*

In my view, two of the most fundamental principles under which any political system should operate are self-determination and freedom of choice. In a representative political system, individuals voluntarily relinquish (to various degrees) some of their individual freedoms to higher entities, in hope that the augmented power of that entity over the collective will be put to good use. As an example, when individuals pay taxes, they expect the government to put the revenues to uses that yield benefits superior to those available to isolated individuals.

Not all member nations are based on representative political systems, nor do they all operate under the principles of self-determination and freedom of choice. It's not for the UN to decide, however, how individual nations are governed. (OOC: It's in the bloody rules.)

When an institution such as the UN, whose members are indeed nations rather than individuals, is imposing legislation, it should by default assume their members are representing the will of their citizens. If this holds, respecting the individual freedoms of said citizens can be best acheived by respecting the sovereign power of the nation. Establishing a parallel to the national system, the UN should, in most cases, restrict itself to legislating on issues where the aggregate effect on each nation, through international coordination and wide enforcement, exceeds the effect of implementing such legislation unilaterally.

Right with you there.

Note, however, that in my view the primary responsibility of the UN is to citizens, rather than nations.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Citizens aren't members of the UN. Nations are. Thus, the UN's primary responsibility is to its member nations.

As such, my understanding of national sovereignty crucially hinges on the assumption that the wills of nation and individuals are essentially one and the same. I see it as a means to a laudable end, of preserving the individual rights, rather than an end in itself.

Your assumption is faulty, so it follows that your conclusion is as well.

In some issues (mostly, though not always, describable as human rights), this assumption is either questionable or should be dismissed altogether. In such issues, there is good reason to suppose that national leaders are not acting in the best interests of the individuals, or are ignoring the well being of those primarily affected.

First, there's a difference between this blanket "human rights" that those against this proposal are espousing and fundamental human rights.

In such issues, preserving sovereignty is not the effective way to protect individual free will, and will in fact hamper it. In such issues, the UN should have the individual as the primary concern, and restrict the power of the national leader to harm the individual.

Again, individuals aren't UN members. Nations are.

I believe abortion is manifestly one of those issues.

You're certainly welcome to that belief, but it's just that -- a belief. You've no right to impose that belief on other nations.

EDIT & OOC: Wow, this sounds like it's in the wrong thread... oh well, I was baited. ;)

OOC: No baiting here. Just outlining the critical differences in our points of view. ;)

EDIT: Oh, shite! I've turned into Forgottenlands! :eek:

So long as those nations agree with you, it seems.

A long, long post, and yet most of it was lost on you.

Not all member nations are based on representative political systems, nor do they all operate under the principles of self-determination and freedom of choice. It's not for the UN to decide, however, how individual nations are governed. (OOC: It's in the bloody rules.)

Beside the point. You should notice that TH asked me for my political philosophy. I never claimed all nations are representative...

Right with you there.

... and yet I did claim that the UN must regard them as such, by default. (See how your previous comments were rushed?)

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Citizens aren't members of the UN. Nations are. Thus, the UN's primary responsibility is to its member nations.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. We appear to have fundamental divergences on:
a) The meaning of the word 'nation';
b) The scope and power of government.

First, there's a difference between this blanket "human rights" that those against this proposal are espousing and fundamental human rights.

Obviously, that is a matter of opinion: calling these particular rights excessive does little as a rational argument. Ultimately, it will be up to the voters to decide whether such rights are fundamental or not.
And for the record, would you care to list what you consider to be fundamental human rights? Specifically, tell us once and for all which of the current UN resolutions on human rights you consider worthy. If the answer is 'none,' then don't pretend to care for human rights.

You're certainly welcome to that belief, but it's just that -- a belief. You've no right to impose that belief on other nations.

Read my text again. I wrote that I believe abortion rights should be legislated by the UN. This answer is irrelevant at best.

OOC: No baiting here. Just outlining the critical differences in our points of view. ;)

OOC: You misunderstood me. I meant I was 'baited' by TH's challenge to write a text that should have been in the indsov debate. I wasn't referring to flame-baiting.

EDIT: Oh, shite! I've turned into Forgottenlands! :eek:

At least you are exceeding your char count limit... :p

The choice you want to give to nations is the choice of whether to oppress women with different beliefs or not. If you believe oppression is wrong, you should protect women from oppression. If the only way to prevent this oppression is restricting the power of national leaders, we should restrict the power of national leaders. You can hardly call that act oppressive in any way.

And before you start, yes, it is oppression to send people to jail for doing something that:
- has no direct impact in society;
- half of the world considers blameless;
- is only opposed for religious reasons.
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

OOC/IC:
I'm sorry but you're 100% wrong!
I like a lot of other people who are against abortion, have many different reasons. None of which having anything to do with "religious reasons!"

This is part of the reason why I really don't think the pro-abortion side "gets" any other view but their own. :rolleyes:

...I really don't think the pro-abortion side "gets" any other view but their own.
Sometimes they feel the same way. Also, don't call them pro-abortionists. Makes it sound like they're out encouraging people to kill their unborn children. The vast majority of pro-choicers think of abortion as a decision not to be made lightly or frequently, but that ought to be an option nonetheless. I'm defending a group I don't fully affiliate with, but that's because I see both sides of the issue. And my personal view is one that both sides hate me for.

Again, you skilfully avoided the question. As such, I will assume you agree with my point, that any accusation of oppressiveness in Waterana's proposal is meaningless if interpreted as "this proposal oppresses individuals." If my assumption is correct, you are strictly arguing that "this proposal oppresses member nations," which is essentially a rhetorical substitute for (the more accurate) "restricts national sovereignty." More on that below.

Sir, when you ignored my point about the practical difficulties and ramifications of pro-choice abortion legislation on international affairs, I kindly assumed that you did not wish to belabor the point rather than assuming that you agreed with it or were "skillfully avoiding it". Perhaps we could come to some understanding on whether or not to assume that our opponent agrees with a point simply because they have chosen not to respond to it and go from there.

I do believe nations have rights. While I understand it does not become apparent in the context of this particular debate, I hold sovereignty concerns in high regard. However, some of my reasons for expecting the UN to limit itself to international issues may be different from yours.

I have to wonder if you do truly do expect the UN to limit itself to international issues (and that nations have rights, which will be addressed later). If you believe the United Nations has an obligation to legislate on the issue of abortion, an issue you see as a question of an individual's right to self-determination and freedom of choice, and given that abortion is an individual rather than an international matter, then it would seem apparent that you do not expect the UN to limit itself to international issues, and do in fact support the UN extending itself into individual issues rather than solely international issues.

In my view, two of the most fundamental principles under which any political system should operate are self-determination and freedom of choice. In a representative political system, individuals voluntarily relinquish (to various degrees) some of their individual freedoms to higher entities, in hope that the augmented power of that entity over the collective will be put to good use. As an example, when individuals pay taxes, they expect the government to put the revenues to uses that yield benefits superior to those available to isolated individuals.

When an institution such as the UN, whose members are indeed nations rather than individuals, is imposing legislation, it should by default assume their members are representing the will of their citizens. If this holds, respecting the individual freedoms of said citizens can be best acheived by respecting the sovereign power of the nation. Establishing a parallel to the national system, the UN should, in most cases, restrict itself to legislating on issues where the aggregate effect on each nation, through international coordination and wide enforcement, exceeds the effect of implementing such legislation unilaterally.

A quite lovely description of how things would ideally work. But more on the break between ideals and reality later.

Note, however, that in my view the primary responsibility of the UN is to citizens, rather than nations. As such, my understanding of national sovereignty crucially hinges on the assumption that the wills of nation and individuals are essentially one and the same. I see it as a means to a laudable end, of preserving the individual rights, rather than an end in itself.

You hinge your understanding of national sovereignty on what is often a false assumption. How interesting, this break between ideals and reality.

Now let's take a look at the bolded section. Here we get to the truth, that individual rights are your true aim, and that national rights only exist where individual rights are up to your standards. What would happen if we applied this sort of double standard to individual rights and chose to only respect individual rights where we agreed with the individual's actions? Oppression is the answer.

In some issues (mostly, though not always, describable as human rights), this assumption is either questionable or should be dismissed altogether. In such issues, there is good reason to suppose that national leaders are not acting in the best interests of the individuals, or are ignoring the well being of those primarily affected. In such issues, preserving sovereignty is not the effective way to protect individual free will, and will in fact hamper it. In such issues, the UN should have the individual as the primary concern, and restrict the power of the national leader to harm the individual.

Ultimately, these statements are demonstration enough that you do not believe that nations have rights. You simply believe that nations should be allowed to do what they want as long as they act in agreement with your understanding of human rights. Again, I have to ask: what would happen if we used this standard in the context of individual rights? What would happen if you acted on the belief that individuals should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are in agreement with your understanding of human rights? Authoritarianism and oppression. In your case, oppression in the name of liberty, to be sure. But that simply makes the oppression more ironic, not better.

Perhaps you would like to change your views. Perhaps you would like to stop making an assumption that is so often false, an assumption that destroys your credibility as one who believes that nations have rights and allows others to reasonably view you as someone who uses a double standard, a person who will allow that only those nations that conform to his understanding of human rights have the right of self-determination.

As always, I leave the choice up to you. Good night.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

*snip*

And for the record, would you care to list what you consider to be fundamental human rights? Specifically, tell us once and for all which of the current UN resolutions on human rights you consider worthy. If the answer is 'none,' then don't pretend to care for human rights.

*snip*

OOC: Y'know, a lot of people really seem to have the wrong impression of me. Since I've been challenged to do this a few times now, I'll do it this weekend and post a list here (too late to go through them all now). I'll even include resolutions that I think are written for shite so long as I agree with the basic intent, even if that intent isn't actually accomplished by the resolution. I think you'll find I'm not the evil fascist bastard y'all like to make me out to be.

Hmm, I guess I approach the UN from the wrong way then. I tend to view it with the same type of jaundiced eye that Sec'y of State Dean Acheson say the RL UN. It is a good forum to discuss issues, and keep pressure on those who would take freedom from others, but besides that, practically useless. And those, that put too much faith in the mandates of the UN, are a bit soft headed That pretty much summed up Acheson's position, and to my eyes a Darned good on to keep with this UN. The NS UN serves a purpose, but is most effective as forum, and not as a Nation saving panecea.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

OOC/IC:
I'm sorry but you're 100% wrong!
I like a lot of other people who are against abortion, have many different reasons. None of which having anything to do with "religious reasons!"

This is part of the reason why I really don't think the pro-abortion side "gets" any other view but their own. :rolleyes:

If you read the debate, I have retreated from my sweeping generalisation. I expect you to retreat from yours. And to behave like a grown-up; abandoning those annoying smileys is a good start.

Ma'am, you must be under some misapprehension. I don't regard national government as some near-perfect being. On the contrary, I think most national governments are poorly administrated and often misguided. You'll just have to excuse me if I don't think the UN is any closer to perfect, and at the very least is farther removed from the biological, cultural, and technological circumstances that are important factors in making policies that are appropriate to the lives of the individuals within the domain of those national governments.

But I have already argued that that doesn't matter: the UN merely needs to grant freedom to individuals. It doesn't need to prescribe to them what to do, just what they should be allowed to do.

I don't deny the oppression that takes place, Ms. Lane. I never have, and my nation never has. We are of course saddened by it, and sponsored a resolution promoting the rights of those individuals, if you recall. Unfortunately, the United Nations is being used to make ineffective, impractical, and divisive laws that in the end don't really protect those individuals from oppression while oppressing some of the members of this body.

But it can also be used to make effective laws to protect those individuals. So if you are saddened by oppression of people, which I believe you are, why not take the opportunity to do something about that?

In the context of the United Nations and its policies, which is what we happen to be discussing, perhaps we ought to consider the members of the United Nations in addition to the individuals within our nations.

The members of the UN, national governments, are themselves representing the people. Whatever the UN does should be in the interest of those people. Governments should facilitate that; they should not consider themselves as more important than their people, or part of the people they represent.

Which is why this resolution should not be supported, and Clinical Abortion Rights should.

:confused: This has been a wonderful and interesting discussion, but one thing leaves me puzzled. What exactly is a "religious reason?" Is it any reason thought up by a religious person? Does a moral reason become a religious reason because the person who brought it up has religious associations? Does a lawful reason become a religious reason because the person who brought it up has religious associations?

When I see a Violetist come to me and say "My god demands a scarifice," I can see that's a clear "religious reason." When I see someone come to me and say, "you know people have a fundamental right to life and that trumps other rights," I see that as a "fundamental rights reason" no matter if the person is a Violetist (although the thought of a pro-life Violetist is too bizzare) an agnostic or a member of the Old Universal Pantheon Worshiping Temple.

My own concern is when people start throwing stone tablets around. Stone tablets tend to be written in absolutes. Both sides have people waving stone tablets.

A very famous AGNOSTIC once wrote on a perfectly legaln document that all men (obviously a bigot here for not including the ladies) have inalienable rights that included the rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happniess. These rights exist, and they cannot be taken away ... not in the future nor in the past. A fetus has an inalienable set of rights. A mother has an inalienable set of rights. A lawyer has ... well as much as I hate to admit it ... an inalienable set of rights.

In any case of conflicting sets of rights, the extreeme positions are never valid. The rights must be balanced based on the practical needs of both parties with due consideration for what is and what is not both possible and reasonable.

OOC: I just wanted to clear up what may be a misconception regarding this proposal. This is not a National Sovereignty Organisation-sponsored proposal. Yes, its writing, submission, and subsequent telegram campaigning were done by five NSO members -- Gruenberg, Kenny, Palentine, Wyldtree, and myself -- but that does not mean, nor should it imply, that it represents or is indicative of the views of the NSO as a whole.

This is totally asinine!!!

I can't believe people are voting for Kenny's resolutions, he has a nasty neo-conservative agenda.

This make it totally obvious.

People wake up!

This is totally asinine!!!

I can't believe people are voting for Kenny's resolutions, he has a nasty agenda.

This make it totally obvious.

People wake up!

If you'd read the text of the proposal -- specifically, the last line -- you would've seen that it's not Kenny's proposal. Kenny just submitted it for Gruenberg, who is the author.

OOC: A pseudo-anarchy with an unconcerned, erratic executive (such as it is) is neo-conservative? You learn something new every day...

If you'd read the text of the proposal -- specifically, the last line -- you would've seen that it's not Kenny's proposal. Kenny just submitted it for Gruenberg, who is the author.

Oh, no connection then, yeah right ... :p

Obviously he supports it if he submitted it DUH!

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is severly disappointed about this resolution. By valueing national governments more than the freedom of citizens, even more concerned with national sovereignity than raped and abused women (DECLARES vs RECOMMENDS), this resolution degrades the UN into a toothless organisation.

I strongly urge all delegates to approve the far better "Clinical Abortion Rights" resolution, which gives freedom to the UN citizens without forcing a view or ideology on those citizens.

It's really sad to see national sovereignity go from something usefull and constructive when drafting resolutions (finding the right way of implenting something in a practical way that's best for the people, without wasting money on a solution on a high level or too micromanaging) to a more fundamentalist group who will insist on the national government as the perfect solution for everything, even if you know this will be abused by dictatorial regimes at the cost of freedom of the people.

I completely agree with this. The woman herself should ultimately decide about her own body, if the UN feels as strongly as it does then why not bring a proposal to the table that offers free contraception, counselling and advice? Euthanasia has been made legal; and, disregarding semantics, this is basically the same topic, as the TFAAP believe that if the foetus is reliant on the mother for nutrients, oxygen, etc in utero, then she ultimately has the ability to decide what happens as the foetus is undoubtedly an extension of the mother's own body during pregnancy.

OOC: I just wanted to clear up what may be a misconception regarding this proposal. This is not a National Sovereignty Organisation-sponsored proposal. Yes, its writing, submission, and subsequent telegram campaigning were done by five NSO members -- Gruenberg, Kenny, Palentine, Wyldtree, and myself -- but that does not mean, nor should it imply, that it represents or is indicative of the views of the NSO as a whole.

We would like to thank the honorable representative of Cluichstan very much for posting this comment. We hope it will help to counter the unfortunate and completely inaccurate misconception that members of the NSO have a single, unvarying position on this or any other issue. While we often agree on certain matters and share certain concerns, that doesn't mean we have a monolithic mindset or automatically agree on everything.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: A pseudo-anarchy with an unconcerned, erratic executive (such as it is) is neo-conservative? You learn something new every day...Indeed we do. ;)

I completely agree with this. The woman herself should ultimately decide about her own body, if the UN feels as strongly as it does then why not bring a proposal to the table that offers free contraception, counselling and advice? Euthanasia has been made legal; and, disregarding semantics, this is basically the same topic, as the TFAAP believe that if the foetus is reliant on the mother for nutrients, oxygen, etc in utero, then she ultimately has the ability to decide what happens as the foetus is undoubtedly an extension of the mother's own body during pregnancy.

My nation completely agrees that a woman should ultimately decide about her own body... except that we also have laws in our nation also against:
1. Prostitution
2. Drug use
3. Suicide (kind of silly, I know, but it's there)
4. Public Nudity

I have to wonder if those arguing this position are in favor of all of the above also being legal. Just wondering.


The legislature in Dorksonia has not considered a foetus (meaning unborn child) a part of the mother's own body, so we add that to our list above. I cannot remember a single "religious reason" being mentioned in our floor debate on that either.

*looks through some notes..." Oh yes, here it is! Our scientists gave irrefutable proof that day that:

1. The unborn child has a completely different genetic code from the mother.
2. The unborn child often has a different blood type from the mother.
3. The unborn child has it's own immune system.
4. The unborn child is male about half the time.

The main debate on the floor of our legislature climaxed when Genetic Scientist Harry Potholder explained, "Remember that every cell in the human body contains the genetic code for the entire body. Since the unborn child's genetic code is ALWAYS different from the mother's, it is obvious that the baby is a completely separate individual."

Some brought up objections about a fetus not being like other individuals because it is competely dependent on another (the mother) to survive. Critics were silenced (for the most part) when it was pointed out the great number of others in our society (the elderly, handicapped, senile, comotose, as well as newborn babies) are all dependent on others for survival as well.

I completely agree with this. The woman herself should ultimately decide about her own body, if the UN feels as strongly as it does then why not bring a proposal to the table that offers free contraception, counselling and advice? Euthanasia has been made legal; and, disregarding semantics, this is basically the same topic, as the TFAAP believe that if the foetus is reliant on the mother for nutrients, oxygen, etc in utero, then she ultimately has the ability to decide what happens as the foetus is undoubtedly an extension of the mother's own body during pregnancy.
And I completely disagree with this. The right to ones own body is not absolute. No woman has the right to inject massive quantities of nitro glycerine into ther breasts and then shake them vigorously in public, for example. (It's my body, I can explode if I want to?) The rights of the one must respect the rights of the other. What is the difference between a fetus on life support in the form of the mother, and a patient on life support in the form of the hospital? Can the hospital say "We need this bed for someone who will pay us more so I'm turning off your life support?"

There is a massive difference between wanting to die and wanting someone else to die. No decision on euthanasia is (or should be made) on the feelings of the person doing the killing, but the one who is about to die. (Otherwise most marriage spats would end with forced euthanasia.)

My nation completely agrees that a woman should ultimately decide about her own body... except that we also have laws in our nation also against:
1. Prostitution

Prostitution is legal in all UN nations. As a UN member, you can't outlaw prostitution.

That's freedom!

2. Drug use
3. Suicide (kind of silly, I know, but it's there)
4. Public Nudity

I have to wonder if those arguing this position are in favor of all of the above also being legal. Just wondering.

I am. Forbidding drugs only makes it worse. We prefer to invest our money in education, because with freedom comes responsibility, which is difficult to take without knowing about a subject. We shudder to think that there are nations where kids grow up thinking drugs are cool because they are illegal, and use them without any knowledge of the dangerous side-effects.

Public nudity isn't bad too, as long as it's not done in an offensive manner.

Suicide is the symptom of a disorder. In Groot Gouda we treat patients, we don't throw them in jail. Although in the case of suicide, there's usually not a lot left to treat.

*looks through some notes..." Oh yes, here it is! Our scientists gave irrefutable proof that day that:

1. The unborn child has a completely different genetic code from the mother.
2. The unborn child often has a different blood type from the mother.
3. The unborn child has it's own immune system.
4. The unborn child is male about half the time.

The unborn child has very little chances of surviving without the mother for most of the time. There are other people who need help, but at least their body can fully sustain itself.

The main debate on the floor of our legislature climaxed when Genetic Scientist Harry Potholder explained, "Remember that every cell in the human body contains the genetic code for the entire body. Since the unborn child's genetic code is ALWAYS different from the mother's, it is obvious that the baby is a completely separate individual."

Great. So you register babies just after conception as a citizen?

Groot Gouda, Thanks for being honest on your position on the list of things we do not allow in our nation (and thanks for giving us the heads up about the law about prostitution. We'll get busy repealing that one next). You are free to have that opinion. We just simply disagree there. We congratulate you for being consistent in your opinions though.

The unborn child has very little chances of surviving without the mother for most of the time. There are other people who need help, but at least their body can fully sustain itself.

So what you're trying to say is that anyone who needs the help of someone else to survive is not protected in your nation? I'm not sure what other people you are thinking about, but I can think of many in Dorksonia that would not have their fundamental right to life protected by your definition here (and they have already been born).


Great. So you register babies just after conception as a citizen?

Don't be silly. But we do protect their lives. We actually do not register anyone in our country as citizens until they turn 13 years old. It's a rite of passage in Dorksonia.

We also protect the lives of the eggs of certain animals on our endangered species list. We do not register the eggs or the adult animals we are trying to protect as citizens ever.

Dorksonia,

Do you plan on taking care of children that are borne to mothers that, for some reason, are unable to take care of them properly? Mothers that can not afford to feed their child and themselves, or verbally and mentally abuse unwanted children, or have possible complications from a surgery that may threaten her life, or have a constant reminder of a traumatic experience such as rape, or those too young to handle the responsibility?

The U.N. oversteps it authority far to frequently. It needs to insure the peace, economic well being, and human rights of the populance of nations. But nations and indviduals differ as to what exactly are human rights. A U.N. that dictates every aspect of law will undoubtedly anger a great number of nations, and may result in them leaving the U.N. I ask you how does this accomplish anything? For the very nations that we want to obey the U.N. are now independent of it and do not have to obey even the most basic mandates regarding human rights. Look at the nations that leave the U.N., most are either phycotic dictatorships or nations that have some similar affiliations. Acts that oversep U.N. authority-and if you disagree with this then let me simply say measures that work against what the U.N. is trying to accomplish-do not accomplish anything. They are self defeating. They actually hurt the people we try to protect. Any international organization must limit itself, or else they will be ignored.

Look at the nations that leave the U.N., most are either phycotic dictatorships or nations that have some similar affiliations.See, now, we resent that. We're every bit as phycotic as the next guy, but we're no dictatorship. At least not on paper.

Haha, no offense my friend. I merely meant that dictatorships are the nations that the U.N. would most like to impose its sanctions in, and in some cases the nations that it should be most concerned about.

Dorksonia,

Do you plan on taking care of children that are borne to mothers that, for some reason, are unable to take care of them properly? Mothers that can not afford to feed their child and themselves, or verbally and mentally abuse unwanted children, or have possible complications from a surgery that may threaten her life, or have a constant reminder of a traumatic experience such as rape, or those too young to handle the responsibility?

OOC: Oh, ffs... :rolleyes:

Dorksonia,

Do you plan on taking care of children that are borne to mothers that, for some reason, are unable to take care of them properly? Mothers that can not afford to feed their child and themselves, or verbally and mentally abuse unwanted children, or have possible complications from a surgery that may threaten her life, or have a constant reminder of a traumatic experience such as rape, or those too young to handle the responsibility?

I agree that when you kill someone they are no longer hungry or able to be abused. I think the question here is if our society wants to use death as a way to address hunger and other social problems.

If so, why kill children? If we're going to use bloodshed as a means of social engineering, let's kill adults since they eat alot more than children. In fact, we could sove many, many other problems with this approach. If we just make all crimes punishable by the death penalty, we would not only help end hunger, but we would also lower the crime rate, end prison overpopulation, reduce courtroom overcrowding, dramatically lower taxes, reduce unemployment, and reap any number of other hidden benefits. We could save the food the elderly consume by simply deciding that, at some pre-set age, their lives are no longer 'meaningful' and simply do away with them, too. If we put our minds to it, I'm sure the possibilities are limitless.

Now obviously, these are totally ridiculous proposals, but certainly no more so than the idea that killing children is a legitimate way to solve the problems of neglect, abuse, poverty, and hunger.

OOC: In the real world, can you name for me one single social issue you suggest will get worse if abortion is illegal in a nation, that hasn't gotten exponentially worse already since it has been legalized? Just one.

I agree that when you kill someone they are no longer hungry or able to be abused. I think the question here is if our society wants to use death as a way to address hunger and other social problems.Eugenics for the win!

Eugenics can very well go to the devil. It is an entirely vile practice. Abortion as such tool is disgusting. It is the womens right to choose, but not necesscarily her right to choose to get rid of a child. I am ok with abortion before the child is 2-1 month old. But otherwise it really is to developed.

My opinion on abortion is this: It should never happen. Even unborn, a child is a living thing. It must be respected. However, there are two circumstances where I would alow abortion:

1. Rape

If you didn't choose to have the baby, you shouldn't have to care for it.

2. Severe Risk to the Mother's Health

If it will kill you, it needs to be stopped. This should only occur when the child is dead.

My opinion on abortion is this: It should never happen. Even unborn, a child is a living thing. It must be respected. However, there are two circumstances where I would alow abortion:

1. Rape

If you didn't choose to have the baby, you shouldn't have to care for it.

2. Severe Risk to the Mother's Health

If it will kill you, it needs to be stopped. This should only occur when the child is dead.

Then we suggest you vote FOR the Abortion Legality Convention (ALC). The alternative is the proposal that will come up for vote on the UN floor behind the ALC, should the ALC not pass. The other proposal will legalise abortions throughout member nations, not just under the two conditions you noted, but simply at the whim of anyone carrying a child.

Then we suggest you vote FOR the Abortion Legality Convention (ALC). The alternative is the proposal that will come up for vote on the UN floor behind the ALC, should the ALC not pass. The other proposal will legalise abortions throughout member nations, not just under the two conditions you noted, but simply at the whim of anyone carrying a child.
While blocking any real government regulation whatsoever, we might add. It is, to be sure, a radical measure. It extends the woman's right to choice on abortion universally; shutting fathers, family, and government out of any say in the matter. The Socialist Republic does not view abortion as a key issue within our own borders, but we are convinced of the danger involved in overextending personal freedoms. While this matter may be of minimal importance to us compared to many nations, it is concerning that forced social libertarianism from the level of international law would be as widely supported as it is. That, above all else, is why we oppose Clinical Abortion Rights.

Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

My opinion on abortion is this: It should never happen. Even unborn, a child is a living thing. It must be respected. However, there are two circumstances where I would alow abortion:

1. Rape

If you didn't choose to have the baby, you shouldn't have to care for it.If you have an abortion you didn't choose to have the baby...

2. Severe Risk to the Mother's Health

If it will kill you, it needs to be stopped. This should only occur when the child is dead.Out of curiosity, how is it okay in those cases? How is the "child" different from any other case?
Or is it that you put a value on the "child" that is lesser than that of the woman in those instances where you think it's less deserving of life?
If you're willing to make exceptions to the rule, why just for those two circumstances?
It's not the fault of the "child" that it was concieved through rape, or could pose a life threatening situation to the expectant mother-to-be.


Fake

1. Huh? No, some people have an abortion for when they just... well, do things I don't want to say. Also, I forgot to mention, this will also only happen before it is truly consious (within a month.)

2. I said this would only happen wen the child is dead. No pain felt, because it's dead.

Also, I forgot to mention, this will also only happen before it is truly consious (within a month.)How do one feel pain/be concious when there's no nerve endings receptive of pain/no functional brain?


Fake

Groot Gouda, Thanks for being honest on your position on the list of things we do not allow in our nation (and thanks for giving us the heads up about the law about prostitution. We'll get busy repealing that one next).

Mwahahaha. You're not the first to try. And this resolution is already a replacement of an earlier, repealed resolution. If it gets repealed, I'll promise you I will get an even better resolution through.

So what you're trying to say is that anyone who needs the help of someone else to survive is not protected in your nation?

No, I just mentioned that to counter the "unborn children are people too" arguments that are mentioned. Strangely, people seem to be concerned about that only when it suits them. They're not considered people except when abortion is concerned; they're considered too developed yet they're not able to survive without the mother around it.

Here's why you should vote for the ALC. It gives everyone the freedom to make their own choices. (Except the women in Gruenberg, who get to do what we tell them. Yay!)

Aye, freedom is a good thing.

You know even if the mother was r a p ed then if you believe the baby is human it is still m u r d e r.*
* sorry about spelling it out but I have to otherwise it is blocked.

Still, in that case it wasn't the mothers choice to have the child.

But well, I'd just say only allow abortion well before it is born. I mean WELL before.

Here's why you should vote for the ALC. It gives everyone the freedom to make their own choices. (Except the women in Gruenberg, who get to do what we tell them. Yay!)Someone remind me to gag Mr. Bausch when this thing goes to vote.

Jack, I'll bet we can hire a CPESL worker to do that for us. It will probally cost a little more than the standard fee, though.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Jack, I'll bet we can hire a CPESL worker to do that for us. It will probally cost a little more than the standard fee, though.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Actually, I'm sure that could be arranged free of charge...

HotRodia will sponsor the gagging and whatever other activities are required to keep Mr. Bausch occupied for the debate as part of our International Hospitality Program.

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

Do you plan on taking care of children that are borne to mothers that, for some reason, are unable to take care of them properly? Mothers that can not afford to feed their child and themselves, or verbally and mentally abuse unwanted children, or have possible complications from a surgery that may threaten her life, or have a constant reminder of a traumatic experience such as rape, or those too young to handle the responsibility?

Yes. But what does this have to do with abortion? :confused:

Seriously. What does this have to do with abortion? Parents (either single mothers or fathers) can get into situations where they are unable to take care of their children. They even die! (Sad fact though it may be.) Age is no indicator of maturity and some cannot handle parenthood. This is the duty of the state, to ensure that others can take the burden ... it's like a form of insurance. Are you going to tell a child. "Gee kid, your father just died and your handicapped mother can't afford to raise you so we are going to kill you?" I don't think so. Economic arguments have no right to be in an abortion debate.

Besides there are always orphanages ... a good investment for a future military some might argue. :D

Why are proposals like workplace safety so readily passed, while preventing things like terrorism and inaccesibility of abortion are more sternly opposed? Surely womens bodies and civillians rights are more important than paycheques

Yes. But what does this have to do with abortion? :confused:

Seriously. What does this have to do with abortion? Parents (either single mothers or fathers) can get into situations where they are unable to take care of their children. They even die! (Sad fact though it may be.) Age is no indicator of maturity and some cannot handle parenthood. This is the duty of the state, to ensure that others can take the burden ... it's like a form of insurance. Are you going to tell a child. "Gee kid, your father just died and your handicapped mother can't afford to raise you so we are going to kill you?" I don't think so. Economic arguments have no right to be in an abortion debate.

Do you really not understand what the point of Kiften's post was? Really truly?

That was a list of reasons WHY women choose to have abortions..... And I believe that economic arguments do have a right to be in an abortion debate because, whether you agree with it or not, it is a very big reason why some women choose to have abortions. If they cannot afford to take care of a child then they choose not to have the child at all. It happens a lot.

If it will kill you, it needs to be stopped. This should only occur when the child is dead.

So when carrying the baby to term could possibly kill the mother, but the baby will survive, you'd make the mother die?

Economic arguments have no right to be in an abortion debate.Neither do emotional ones.

Neither do emotional ones.

Why not? It's an emotional subject, as you can see. We're not robots...

And emotional or not, I am against this resolution because it oppresses people and denies the freedom to choose. Whole communities will be denied their basic rights because of this resolution.

And emotional or not, I am against this resolution because it oppresses people and denies the freedom to choose. Whole communities will be denied their basic rights because of this resolution.
Why can you not see that the other proposal denies us a freedom of choice? Why can you not see that some people do consider a foetus to be a living child, and that killing it is not a 'basic right'? Incidentally, when this passes, I will be expecting a written apology for your assertion that our nation is 'backwards'.

Why can you not see that the other proposal denies us a freedom of choice? Why can you not see that some people do consider a foetus to be a living child, and that killing it is not a 'basic right'? Incidentally, when this passes, I will be expecting a written apology for your assertion that our nation is 'backwards'.

There are a lot of things people consider, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be subject to that. Why can't you see that this is something to be decided by the person involved, with which a government has nothing to do? Having an abortion is no fun, it's a tough decision. Let the people decide what's best for themselves and their unborn child. And so far, I've barely seen evidence that nations consider a foetus to be a living child, except where abortion is concerned. For all other matters, it's not considered at all. If it's a living child, are they registered? Do they have a name? What's their legal position? If a nation neglects to take care of these matters for all these living children, why suddenly the rush to protect them in case of abortion? Why are the rights of an unwanted unborn child suddenly more important than that of the mother who has an unwanted guest in her body? No-one has yet given a single satisfying answer on why all this can only be decided by a national government, not the indivual concerned.

And if this passes, I'll keep calling the nations that support this backwards, because they support oppression of people.

There are a lot of things people consider, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be subject to that. Why can't you see that this is something to be decided by the person involved, with which a government has nothing to do? Having an abortion is no fun, it's a tough decision. Let the people decide what's best for themselves and their unborn child. And so far, I've barely seen evidence that nations consider a foetus to be a living child, except where abortion is concerned. For all other matters, it's not considered at all. If it's a living child, are they registered? Do they have a name? What's their legal position? If a nation neglects to take care of these matters for all these living children, why suddenly the rush to protect them in case of abortion? Why are the rights of an unwanted unborn child suddenly more important than that of the mother who has an unwanted guest in her body? No-one has yet given a single satisfying answer on why all this can only be decided by a national government, not the indivual concerned.
Are you suggesting that we should abolish laws on murder, because it is best that the individual decides whether they are allowed to kill someone else or not? (Excuse the slightly awkward parallel - this isn't an 'abortion is murder' line - it's an attempt to question your assertion that the sole decision-maker is the woman.) If people consider a foetus to be a human deserving of rights, or even just the right not to be killed, then it is only natural they would intervene. Would you stand by and let me attack someone because I didn't consider them to be human? Of course not; I would not ask you to. Some governments - rightly or wrongly - no doubt feel that in restricting abortion, they are similarly intervening. Their intention in such a case you would surely concede is honourable: take this example. You see me stabbing someone, so you pull me away. Then you realize it was a dummy, and we were shooting a film scene. The director and I are annoyed; should you really be chastised, though? No, you thought you were stopping a stabbing.

Now a foetus as a living child. It is very difficult to extend rights to a foetus, because it is in the womb. You're suggesting nations only respect the right to live. But I disagree. There are nations that conceive that people have a right to food, and who would punish mothers for deliberately starving themselves in a bid to 'naturally abort' their child. There are nations that conceive of a right to be free of torture, and who would not allow testing or experimentation on the foetus that would cause it harm. No, they probably don't allow it to vote or collect a benefit or carry a concealed weapon, but that's because they can't: it is in the womb.

And if this passes, I'll keep calling the nations that support this backwards, because they support oppression of people.
IC: Ok.
OOC: I just hope it's an IC comment.

And if this passes, I'll keep calling the nations that support this backwards, because they support oppression of people.

Sheer arrogance that.

Neither do emotional ones.

Exactly. We're discussing law here, not sitting in group therapy.

Economic arguements are, I believe, a more pertainant argument then emotional or religious; and a reason why it should be left up to the state.

Consider one nation. It has a declining population, and due to internal pressures immigration is not an option the government can seriously consider. However, in order for there economy to grow, a nation needs a steadily growing population. In this case, a country would have a superb economic argument for illegalising abortion.

Another nation may have a massive growth rate, growing so fast that it is impossible for the benefits of growth to reach everyone. In this case, they may wish for fewer babies and hence legalise abortion.

Some argue that is a case of individual sovreignty. Well, it could be argued that is a lack of individual sovreignty; after all, the baby does not itself choose to eradicate itself.

OoC: I'm pro-choice, please don't shout

Exactly. We're discussing law here, not sitting in group therapy.

OOC: Though sometimes I find myself thinking that group therapy for us may not be such a bad idea... :p

OK, the next person to use the false and totally fake term "individual sovereignty" in this discussion will be tied down, have a ball shoved in his mouth and flogged repeatedly by leather-clad Stripper Commandos. For God's sake, the term completely misuses the word "sovereignty."

OK, the next person to use the false and totally fake term "individual sovereignty" in this discussion will be tied down, have a ball shoved in his mouth and flogged repeatedly by leather-clad Stripper Commandos. For God's sake, the term completely misuses the word "sovereignty."

OOC, quoted without comment:
A speech by the Secretary General of the RL UN. (http://www.dwfed.org/pp_annan_on_sov.html)

...

That's all I have to say.

OOC, quoted without comment:
A speech by the Secretary General of the RL UN. (http://www.dwfed.org/pp_annan_on_sov.html)Good for Kofi. :rolleyes:

OK, the next person to use the false and totally fake term "individual sovereignty" in this discussion will be tied down, have a ball shoved in his mouth and flogged repeatedly by leather-clad Stripper Commandos. For God's sake, the term completely misuses the word "sovereignty."
No matter what you call it, "individual sovereignty" is, or ought to be, an important element of decision-making on any level of government. Everything tht is consciously not dictated to a people is left to their individual discretion, from what products they buy to freedom of speech and any number of other examples. It is a simple truth that in free states the government takes less responsibility for telling people what they can and can not do, picking and choosing laws in the spirit not only of bringing order to the society, but protecting individual rights. Though boundaries are almost invariably set, the amount of latitude given to the private individual in making their decisions from day to day is almost synonomous with the amount of civil freedom present in a state. Though this is not an argument in itself, very valid arguments indeed can be built upon it. To reject the line of thought offhand is to do a great injustice to each person's ability to govern themselves when given reasonable limits.

1. I was being silly.
2. I have no problems with considering individual "sovereignty" as a component of international law, just the misuse of the word "sovereignty." Just call it what it is: personal freedom, human rights, whatever. People are not completely "sovereign"; they are not walking, talking units of self-government within a nation; they are the nation. And nations through agreement by the people commonly infringe upon personal "sovereignty" with laws outlawing certain behaviors. Were I totally "sovereign," I could drink and drive whenever I wanted, I wouldn't have to pay taxes, I could strut down the street nude, I could have sex on a park bench, I could punch you in the face for good reason. Obviously, the people at large decide that the person is not a sovereign unit, otherwise they wouldn't outlaw such behaviors.

"Sovereignty of the individual" used to be a concept employed by anarchists to assert that governments have no place regulating personal behavior, which is why I have such problems with the misuse of the term. Just because people (in NS and RL) can misuse the word "soveriegnty," it don't mean it's correct.

1. I was being silly.
2. I have no problems with considering individual "sovereignty" as a component of international law, just the misuse of the word "sovereignty." Just call it what it is: personal freedom, human rights, whatever. People are not completely "sovereign"; they are not walking, talking units of self-government within a nation; they are the nation. And nations through agreement by the people commonly infringe upon personal "sovereignty" with laws outlawing certain behaviors. Were I totally "sovereign," I could drink and drive whenever I wanted, I wouldn't have to pay taxes, I could strut down the street nude, I could have sex on a park bench, I could punch you in the face for good reason. Obviously, the people at large decide that the person is not a sovereign unit, otherwise they wouldn't outlaw such behaviors.

"Sovereignty of the individual" used to be a concept employed by anarchists to assert that governments have no place regulating personal behavior, which is why I have such problems with the misuse of the term. Just because people (in NS and RL) can misuse the word "soveriegnty," it don't mean it's correct.
*Round of applause from Wyldtree*

This individual sovereignity notion has gotten out of hand.

"Sovereignty of the individual" used to be a concept employed by anarchists to assert that governments have no place regulating personal behavior, which is why I have such problems with the misuse of the term. Just because people (in NS and RL) can misuse the word "soveriegnty," it don't mean it's correct.

You are completely free to disagree with the defenders of individual sovereignty, or any other political philosophy. To claim ownership of the word sovereignty, dismissing an alternative, well established use as incorrect, seems to be a stretch too far. Rather than accusing everyone (including poor Kofi) of being illiterate, you can just argue against the concept itself.

The more I hear this debate turn into usage of this weird term "individual sovereignty" the more I see that the radical pro-abortion fanatics have a radical bill that totally reflects their beliefs, but pro-lifers are compromising by only supporting a bill that allows nations to choose for themselves how they run their nation. If pro-lifers unified on "individual sovereignty" they would want to respect all life and try to balance the "individual sovereignty" of the mother with the unborn child and come up with a bill not giving nation's the freedom to decide this divisive issue for themselves, but one that completely outlaws abortions in all nations. I'm not one that likes the term "individual sovereignty" or the belief system of a strong UN that decides almost everything for people, but I just thought I'd point out that this bill is quite moderate. Waterana's proposal is the complete radical extreme. This proposal is not the pro-lifer's extreme but a compromise. That is why it's the better bill.

Why not? It's an emotional subject, as you can see. We're not robots...I believe we've had this discussion before... You cannot build good law out of emotional arguments. Appeal to emotion is a fallacy for a reason, after all. I'm not saying it's not an emotional issue, but law cannot afford to be emotional.

Would you want your laws created based on the whims of some Emo 13 year-old?


OK, the next person to use the false and totally fake term "individual sovereignty" in this discussion will be tied down, have a ball shoved in his mouth and flogged repeatedly by leather-clad Stripper Commandos. For God's sake, the term completely misuses the word "sovereignty."Oh, baby! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! :D

Er... ahem.

Oh, baby! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! Individual sovereignty! :D

Er... ahem.
Oh, good. I wasn't the only person thinking about doing that.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You are completely free to disagree with the defenders of individual sovereignty, or any other political philosophy. To claim ownership of the word sovereignty, dismissing an alternative, well established use as incorrect, seems to be a stretch too far. Rather than accusing everyone (including poor Kofi) of being illiterate, you can just argue against the concept itself.

Sovereignty...note the root of that word: "sovereign." Now, let's all look it up in our dictionaries...

Sovereignty...note the root of that word: "sovereign." Now, let's all look it up in our dictionaries...

OOC: Ah, ffs... do a google search. People write books about individual sovereignty. People teach individual sovereignty in university. There are whole political parties dedicated to individual sovereignty. Our friend Kofi made a speech about it in the General freaking Assembly. Doesn't it strike you as a bit presumptuous to dismiss it as an incorrect term? Don't you think it is more interesting to discuss the concept itself, rather than squabble about well established semantics?

OOC: Ah, ffs... do a google search. People write books about individual sovereignty. People teach individual sovereignty in university. There are whole political parties dedicated to individual sovereignty. Our friend Kofi made a speech about it in the General freaking Assembly. Doesn't it strike you as a bit presumptuous to dismiss it as an incorrect term? Don't you think it is more interesting to discuss the concept itself, rather than squabble about well established semantics?

OOC: People writing books about it and professors yapping about it doesn't make it a legitimate term.

The concept is hardly new: "human rights > NatSov"?! Why hasn't someone thought of this shit before?! :rolleyes:
It's just re-emerged, this time with a brand new, LAE-ified name -- and I'm sick to death of discussing it.
And for God's sake, I was being silly in my first post. Was dragging Kofi freakin' Annan into this really necessary?

Terminology aside I found this portion of Kenny's rant pretty in line with my own views on the subject...

People are not completely "sovereign"; they are not walking, talking units of self-government within a nation; they are the nation. And nations through agreement by the people commonly infringe upon personal "sovereignty" with laws outlawing certain behaviors. Were I totally "sovereign," I could drink and drive whenever I wanted, I wouldn't have to pay taxes, I could strut down the street nude, I could have sex on a park bench, I could punch you in the face for good reason. Obviously, the people at large decide that the person is not a sovereign unit, otherwise they wouldn't outlaw such behaviors.

The idea of individual sovereignity in my opinion is silly. Not saying people shouldn't have rights, but no person is a truely sovereign entity barring complete anarchy...

Terminology aside I found this portion of Kenny's rant pretty in line with my own views on the subject...



The idea of individual sovereignity in my opinion is silly. Not saying people shouldn't have rights, but no person is a truely sovereign entity barring complete anarchy...


This is why John Stuart Mill's concept of liberty is very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Mill

"liberty ends where someone else's liberty begins"

Okay, let's just end this, okay?

OOC: Ah, ffs... do a google search. People write books about white supremacy and nazis. People teach white supremacy and nazis in university. There are whole political parties dedicated to white supremacy and nazis.There. Goodwin'd.

Our friend Kofi made a speech about it in the General freaking Assembly....which also considers the mass slaughter in Darfur to be not-genocide. Oh, and just to drag out Goodwin again, I'm sure plenty of people have yammered about the "evil" of Jews in the General freaking Assembly.

Doesn't it strike you as a bit presumptuous to dismiss it as an incorrect term? Don't you think it is more interesting to discuss the concept itself, rather than squabble about well established semantics?A lot of people use the 'word' "irregardless". That doesn't make it a word.

I mean, come on Fonzo... you can do better than appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. It's a hollow term and you know it.

Okay, let's just end this, okay?

You know, baiting me is not the best way to end this.

There. Goodwin'd.

I am afraid you missed the point completely. I am not arguing for or against individual sovereignty. I am arguing (and have been for a long time) that it is a well established concept, used by certain ideologies, and that should be challenged on its merits, rather than on semantics.

If someone argued that white supremacists and Nazis do not exist, I would sure as hell point out the history books, the Nazi organisations throughout the world, Hitler's speeches, and all that jazz. That doesn't mean I am offering my agreement to the cause; it means I would rather dismantle the nazi argument on its stupidity than cover my eyes and ears to pretend it is not there.

...which also considers the mass slaughter in Darfur to be not-genocide. Oh, and just to drag out Goodwin again, I'm sure plenty of people have yammered about the "evil" of Jews in the General freaking Assembly.

Your point being? Are you also arguing that the concept of "evil" is irrelevant, or that the concept of "Jew" is fake, or that anti-Zionist ideologies do not exist?

A lot of people use the 'word' "irregardless". That doesn't make it a word.

Like it or not, this is not a spelling mistake. Plenty of people use this concept, and some of them might not be illiterate morons. Your comparison is flawed.

I mean, come on Fonzo... you can do better than appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. It's a hollow term and you know it.

Ask me if I agree with it. Tell me your opinion of it. But do not misquote logical fallacies on me. As you should very well know, an appeal to authority would use the fact that uncle Kofi made a statement to show that statement was true, in a subject where he is not a legitimate authority. An appeal to popularity would use the fact that many people believe in the concept to prove the concept is valid. I did neither: I intended to prove that a concept is well established in politics, not that it is true. The facts that
a) people write books about it;
b) people teach it in university;
c) political parties write it in their manifests;
d) the Secretary General of the UN uses it to formally address the General Assembly;
all constitute valid supportive evidence for my claim. Do you see the difference?

'K, we are far off from the original topic of this thread, which was ... something about ... some sort of ... resolution, or ... something.

I think I'll sod all this off and submit a clean thread once this shit gets to vote. And a fun new clicky-clicky poll! :cool:

The Google doesn't lie, apparently Individual Sovereignty (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=individual+sovereignty&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) is a real term.

If someone argued that white supremacists and Nazis do not existWillfully ignoring my point doesn't make it false. By using "white supremicists and nazis" I was referencing belief in their ideology.

Your point being? Are you also arguing that the concept of "evil" is irrelevant, or that the concept of "Jew" is fake, or that anti-Zionist ideologies do not exist?Swing and a miss. You appealed to authority by saying Kofi mentioned "individual sovereignty". I turned it back on you by pointing out that other people have said hateful and untrue things in the General Assembly. Simply because somebody says something in the GA doesn't mean it's true.

Like it or not, this is not a spelling mistake.Technically correct because you can't misspell a nonword. Do we have to go into why it's not a proper word?

Plenty of people use this concept, and some of them might not be illiterate morons. Your comparison is flawed.Appeal to popularity. My comparison is perfectly valid.

An appeal to popularity would use the fact that many people believe in the concept to prove the concept is valid. I did neither: I intended to prove that a concept is well established in politics, not that it is true. The facts that
a) people write books about it;
b) people teach it in university;
c) political parties write it in their manifests;
d) the Secretary General of the UN uses it to formally address the General Assembly;
all constitute valid supportive evidence for my claim. Do you see the difference?Okay, fine. People use the term. That doesn't make it valid. If you're only point was that people use a term that is nonsensical, then good job; you did it. However, when someone goes to great pains to show how people we should pay attention to use a term, one can be forgiven for believing that the concept was being defended as legitimate.

Is there any more nonsense you would like to prove is used by people? Phrenology, perhaps?

*snip*

You made the mistake of assuming I was defending the ideology, and presenting it as the truth. I was not, as you might notice if you re-read my posts. As such, the only fallacious argument I see here is your valiant fight against a windmill, frequently known as a straw man. For reference:

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

You still make the mistake of confusing legitimacy and truth. Establishing truth is highly subjective when discussing political ideology. Clearly, you are not an extreme anarchist or libertarian. Nor am I. As such, neither of us has a strong need to use that term. But claiming that the basic concept of a specific ideology is a nonword is a rather weak rebuttal of that ideology. Even if your opponent was actually defending it.

Kenny, I agree that this has gone too far, and I apologise for the threadjacking. I am done here.

Is there any more nonsense you would like to prove is used by people? Phrenology, perhaps?
WhatchootalkingaboutWillis? Phrenology is as real as the bumps on my head!

OOC: Though sometimes I find myself thinking that group therapy for us may not be such a bad idea... :p

After reading the rest of this thread...

Alright, I'm going to introduce the new term "fetus sovereignty" here. Which is interesting because I'm the one that doesn't even like to use the word "fetus."

The point is - that if we're going to talk about "individual sovereignty", we argue that the unborn child is one of those individuals as well. News Flash: People disagree over this.

I got to thinking, the desire that some have expressed here about imposing their views on all nations in defence of individuals everywhere falls short because there are nations not in the UN that do not have to obey these laws and can ban abortion in their country by simply dropping out of the U.N. So, because there is such disunity here over this issue, we should leave this to nations instead of one group passing their view of what is right and saying to everyone else, "If you don't like it, you can drop out of the U.N."

I agree wholeheartedly with Darksonia. I will be voting for this proposal only because I would like to retain the right of my sovereign country to ban or allow abortion as my people see fit.

I would like to say that many of the issues that have been brought before the UN really shouldn't have existed. The UN has neither the resources nor the support to actually enforce many of the laws. I believe the UN can be a great help to its members but it must not encroach on our nation sovereignty or right to rule ourselves :headbang:

...if we're going to talk about "individual sovereignty", we argue that the unborn child is one of those individuals as well. News Flash: People disagree over this.
I think the term is being used as an expression for those that can actually excercise some decision-making, i.e. the woman who's pregnant. The fetus... meh. Maybe a person, maybe not. As you said, point in contention. However, the fetus cannot excercise sovereignty because, for all intents and purposes, it has no opinion.

I think the term is being used as an expression for those that can actually excercise some decision-making, i.e. the woman who's pregnant. The fetus... meh. Maybe a person, maybe not. As you said, point in contention. However, the fetus cannot excercise sovereignty because, for all intents and purposes, it has no opinion.

Would you be willing to outlaw abortion at the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?

For those who wish to decide the abortion issue for themselves, there is this proposal behind which to throw support.

Abortion Legality Convention
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny2

Description: The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, that no one may be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment,

Article 5 actually reads: "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment"

RECOGNISING that both scientific and moral opinion remains, and is likely to remain, irreparably divided over the issue of at what stage human life begins,
ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many societies within the NSUN that would consider a fetus, and especially a developed fetus in the third trimester, to possess human characteristics and be deserving of special protection, whilst others would not,

REGRETTING that such divisions render global resolution over abortion unlikely,

Abortion need not kill a late-term fetus. Abortion need not be allowed in the third trimeseter except under special circumstances.

These were true under the old resoluton and still are now.

Abortion rights need not be absolute. But disagreement at one end should not deprive all female (or baby-carrying) citizens of the UN of basic human rights.

SEEKING to establish a fair compromise:

There is little fair about this "compromise."

If you wish to reduce abortion without infringing individual rights, you should consider a proposal with some or all of the following: (a) a financial program like the one who proposal reducing economic burdens on pregancy and/or child-raising, (b) improving worldwide access and quality of sex education, family planning, and contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies, (c) improving worldwide access and quality of prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and women's health care in general to reduce medical reasons for abortion, and (d) programs to assist disadvantaged women and the disadvantaged in general.


1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

No the state should not have the right to violate the fundamental rights of women. International human rights are more important than NatSov.

2. RECOMMENDS that in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or where the continuation of the pregnancy poses severe medical risk to the mother, states permit abortion procedures;

Good, but what about all those other first trimester abortions (90% of all abortions) that your resolution doesn't say are objectionable. Why shouldn't they also be recommended to be legal during the first trimester.

And why does only severe medical risk to the mother count?

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

Hell no. This is just bad medical practice and bad law. You cannot define IDX in a way that does not include a wide range of common abortion procedures. When IDX is used it usually only to save the life or health of the woman or to remove an unviable (usually dead) fetus.

You just don't know what you are talking about here.

4. CALLS FOR increased international research in fetal development, so as to develop greater understanding of the ramifications of abortion;

Great. But wouldn't research be better spent preventing abortions by improving sex education and contraception? In developing better prenatal care and reducing the point of viability, so that fetuses may be removed without killing them?

5. REMINDS states that in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities.

Meh. Piffle, but acceptable.

Alright, I'm going to introduce the new term "fetus sovereignty" here. Which is interesting because I'm the one that doesn't even like to use the word "fetus."

The point is - that if we're going to talk about "individual sovereignty", we argue that the unborn child is one of those individuals as well. News Flash: People disagree over this.

I got to thinking, the desire that some have expressed here about imposing their views on all nations in defence of individuals everywhere falls short because there are nations not in the UN that do not have to obey these laws and can ban abortion in their country by simply dropping out of the U.N. So, because there is such disunity here over this issue, we should leave this to nations instead of one group passing their view of what is right and saying to everyone else, "If you don't like it, you can drop out of the U.N."


"Fetal sovereignty", please. One must be sentient to be a person and have rights.

If you feel so strongly about NatSov, why the IDX ban language?

Would you be willing to outlaw abortion at the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?

1. When do you allege that would be?

2. Would you be willing to outlaw eating meat at the point medical science has determined the animal would feel pain when slaughtered?

Article 5 actually reads: "All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment"
Yep. And some states consider a fetus to be a human bean.

Abortion need not kill a late-term fetus. Abortion need not be allowed in the third trimeseter except under special circumstances.
Or ever.

These were true under the old resoluton and still are now.

Abortion rights need not be absolute. But disagreement at one end should not deprive all female (or baby-carrying) citizens of the UN of basic human rights.
Trouble is, Abortion Rights was absolute. Anyway, spilt milk. As to 'basic human rights'...we don't care too much about them in Gruenberg.

There is little fair about this "compromise."
Sure there is: you do what you want, we do what we want. Poifect.

If you wish to reduce abortion without infringing individual rights, you should consider a proposal with some or all of the following: (a) a financial program like the one who proposal reducing economic burdens on pregancy and/or child-raising, (b) improving worldwide access and quality of sex education, family planning, and contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies, (c) improving worldwide access and quality of prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and women's health care in general to reduce medical reasons for abortion, and (d) programs to assist disadvantaged women and the disadvantaged in general.
Write a proposal about it and I'll support it. In fact, I'll write one for you. But right now, we're discussing this proposal.

No the state should not have the right to violate the fundamental rights of women. International human rights are more important than NatSov.
Well a) the definition of 'international human rights' is sufficiently variable some feel it applies to fetuses and b) we don't really care. National rights > human rights, because this is a United Nations, not a United People. If they don't like it in Gruenberg, they can leave.

Good, but what about all those other first trimester abortions (90% of all abortions) that your resolution doesn't say are objectionable. Why shouldn't they also be recommended to be legal during the first trimester.
Because we don't like abortion, at all.

And why does only severe medical risk to the mother count?
It's only a token encouragement; we don't intend on allowing it at all.

Hell no. This is just bad medical practice and bad law. You cannot define IDX in a way that does not include a wide range of common abortion procedures. When IDX is used it usually only to save the life or health of the woman or to remove an unviable (usually dead) fetus.
Fortunately, it's an optional clause. Implement it as you see fit, or not at all; you're still in compliance. There's nothing wrong with assuming some common sense on the part of nations: that is why I didn't define IDX.

You just don't know what you are talking about here.
Sure I do: it's 'a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is
never medically necessary and should be prohibited'.

Great. But wouldn't research be better spent preventing abortions by improving sex education and contraception? In developing better prenatal care and reducing the point of viability, so that fetuses may be removed without killing them?
And this stops you researching that...how?

Meh. Piffle, but acceptable.
You do realize that line was the only encouragement to allow abortion regardless, right? That was the "let's pander to the liberals, or at least feign to do so" line. I'm disappointed.

Next?

Yep. And some states consider a fetus to be a human bean.


Or ever.


Trouble is, Abortion Rights was absolute. Anyway, spilt milk. As to 'basic human rights'...we don't care too much about them in Gruenberg.


Sure there is: you do what you want, we do what we want. Poifect.


Write a proposal about it and I'll support it. In fact, I'll write one for you. But right now, we're discussing this proposal.


Well a) the definition of 'international human rights' is sufficiently variable some feel it applies to fetuses and b) we don't really care. National rights > human rights, because this is a United Nations, not a United People. If they don't like it in Gruenberg, they can leave.


Because we don't like abortion, at all.


It's only a token encouragement; we don't intend on allowing it at all.


Fortunately, it's an optional clause. Implement it as you see fit, or not at all; you're still in compliance. There's nothing wrong with assuming some common sense on the part of nations: that is why I didn't define IDX.


Sure I do: it's 'a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is
never medically necessary and should be prohibited'.


And this stops you researching that...how?


You do realize that line was the only encouragement to allow abortion regardless, right? That was the "let's pander to the liberals, or at least feign to do so" line. I'm disappointed.

Next?

1. Abortion rights were not absolute under the prior resolution nor do they need to be absolute. What should not be absolute is the state's control of human bodies against the will of the mother.

2. I realize you believe you've written the perfect proposal. So there is no point suggesting changes.

3. You would really like to ban abortion, period. But you know you don't have the votes. That's why all this hand-waving and fiddle-faddling.

4. The citizens of Gruenenberg are welcome in The Cat-Tribe and any of our affiliated nations.

5. You are seriously misinformed about so-called "partial birth abortion." IDX is a medically necessary procedure that is no more gruesome than open heart surgery and often performed on an already dead fetus.

6. Yes, I know the line was supposed to be the "compromise." It was mere fluff.

1. Abortion rights were not absolute under the prior resolution nor do they need to be absolute. What should not be absolute is the state's control of human bodies against the will of the mother.
2. I realize you believe you've written the perfect proposal. So there is no point suggesting changes.
3. You would really like to ban abortion, period. But you know you don't have the votes. That's why all this hand-waving and fiddle-faddling.
4. The citizens of Gruenenberg are welcome in The Cat-Tribe and any of our affiliated nations.
5. You are seriously misinformed about so-called "partial birth abortion." IDX is a medically necessary procedure that is no more gruesome than open heart surgery and often performed on an already dead fetus.
6. Yes, I know the line was supposed to be the "compromise." It was mere fluff.
1. Eh. State rights still trump human rights.
2. I'd welcome suggested changes, if they could be incorporated. Once it's submitted, though - as is the case - it can't be changed. If both proposals fail, I'll gladly accommodate your considerations into a new proposal. But this one doesn't prohibit your ideas.
3. No. National sovereignty, remember? If you want to allow abortion, go ahead. I'd oppose an abortion ban as strongly as a blanket legalisation.
4. Thanks; I'll pass that along. If they're suspected of getting an abortion, though, we will request extradition.
5. I'm not misinformed about 'partial birth'. Other people are, and I intend to scaremonger them into supporting this proposal.
6. *shrug* We tried. It's the most you're getting.

Scaremongering aside, I think a proposal that allows the banning of abortion violates the existing proposals.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #27

Due Process
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is the same language relied upon for abortion rights in the US Constitution. Based on that language the US Supreme Court has held many times that abortion is constitutionally protected. By the same logic, abortion must be protected by Resolution #27. Also your urged partial birth abortion ban would violate Resolution #27.

(If I get bored tomorrow, I walk you through it step-by-step.)

(If I get bored tomorrow, I walk you through it step-by-step.)Please do. The last time I went over this Proposal with a fine-toothed comb for supposed rules violations, I found nothing.

Currently, all I see is someone really reaching.

And please remember that this isn't General. The rulings and case law of the US Supreme Court are utterly irrelevent.

Please do. The last time I went over this Proposal with a fine-toothed comb for supposed rules violations, I found nothing.

Currently, all I see is someone really reaching.

And please remember that this isn't General. The rulings and case law of the US Supreme Court are utterly irrelevent.

I understand that this isn't General. I was just pointing to the rulings and case law of US Supreme Court as doing exactly what I will suggest tomorrow -- prohibiting the banning of abortion based on the Due Process Clause. But I'm sure you'd dismiss those 100 year old cases on substantive due process as "reaching" as well.

My guess is you will reject my argument because it would be too inconvenient not to do so.

Scaremongering aside, I think a proposal that allows the banning of abortion violates the existing proposals.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #27

Due Process
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The global market

Description: No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limbo, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himsefl, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Surely this would actually ban abortion, as you are depriving the feotus life without a court trial?

But I'm sure you'd dismiss those 100 year old cases on substantive due process as "reaching" as well.Yeah. Check the attitude at the door. I, again, remind you that this isn't General. You score no points for haughtiness.

My guess is you will reject my argument because it would be too inconvenient not to do so.What is it with people and falling back on vague whispers of bias whenever someone disagrees with them? If you're going to level a serious charge like that, you had best have proof. If you think I won't delete a Proposal that's in queue out of "convenience" you have a lot to learn.

The Cat-Tribe: my problem with your argument is the UN hasn't defined 'person'.

Where are the United Nation's Lawyers when you need them?

Or am I going to have to unleash "Pointy"...

I agree wholeheartedly with Darksonia. I will be voting for this proposal only because I would like to retain the right of my sovereign country to ban or allow abortion as my people see fit.

*snip*

Then you should throw your support behind the Abortion Legality Convention, rather than the other proposal on this issue, which is more restrictive.

EDIT: Sorry, Gruen. Got my threads mixed up. :(

Then you should throw your support behind the Abortion Legality Convention, rather than this restrictive proposal.
:confused:

If you feel so strongly about NatSov, why the IDX ban language?

The proposal merely "URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure." There's no mandatory ban, so it still respects national sovereignty.

The proposal merely "URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure." There's no mandatory ban, so it still respects national sovereignty.
But why even urge this?

But why even urge this?
Because plenty of people oppose 'partial birth'. By putting it in, it URGES them to vote for the proposal.

How binding would this be on UN Nations? Would it still be up to the individual Nations Governments to decide to implement this or would it be forced upon them?

How binding would this be on UN Nations? Would it still be up to the individual Nations Governments to decide to implement this or would it be forced upon them?
The whole point of this, as I noted in the Moderation thread, is that it establishes the right of governments to decide.

Please read proposals before commenting on them, although I do welcome your request for clarification here, and I hope you now see what this proposal does.

point taken..i actually DID read the proposal b4 commenting but obviously did not read it well enough..

I have decided to stay out of this debate on this issue..

How binding would this be on UN Nations? Would it still be up to the individual Nations Governments to decide to implement this or would it be forced upon them?

It would be forced to decide for themselves, without bothering about abusive nations who can happily oppress women if they want to.

Which is pretty much as the situation is now; this resolution doesn't change anything. Its only reason for existence is to block those wishing to implement a better resolution (ie one that actually allows or bans abortion).

It would be forced to decide for themselves, without bothering about abusive nations who can happily oppress women if they want to.They're our women, and we'll do with them as we please. If they don't like being "oppressed," they can move to Groot Gouda.

Yeah. Check the attitude at the door. I, again, remind you that this isn't General. You score no points for haughtiness.

What is it with people and falling back on vague whispers of bias whenever someone disagrees with them? If you're going to level a serious charge like that, you had best have proof. If you think I won't delete a Proposal that's in queue out of "convenience" you have a lot to learn.

*sigh*

When did I allege bias? I think instead I was referring to the fact that my Due Process Clause argument will open a can of worms that you will likely feel is best left shut.

And I am well aware this isn't General. One is allowed to make sensible arguments in General (as well as stupid ones) without going through the charade of acting like there isn't a RL. (Although that line is often breached.)

I am sorry if I seemed to be exuding haughtiness. I just thought your knee-jerk rejection of my argument was rather premature (and yes, given RL my argument has prevailed for 30 years in the US, a bit thoughtless).

They're our women, and we'll do with them as we please. If they don't like being "oppressed," they can move to Groot Gouda.

Current resolutions ban many forms of oppression. And Resolution #33 guarantees all persons within your nation equal protection under the law. You can't be discriminating against women only.

Because plenty of people oppose 'partial birth'. By putting it in, it URGES them to vote for the proposal.

In other words, Gruenberg will not defend that part of the proposal on its merits. It is merely there to help garner votes.

If you wish to reduce abortion without infringing individual rights, you should consider a proposal with some or all of the following: (a) a financial program like the one who proposal reducing economic burdens on pregancy and/or child-raising, (b) improving worldwide access and quality of sex education, family planning, and contraceptives to reduce unwanted pregnancies, (c) improving worldwide access and quality of prenatal care, labor and delivery care, and women's health care in general to reduce medical reasons for abortion, and (d) programs to assist disadvantaged women and the disadvantaged in general.
*cough* (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10432250&postcount=13)


>_>


<_<


:)

"Fetal sovereignty", please. One must be sentient to be a person and have rights.
By your logic only though. :rolleyes:

I love when people use the word person when talking about rights because it makes them look quite stupid in my view.
Last time I looked, they were called "Human Rights" not person's rights or personal rights!

The Cat-Tribe
"Fetal sovereignty", please. One must be sentient to be a person and have rights.

If you feel so strongly about NatSov, why the IDX ban language?

1. I was joking. I thought the arguments about "individual sovereignty" were quite off track and in my opinion - never mind. I don't even want to go there again. That's why I submitted what I did as a joke. Although we do consider the unborn to be a human and demanding the protection of our government.

2. I didn’t author the bill. Some of the language of it I’m not excited about. However the clause you refer to is not binding, but a suggestion.

The Cat-Tribe
3. You would really like to ban abortion, period. But you know you don't have the votes. That's why all this hand-waving and fiddle-faddling.

Many of us have never attempted to impose our morality on other nations. We’re not the ones out there attempting to do so.

But why even urge this?
Because most people oppose this gruesome act of a viable baby being partially born and having it’s brains sucked out?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
Would you be willing to outlaw abortion at the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?

1. When do you allege that would be?

2. Would you be willing to outlaw eating meat at the point medical science has determined the animal would feel pain when slaughtered?

1. It doesn’t matter when I would allege that would be. We might disagree on this because we’re not scientists. But would you be willing to outlaw abortion at the point MEDICAL SCIENCE has PROVEN the unborn child feels pain? Just wanting an answer to that question please.

2. This totally does not fit within human rights and is irrelevant. Nice try. I do recognize that there are some that try to equate animal rights with human rights, but most people, including me, do not give equal protection to animals and human beings. Equating hunting animals for food vs. killing unborn babies for convenience are entirely different issues.

It would be forced to decide for themselves, without bothering about abusive nations who can happily oppress women if they want to.

Which is pretty much as the situation is now; this resolution doesn't change anything. Its only reason for existence is to block those wishing to implement a better resolution (ie one that actually allows or bans abortion).

Substitute "women" for "feotus", and you a stalemate argument. It is only sensible that the descision can only be made at a national level, preferably through responding to the wishes of the majority, as to whether the rights of a woman takes precedence over the rights of the feotus, or vice versa.

Because most people oppose this gruesome act of a viable baby being partially born and having it’s brains sucked out?
Debatable.

Current resolutions ban many forms of oppression. And Resolution #33 guarantees all persons within your nation equal protection under the law. You can't be discriminating against women only.Bah. UN resolutions no longer have any affect on this nation. Besides, the only "oppression" we subject our women to is restricting access to abortion. And routinely dousing them with paint thinner. But that's only a cleansing ritual, to rid them of the horrible demons that occupy all women's bodies.

Bah. UN resolutions no longer have any affect on this nation. Besides, the only "oppression" we subject our women to is restricting access to abortion. And routinely dousing them with paint thinner. But that's only a cleansing ritual, to rid them of the horrible demons that occupy all women's bodies.

Not funny.

If you RP away UN resolutions, why are you bothering us with this one?

And have you read UN resolution #49? You violate Articles 10 & 11.

Not funny.

If you RP away UN resolutions, why are you bothering us with this one?

And have you read UN resolution #49? You violate Articles 10 & 11.
He's not RPing, Omigodtheykilledkenny is not a UN member.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

1. It doesn’t matter when I would allege that would be. We might disagree on this because we’re not scientists. But would you be willing to outlaw abortion at the point MEDICAL SCIENCE has PROVEN the unborn child feels pain? Just wanting an answer to that question please.

2. This totally does not fit within human rights and is irrelevant. Nice try. I do recognize that there are some that try to equate animal rights with human rights, but most people, including me, do not give equal protection to animals and human beings. Equating hunting animals for food vs. killing unborn babies for convenience are entirely different issues.

Nice job of avoiding both questions.

I didn't suggest animals and humans have equal rights.

Explain to me why a zygote has more rights than a chimp, a dolphin, or a pig.

In other words, Gruenberg will not defend that part of the proposal on its merits. It is merely there to help garner votes.
Yes. Ain't democracy a peach? :)

He's not RPing, Omigodtheykilledkenny is not a UN member.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Is his wiki then out of date?

Omigodtheykilledkenny2 is though?

Anyway, my bad.

Is his wiki then out of date?

Omigodtheykilledkenny2 is though?

Anyway, my bad.
He transferred his membership to Omigodtheykilledkenny2 after the Anti-Terrorism act failed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Is his wiki then out of date?You needn't refer to us in the third person, sweetie. We're still here. Quoth our wiki:

UN Status: Withdrew 2/9/06And:

Omigodtheykilledkenny, formerly the regional delegate for Antarctic Oasis, is a member of the National Sovereignty Organization and UN DEFCON. It withdrew from the United Nations and the UN Old Guard in February, and presently casts its vote via a UN puppet.

The reason I don't see the need to defend the clause about partial birth is that its inclusion is solely to paint in big red letters "This is essentially a mandate to ban abortion in your nation", because these sort of resolutions get misinterpreted very easily. It does not actually ban partial birth, because I don't think the UN should ban partial birth. Nor should it rule definitively on it; I'm not too bothered by non-mandatory clauses. The UN shouldn't be ruling on abortion at all. Abortion is essentially about the social contract between the state and the individual: the extent to which the state exercises its sovereignty over the individual is not a UN consideration, but a national consideration.

As for my justification for supporting state rights in abortion, I've already made my case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10409359&postcount=206).

As for my justification for supporting state rights in abortion, I've already made my case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10409359&postcount=206).

OOC: Ah, yes. I made my case in that debate too. A hell of a lot of fun, I must say. First time I've used that particular argument.

As for my justification for supporting state rights in abortion, I've already made my case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10409359&postcount=206).

That was beautiful you old goat! I'm with ya!
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office

Nice job of avoiding both questions.

I didn't suggest animals and humans have equal rights.

Explain to me why a zygote has more rights than a chimp, a dolphin, or a pig.

lol! I asked the question first and I even asked it a second time - and you still have not answered. And your first question and your question above both DO seem to imply that animals and humans have equal rights. Unless you mistakenly think that this argument about abortion applies to animal embryos. A human "zygote" is still a human unborn baby and because it is human, falls under all the human rights protections we pass. To say that I dodged a question because I argued your comparison between animals and unborn babies as irrelevant in a discussion of human rights hardly seems credible.

And if you don't think a human "zygote has more rights than a chimp, a dolphin, or a pig" then why don't you just tell any women who may be reading this thread and suffered an unfortunate miscarriage to get over it because what she lost was no more important than a chimp, dolphin, or pig?


Just for fun, I'll ask the question a third time to see if you or anyone else will answer it. In the last week I've asked it 5 times between this thread and different ones and nobody has been able to answer it so far so I won't hold my breath:

Q. Would you be willing to outlaw abortion - not when you or I decide - but when Medical Science proves the unborn child feels pain? Even if that is hypothetical to you - would you be bothered if there were new evidence that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that at a certain level of development the unborn child feels pain? All I need is an an answer to that question.

That was a list of reasons WHY women choose to have abortions..... And I believe that economic arguments do have a right to be in an abortion debate because, whether you agree with it or not, it is a very big reason why some women choose to have abortions. If they cannot afford to take care of a child then they choose not to have the child at all. It happens a lot.
And I disagree because the "economic" argument does not have any qualifiers that restrict the argument to the unborn or pre-born. If you have an economic reason not to have a child not yet born, you can easily have the same economic reason not the have that child three years after it was born. Unless you are willing to use that same argument to imply that a parent has a right to kill their children as long as they are economically dependant on the parent, then you are using the economic argument to conviently smokescreen the abortion debate. The economic argument is merely an excuse ... because abortion is legal they choose the economically better alternative while millions have to struggle because their children are already born.

The "economic" difference between a woman who goes to have an abortion, the woman who dumps her baby in a dumpster and the woman who suffocates her child might be exactly the same, but our reactions to these events can often be massively different. Therefore the economic argument is in and of itself flawed.

Neither do emotional ones.

I agree. The art of rhetoric should be employed in debate and arguments should be aimed towards logic and not at emotions. Personally I think this is a rights issue, and thus the best arguments are those of rights; the rights of one (the mother) verses the rights of the other (the fetus) and the rights of anyone else who has a stake in the outcome ... including the state.

It would be forced to decide for themselves, without bothering about abusive nations who can happily oppress women if they want to.

Hooray! More appeal to emotion. We are forced to wonder if the representative from Groot Gouda has a logical argument against this proposal.

Hooray! More appeal to emotion. We are forced to wonder if the representative from Groot Gouda has a logical argument against this proposal.
How is it an appeal to emotion? It's a factual statement: Gruenberg will oppress its women once this passes. Whilst the statement was obviously 'emotionally charged', I don't think it was groundless.

*sigh*

I think instead I was referring to the fact that my Due Process Clause argument will open a can of worms that you will likely feel is best left shut.I frequent another forum where I'm simply a player. It's quite fun, especially since I can largely do whatever I want as I'm not representing management. This particular forum has a flame forum. Every now and then, topics in other forums get a little too flamey and they get moved or split to the flame forum. I followed one of those threads once because I was involved in it, and I wanted to see what the so-called "professional" flamers would do. I remember the hoary old days of alt.flame, so my expectations were high.

Sadly, all I saw was the regulars talking about how they were going to flame, and how everybody had best watch out because the thread was now in their lil' torture chamber. Not once did a flame forum regular actually produce anything.

The moral of my little tale? Either open the can of worms or stop talking about it. You predictions of doom and what I do or don't want are tiresome.

One is allowed to make sensible arguments in General (as well as stupid ones) without going through the charade of acting like there isn't a RL. (Although that line is often breached.)Yes, but you see, this is a subforum of "Sound and Fury". This is a role-play forum. While it blends IC and OOC much more than NS and II, it is still in character. Real world jurisprudence doesn't exist here.

given RL my argument has prevailed for 30 years in the USWho cares?

Hooray! More appeal to emotion. We are forced to wonder if the representative from Groot Gouda has a logical argument against this proposal.

I'm not going to repeat them, I've posted enough about individual liberty and the right to decide on one's own body.

I don't think I need to say why I will vote against this when it comes to vote do I? :)

Q. Would you be willing to outlaw abortion - not when you or I decide - but when Medical Science proves the unborn child feels pain? Even if that is hypothetical to you - would you be bothered if there were new evidence that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that at a certain level of development the unborn child feels pain? All I need is an an answer to that question.
OOC: I'll respond, even if no one else will. Short answer is no, both OOC and IC (well, speaking for my UN reps anyway).

OOC: I'll respond, even if no one else will. Short answer is no, both OOC and IC (well, speaking for my UN reps anyway).
If you don't mind me asking, why?! :|

If you don't mind me asking, why?! :|
OOC: Not speaking for Ecopoeia, but for me, feeling 'pain' is, well, not enough. Plants feel pain; animals certainly feel pain. That is not an indication of 'being human', which seems a common pro-life argument.

This is all very touching, but the issue at hand is not whether abortion is right or wrong; just if nations should have the right to self-determination on the issue. Claims or denials that unborn children feel pain contribute nothing to this discussion.

This is all very touching, but the issue at hand is not whether abortion is right or wrong; just if nations should have the right to self-determination on the issue. Claims or denials that unborn children feel pain contribute nothing to this discussion.
I have to agree that going down this line of discussion is irrelevant. We can quibble over the medical debate for hours on end with no resolution to the matter, but that is not the issue. The issue is who should decide about abortions – the state or the individual? This topic argues the state, the other argues the individual.

If you don't mind me asking, why?! :|
OOC: Apologies to Kenny and co - but I'll keep this short. Any further questioning can be sent by TG, if that's OK.

I agree with Golgothastan's statement but I additionally place the woman's rights irrevocably over the foetus, in all cases (well, that I can think of). Pain isn't an issue for me, cold as that may sound (so much for me being a fluffy, eh?). Should technology advance to the stage where all women, irrespective of circumstance, have free access to having a foetus surgically removed at any stage of pregnancy, then I'll likely acquiesce to an abortion ban.

This is all very touching, but the issue at hand is not whether abortion is right or wrong; just if nations should have the right to self-determination on the issue. Claims or denials that unborn children feel pain contribute nothing to this discussion.

I understand your point, Kenny. However, the discussion of the unborn child feeling pain is a central argument here, I believe, because the argument centering around National Sovereignty also includes "human rights" and "individual sovereignty". I am seeking to establish that the unborn child is "human" and an "individual".

The fact that NOBODY has even touched this question of mine I've asked 5 times in two threads over the past week except Ecopoeia says alot. Those arguing in favor of "women's rights" seem to argue for abortion even if they are fully aware the unborn child is an individual developing child that feels pain when you kill it (as Ecopoeia has at least admitted). This is to further point out extremism here as I'm not aware of anyone arguing limits on abortion that would argue against abortion if the mother's life was truly in danger and there would be no way to save the life of both. It is because we respect all life (not just the life of the mother or just the life of the unborn child). In other words, I do not feel the unborn child's life is more valuable than the mother's life. But I do believe the unborn child's life is more valuable than the mother's right to choose to end that unborn child's life if her life is not in danger).

I'm fully aware that those who argue for abortion being legal have decided to focus on 'who decides' rather than 'what is being decided' because they are fully aware that when the debate centers around the unborn child and the details of abortion they will not win in the public square.

This is to further point out extremism here
OOC: I don't think this is an extremist position, actually. Maybe in some RL countries, but not in others (e.g. the UK - and we're not given to extremism, let's be honest!).

And I haven't 'admitted' that the foetus feels pain. I responded to the postulate that it was. And that's not to say I'm denying it, either. I don't know.

Argh. Enough derailing, sorry again.

In any case, Ecopoeia has made the decision to defer to state level to some degree on this issue for a number of reasons. I'll nonetheless vote against as the content of a repeal is as important to me as that of a resolution - you can't remove a repeal from the statute books, after all. It's there for good and a disagreeable repeal is as ugly a sight as a disagreeable resolution.

OOC: Not speaking for Ecopoeia, but for me, feeling 'pain' is, well, not enough. Plants feel pain; animals certainly feel pain. That is not an indication of 'being human', which seems a common pro-life argument.

Look, we know that a newborn baby feels pain, and we also know that nothing occurs at the moment of birth to cause it to suddently start doing so. Combining those two facts makes it obvious that, at some point, while still in the womb, babies begin to feel pain. There is no way around that.

We can also verify that the unborn child is not a plant or an animal. I'm not aware of a single time in the history of mankind that a plant or animal was delivered from the womb of a pregnant mother. This linkage was obviously an attempt to dehumanize the unborn human child (since I believe that's the topic of our conversation here - as opposed to animal abortions or something else) in an attempt to rationalize the cold hard fact that it makes no difference that medical science can prove the unborn child is a separate individual from the mother and that this practice of abortion leads to a painful death of the unborn child.

Is there anyone here who who believes abortion should be an individual choice the mother makes that would agree to make abortion illegal (not at any point I or any pro-lifer determined) after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain? Anyone?

I have to agree that going down this line of discussion is irrelevant. We can quibble over the medical debate for hours on end with no resolution to the matter, but that is not the issue. The issue is who should decide about abortions – the state or the individual? This topic argues the state, the other argues the individual.

Actually, the other topic argues that the UN gets to decide about abortions. Frankly, the UN deciding about abortions makes even less sense than the state deciding about abortions, and I assure you that the state deciding about abortions is certainly not one of my preferences.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

We can also verify that the unborn child is not a plant or an animal. I'm not aware of a single time in the history of mankind that a plant or animal was delivered from the womb of a pregnant mother. This linkage was obviously an attempt to dehumanize the unborn human child (since I believe that's the topic of our conversation here - as opposed to animal abortions or something else) in an attempt to rationalize the cold hard fact that it makes no difference that medical science can prove the unborn child is a separate individual from the mother and that this practice of abortion leads to a painful death of the unborn child.
Your argument here is begging the question. You are saying "the unborn human child is human". Well no shit. If you define a foetus as being human, then of course you will consider it human. Not everyone does consider a foetus to be a human being, though. We are not 'dehumanising' it, because we never considered it to be human in the first place.

Is there anyone here who who believes abortion should be an individual choice the mother makes that would agree to make abortion illegal (not at any point I or any pro-lifer determined) after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain? Anyone?
Not me. I would keep abortion legal, given present medical technology, even after the point that independent medical scientists could conclusively demonstrate 'pain' - which I still feel is too vague a concept - in the foetus.

Is there anyone here who who believes abortion should be an individual choice the mother makes that would agree to make abortion illegal (not at any point I or any pro-lifer determined) after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain? Anyone?

No. Why don't you trust the mother to decide on whether she wants to have that abortion?

It's arrogant to assume a prime minister knows better than the woman concerned about her abortion. You don't know what the mother feels, what she's going through, why she wants to have an abortion. So why should that prime minister decide?

Abortion discussion is pointless. I encourage everyone to just vote the way they're going to vote and drop it. No one is changing anyone's mind here and we've tread this ground before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
Is there anyone here who who believes abortion should be an individual choice the mother makes that would agree to make abortion illegal (not at any point I or any pro-lifer determined) after the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain? Anyone?

No. Why don't you trust the mother to decide on whether she wants to have that abortion?

It's arrogant to assume a prime minister knows better than the woman concerned about her abortion. You don't know what the mother feels, what she's going through, why she wants to have an abortion. So why should that prime minister decide?

Every law we have assumes we know better than someone else about something. Unless your form of government is anarchy, this really does not make much sense. I do not believe that a woman's right to "choice" should trump another's right to life. So we base every law not on "choice" but what it is exactly that's being chosen. In this situation it's between a live baby or a dead baby. Those who believe something differently evidently deny what a woman is carrying is a baby or a human. It appears the lines have been drawn and we'll vote... NEXT WEEK on this one (and we have this much discussion so far). What's the record for pages discussed concerning a proposal?

Would you be willing to outlaw abortion at the point medical science has determined the unborn child feels pain?
My personal opinion isn't greatly relevant to either argument. I don't like the pro-life position, I don't like the pro-choice position. Of course, I see the motivations behind and respect people of both minds, but I personally would rather see birth control and abortion fall much more to government jurisdiction; for population control and screening of genetically defective children. I'm sure I can easily be attacked for that, but I'd rather stick to the topic at hand.

My point was that you can't really give sovereignty to a being that is incapable of making decisions of its own accord. Thus, when one argues for giving jurisdiction of the fetus to individuals, the unborn's "sovereignty" falls rather naturally to the mother. Power of attorney, if you will. In short, I would be more moved to the pro-life viewpoint if I was presented with evidence that an unborn child could, at some point in its intrauterine development, demonstrate an ability to, for lack of a better word, think. Ideally, that point at which sentience is attained would be the cutoff point for the legality of abortion. As far as I am aware though, at present the medical community does not have conclusive data on the subject.

My point was that you can't really give sovereignty to a being that is incapable of making decisions of its own accord. Thus, when one argues for giving jurisdiction of the fetus to individuals, the unborn's "sovereignty" falls rather naturally to the mother. Power of attorney, if you will. In short, I would be more moved to the pro-life viewpoint if I was presented with evidence that an unborn child could, at some point in its intrauterine development, demonstrate an ability to, for lack of a better word, think. Ideally, that point at which sentience is attained would be the cutoff point for the legality of abortion. As far as I am aware though, at present the medical community does not have conclusive data on the subject.

Does a newborn child think?

Does a newborn child think?
Not an expert. Can't say. I would guess the answer would be in the affirmative. My question is at what stage of development self-consciousness does develop. My best guess is early third trimester, but again, I have no idea. It is an important consideration though, because I would be inclined to say that abortion ought to become illegal at that stage of development. Prior to that, the potential of an organism to attain sentience is not sufficient in my mind to warrant it equal protection. If I were to speak solely on moral idealism I would say outlaw abortion entirely, but I think abortion is a valuable tool, for mothers and governments alike. From a realistic perspective I can't support a ban if the child is not yet self-aware.

Ahem:

This is all very touching, but the issue at hand is not whether abortion is right or wrong; just if nations should have the right to self-determination on the issue. Claims or denials that unborn children feel pain contribute nothing to this discussion.

The issue is who should decide about abortions – the state or the individual? This topic argues the state, the other argues the individual.

No, the question is whether or not the UN can decide. This proposal says no.

No. Why don't you trust the mother to decide on whether she wants to have that abortion?

It's arrogant to assume a prime minister knows better than the woman concerned about her abortion. You don't know what the mother feels, what she's going through, why she wants to have an abortion. So why should that prime minister decide?

It's even more arrogant to presume the UN knows what's best for every mother in the world.

It's even more arrogant to presume the UN knows what's best for every mother in the world.
I agree, and would vigorously oppose any proposal that exerted pressure on mothers to have, or not to have, an abortion, whether at international or state level.

No, the question is whether or not the UN can decide. This proposal says no.

That's the thing - the UN does not choose. It does not have the power to make the final choice - what it can do is leave the authority to make the final choice to the individual.

Thumbnail links to larger chart:
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7605/nstheunthestatetheindividual8m.jpg (http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/7605/nstheunthestatetheindividual8m.jpg)

EDIT: Heh, I was in the process of resizing the image for a suitable thumbnail as I noticed it was too big, only to notice a mod has done changes of their own. I've added the thumbnail.

It's even more arrogant to presume the UN knows what's best for every mother in the world. The reality is, that if the UN leaves this choice to the nation, some nations will outlaw abortion. That means the individual can't have an abortion.

If the UN says abortion is permitted, that means the individual can have an abortion - but they still have the choice to have the abortion or not. Saying they can do something does not mean they will do it automatically, but saying they can't do something means they can't do it period.

The reality is, that if the UN leaves this choice to the nation, some nations will outlaw abortion. *snip*

And that should be their prerogative.

And that should be their prerogative.
But...why? What has abortion got to do with national government? It's not an inherently national issue: it's just a very controversial issue. Why does it make any more, or less, sense to say "it's a decision at the highest level (UN)" or "it's a decision at the lowest level (person)" or "it's a decision for town councils/regional assemblies to make"? I'm not necessarily advocating UN legislation, but what is so intrinsically 'national' about abortion?

And that should be their prerogative.I like how you avoid answering 95% of the issue.

OOC: Don't make me expose your fluffy side again. I've asked you nicely already not to try to pull negative oneliners on me before, and you didn't like it when I started doing it to you.

And Golgothastan has hit it on the head. There is no more reason for this to be a matter for the UN, the nation, the council, the mayor, my mum, god, or anyone else for that matter. Look who is best placed to decide, and it's the individual. Look who is best qualified to decide, and it's the individual. Look who is best able to decide, and it's the individual.

So let the individual decide.

The only other person qualified is the doctor, and generally they cannot do anything without the patients consent..

But...why? What has abortion got to do with national government? It's not an inherently national issue: it's just a very controversial issue. Why does it make any more, or less, sense to say "it's a decision at the highest level (UN)" or "it's a decision at the lowest level (person)" or "it's a decision for town councils/regional assemblies to make"? I'm not necessarily advocating UN legislation, but what is so intrinsically 'national' about abortion?

I'm not saying that it is intrinsically a national issue at all. What I am saying is that it is most certainly not an international issue. This proposal merely devolves the authority on the matter to the next level below the UN -- the individual national governments.

*snip*Well, that's all lovely, but societies and cultures the world over may not share your views of the supremacy of the individual, and many of them may legitimately consider this "individual choice" about which you continue to blather murder. The competing values and mores of the many diverse nations in this body cannot instantly be canceled out just because your delegation recently happened upon this "new" concept of the "sovereignty" of the individual. The United Nations, I repeat, is not an elite chatterhouse for the purposes of deciding whose values are superior, but an organization created to discuss international issues -- and whether or not nations elect to establish their own reproductive laws is not one of them.

Your opinion that the woman should be able to decide for herself certainly is admirable, but it is only your opinion, an expression of your values. And I remind you, your values do not necessarily hold supremacy in these halls.

I'm continually surprised at how far apart this discussion gets from both what this resolution is about and what each side is actually saying.

The abortion question is never about whether a woman should or should not abort her pregancy.

The question is about whether a person should be allowed the choice to terminate a pregancy.

Clearly, one side affirms that the paramount rights in question are those of a woman determining her parental destiny and does not recognise the fetus as an entity that rights, such as life, are afforded to.

The other side affirms that the rights of the fetus to life trump other concerns and may or may not be concerned with the reproductive rights of women as they are secondary to safeguarding life.

So, if the UN says that abortion is permitted, then it is the UN that has determined the issue for all.
Offering that no one is mandated to actually have an abortion implies a lack of understanding as to where the disagreement lies.

The Abortion Legality Convention is the better option because it does not attempt to promote or deny either side of the debate, it does not deny anyone rights and leaves the nations to decide which rights it considers the more important.

I'm not saying that it is intrinsically a national issue at all. What I am saying is that it is most certainly not an international issue. This proposal merely devolves the authority on the matter to the next level below the UN -- the individual national governments.
You said banning abortion was a national prerogative - I was responding to that post.

And if it's not an international issue, then the UN shouldn't be legislating on it all. Do you oppose this proposal?

Well, that's all lovely, but societies and cultures the world over may not share your views of the supremacy of the individual, and many of them may legitimately consider this "individual choice" about which you continue to blather murder.That’s true, but then societies and cultures have a habit of overriding what a government might decide too. A government can ban something, but if it is so ingrained on the culture then people will break the law. At least if a government does not ban something, then if the culture frowns upon it, then it’s unlikely to be performed :)

As for blathering, National sovereignty has been “blathered” about for longer than I’ve been in the UN, so perhaps a couple of weeks of serious blathering has to be taken in context ;)

The competing values and mores of the many diverse nations in this body cannot instantly be canceled out just because your delegation recently happened upon this "new" concept of the "sovereignty" of the individual.Quite right too. Never intended for them to be eroded or cancelled out. Merely for them to be balanced.The United Nations, I repeat, is not an elite chatterhouse for the purposes of deciding whose values are superior,Quite right, but then neither is your government when dealing with your populace. Moreover, the UN has had a long history of infringing on other peoples values. I can list dozens of resolutions which infringe on another’s values. Even FGM (the most successful resolution to date) infringes on someone’s values.

I’d love more diversity within the UN, with people defending their values, and with greater consideration of their values (in the same way I promoted rights of indigenous peoples) but sadly the demographic of the UN is terribly restricted to western values. The UN is already an elite chatterhouse which has already determined whose values are superior in the past, will continue to do so as well.

Incidentally it’s hardly a new concept, just took me a while to formalise into words that could express it. I thought about in back in July ’05 (link ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9277540&postcount=2)), although I imagine someone has thought it before on here. It's only been mutterings till recently.

but an organization created to discuss international issues -- and whether or not nations elect to establish their own reproductive laws is not one of them.I happen to think that the UN should also deal with the fundamental rights of all peoples as well – it’s got a long history of doing so as well (Gay rights etc etc).Your opinion that the woman should be able to decide for herself certainly is admirable, but it is only your opinion, an expression of your values. And I remind you, your values do not necessarily hold supremacy in these halls.Constructive debate is good, and I certainly don’t claim supremacy over anything, nor that “this "new" concept of the "sovereignty" of the individual” is supreme over anything. But then, neither is NatSov, and till recently it’s been easy for someone to come on here and give a resolution the thumbs down by saying it infringes on their NatSov. Now sometimes they might be right. But sometimes they might be wrong too.

I’m not saying Natsov is wrong, or that whatever I’ve put into words is wrong, merely that you have to ponder both in balance.

The Abortion Legality Convention is the better option because it does not attempt to promote or deny either side of the debate, it does not deny anyone rights and leaves the nations to decide which rights it considers the more important.The reason I disagree is that because it does give the opportunity for nations to deny their citizens rights.

*snip*It would be nice if the UN could leave well enough alone and not legislate on this matter at all, but since it apparently cannot help itself (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=clinical) in this case, blocking it via legislation is the only viable option here.

[OOC: It seems I've given you some material, Hirota. ;) I have an RP to create today, but I hope to respond later.]

And if it's not an international issue, then the UN shouldn't be legislating on it all. Do you oppose this proposal?The reason they need to legislate on it is to prevent another resolution appearing from nowhere which permits abortion. It often happens – a nation will propose, submit and reach quorum without any sign on here.

I’m sure Cluich and others would rather the UN did not legislate on it at all, but whilst that can happen, they need to take preventative action.

EDIT: Nice to have confirmation from above too :)

OOC: I know exactly why this is being proposed.

IC: I was just trying to suggest that there are alternative approaches - "Representation in Abortion", for example, whereby they encouraged more local decisions - since, as the representative of Cluichstan has just admitted, this is not a national decision, it makes little sense to devolve it to a national level.

OOC: I know exactly why this is being proposed.

IC: I was just trying to suggest that there are alternative approaches - "Representation in Abortion", for example, whereby they encouraged more local decisions - since, as the representative of Cluichstan has just admitted, this is not a national decision, it makes little sense to devolve it to a national level.I'd have preferred that to either proposal. Reserve and promote the right of the hospital/medical staff to refuse to perform abortions (since that’s missing in both as far as I can see), and perhaps some other stuff as well which I cannot articulate well enough to type.

<sigh> Shame you were not here when this all kicked off. You've grasped my whole arguement when you said "I agree, and would vigorously oppose any proposal that exerted pressure on mothers to have, or not to have, an abortion, whether at international or state level." But I argue that permitting it at the international level, at the expense of the national level would leave the choice down to the mother (the result you said is ideal, and the result I see as ideal). From there a balance needs to be struck to ensure that a regions cultural values and beliefs are expressed, that the mother is capable of making such a choice (which is a bugbear I would hate to touch), that the mother is well informed, and that she is not pressured one way or the other.

OOC: I know exactly why this is being proposed.

IC: I was just trying to suggest that there are alternative approaches - "Representation in Abortion", for example, whereby they encouraged more local decisions - since, as the representative of Cluichstan has just admitted, this is not a national decision, it makes little sense to devolve it to a national level.

As has already been explained, it is simply an attempt to block another measure that seeks to make abortion an international issue.

As has already been explained, it is simply an attempt to block another measure that seeks to make abortion an international issue.
Ok. So what is 'an international issue'? I don't mean examples - I mean, obviously, disarmament and trade are international issues - but what is the definition against which you're comparing something to determine whether it is 'international' or not?

As has already been explained, it is simply an attempt to block another measure that seeks to make abortion an international issue.That's only to prevent it becoming a national issue. My really big chart suggests that in the absence of legislation in the positive or negative, the choice is delegated to the next level of legislature - in this case the nation. At least by permitting it in the international arena, we know that the individual has the opportunity to make that choice without the nation being interfered with.

I guess you could say I argue that the ends justify the means in this case.

The reason I disagree is that because it does give the opportunity for nations to deny their citizens rights.

That is unavoidable, EVERY abortion law will deny rights, it's just a matter of who's rights.

That is why it should njot be decided at a UN level.

That is unavoidable, EVERY abortion law will deny rights, it's just a matter of who's rights.

That is why it should njot be decided at a UN level.
That's a perfect argument for why it should. If EVERY abortion law denies rights, then the fact a UN abortion law would so should be no great bother.

In general, if something going on in one nation has no effect on another, then it's not an international issue.

That's only to prevent it becoming a national issue. My really big chart suggests that in the absence of legislation in the positive or negative, the choice is delegated to the next level of legislature - in this case the nation. At least by permitting it in the international arena, we know that the individual has the opportunity to make that choice without the nation being interfered with.

I guess you could say I argue that the ends justify the means in this case.

Yes, but that would be setting a very bad precent, essentially giving the UN free reign to legislate on whatever it damn well pleases, the rights of its member nations be damned.

In general, if something going on in one nation has no effect on another, then it's not an international issue.
Well, firstly, I think one could argue that abortion does affect other nations, or at least have the potential to. If it is banned, border states may have an influx of migrants attempting to get abortions, and this may drain their health services. Abortion affects population; some studies [that I have little confidence in, but which could be argued in the NS world could apply] correlate abortion to crime rates. These have at least potential international capacity.

But the 'in general' qualifier strikes me as odd. To categorically state abortion is not an international issue requires a categorical definition in the first place.

Secondly, the Rwandan genocide was nationally-contained. UN non-intervention worked a peach there.

I said "in general," because there are always going to be exceptions to any definition like this -- genocide being a particularly good one, since you mentioned it (OOC: but let's not drag RL examples in, especially when the one you're citing is bloody awful).

OOC: My position is very close to that of Hirota and Golgothastan, I think. I can't help but feel the best possible outcome would be for both resolutions to fail (apologies to the authors).

OOC: Ok. My point is you're allowing for exceptions to be made - why can't we make an exception for abortion?

Ecopoeia: I would be inclined to agree.

OOC: Ok. My point is you're allowing for exceptions to be made - why can't we make an exception for abortion?

Ecopoeia: I would be inclined to agree.

OOC: Because the exception to which we pointed involved the wholesale slaughter of people. The issue of abortion is nowhere near the same magnitude.

OOC: Because the exception to which we pointed involved the wholesale slaughter of people. The issue of abortion is nowhere near the same magnitude.
OOC: Ok, so it's killing people that is the exception? I'm just trying to understand, because without a definition, it's hard to rule out abortion as being international. But, yes, I understand, and now I do agree, under your definition, abortion would not be an international issue; capital punishment bans would be. I just think that there is a fundamental international right to an abortion, but I'll drop this, as it's veering away from the proposal at hand.

OOC: Is there an OOC epidemic in this thread? Damn, I'm infected!

No. Why don't you trust the mother to decide on whether she wants to have that abortion?

Because, no one else does. It's hard to make a decision when you are under tremendous pressure. When you have women who are under pressure with national "one child" policies and other policies that strongly encourage the killing of unborn women in the womb. When you have cultures that still support the scarlet letter "A" and an abortion is the only way to avoid the stigmata of having had sex. When you have people who make a living off of the prcedure and who have a vested interest in keeping the long term effects of the procedure secret from the women making the decision.

That's a perfect argument for why it should. If EVERY abortion law denies rights, then the fact a UN abortion law would so should be no great bother.

I don't see the logic for that being a perfect argument.
If either ruling on abortion violates rights, why do you believe that it is the UN that should make that decision?

If the UN were to outlaw all abortions and protect the fetus' right to life, would you accept that?