NationStates Jolt Archive

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?
I don't. I was responding to your post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10473489&postcount=238), where you said:
That is unavoidable, EVERY abortion law will deny rights, it's just a matter of who's rights.

That is why it should not be decided at a UN level.
Now, I agree with the first line. A UN, a national, a local law - and even the individual decision - can be argued as denying certain rights.

What I disagree with is your assumption that this makes a UN decision out of the question, but a national one allowable. You are saying:

"A UN decision denies rights" therefore we shouldn't have it
"A national decision denies rights" but we should have it anyway

So, I don't consider your logic to back up either of our sides, mine nor yours. I just think it's neutral.

If the UN were to outlaw all abortions and protect the fetus' right to life, would you accept that?
No, but then I don't consider a foetus to have a right to life, so that's neither here nor there.

I don't. I was responding to your post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10473489&postcount=238), where you said:

Now, I agree with the first line. A UN, a national, a local law - and even the individual decision - can be argued as denying certain rights.

What I disagree with is your assumption that this makes a UN decision out of the question, but a national one allowable. You are saying:

"A UN decision denies rights" therefore we shouldn't have it
"A national decision denies rights" but we should have it anyway

So, I don't consider your logic to back up either of our sides, mine nor yours. I just think it's neutral.


No, but then I don't consider a foetus to have a right to life, so that's neither here nor there.

That's all well and good, but I was responding to Hirota who said:

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

The denial of rights seemed to bother Hirota, so my argument is simply to nullify that concern by pointing out that a denial of rights will still occur.

You responded that was somehow a perfect argument in support of Hirota's position, which frankly, still confuses me, but I would accept that the argument is neutral as you are now stating.

I would like to point out that leaving the decision to the nations does not require those nations to actual enact any law since you seem to be under the impression that my position is that nations MUST rule on it.


No, but then I don't consider a foetus to have a right to life, so that's neither here nor there.

Regardless of your personal considerations of fetal rights, it is an integral part of the discussion and is the prime, if not only concern of those that have a different perspective on the issue from your own.

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

The denial of rights seemed to bother Hirota, so my argument is simply to nullify that concern by pointing out that a denial of rights will still occur.I happen to think a citizens rights in this case are more important that a nations rights, primarily because it's the citizen which is directly affected by having an embryo inside of them.

Like I said in a previous flippant remark, if a nation could have baby nations and had to carry them for nine months and go through the whole biological process, then I'd have to reconsider my position. Alas, I am yet to hear of a nation having a biology, let alone a pregnancy. That's why saying a nation should decide is flawed - it doesn't apply to the nation directly.

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.

We don't need precedent for that - plenty of examples in the UN resolutions list, and in any case, the UN can legislate on whatever it damn well pleases. It could make wearing white sports socks mandatory in the interest of moral decency.

We don't need precedent for that - plenty of examples in the UN resolutions list, and in any case, the UN can legislate on whatever it damn well pleases. It could make wearing white sports socks mandatory in the interest of moral decency.

:rolleyes:

It could make wearing white sports socks mandatory in the interest of moral decency.Actually, that would probably be deleted for not being worth the UN's time ;)

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.

Why are the rights of nations above the rights of the individual?

I happen to think a citizens rights in this case are more important that a nations rights, primarily because it's the citizen which is directly affected by having an embryo inside of them.

Like I said in a previous flippant remark, if a nation could have baby nations and had to carry them for nine months and go through the whole biological process, then I'd have to reconsider my position. Alas, I am yet to hear of a nation having a biology, let alone a pregnancy. That's why saying a nation should decide is flawed - it doesn't apply to the nation directly.

You seem to have a supreme grasp of the arguments "pro-your side" and yet you seem to be incapable of grasping the arguments "pro-the other side".

This is not an issue of the citizen vs. the nation.
It is citizen vs. citizen.

At issue is the right to live on behalf of the human life that has not yet traversed the vaginal canal VS. the right to determine one's own procreation while pregnant on behalf of women.

Recognising that it is an easy decision for most to make, depending on whether they recognise either or both of those rights, it is a very difficult issue to gather a consensus on.

You are proposing that the UN is the best place to mediate between these 2 rights of citizens issues.
I'm suggesting that the nation is closer to those citizens and is best able to determine the will of their own citizens to mediate this considerable impasse in opinion on these rights.

Why are the rights of nations above the rights of the individual?
But are the rights of the individual above the rights of society?

All these grey areas lead me (well, the majority of my compatriots) to steer clear of legislating on the issue in the UN.

You seem to have a supreme grasp of the arguments "pro-your side" and yet you seem to be incapable of grasping the arguments "pro-the other side".You mean the whole pro-choice vs pro-life debate. I’ve not spoken at all about that. My argument is to leave it to the individual to decide, not the nation, so this whole debate from my perspective thus far has been citizen vs nation.This is not an issue of the citizen vs. the nation.
It is citizen vs. citizen.Actually, this whole thing (as in this topic, and these resolutions that have been proposed) has been about citizen vs nation and who is better placed to make a decision. If by choice or by design, nobody has really strayed onto the whole “is it a person” debate on here yet, and I’m glad that’s the case. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t get into the biological side of it any further.

OOC: My position is that it’s difficult to say the rights of a living breathing human being are suspended when the possible rights of something that might be human or might not come into consideration. I don’t want to get into a debate about it.

You are proposing that the UN is the best place to mediate between these 2 rights of citizens issues.Actually, I’m proposing that the nation is the worst place to mediate between these 2 issues. The UN is not much better, but at least we can ensure that the best place to mediate these issues - at the personal level - is where it is decided.I'm suggesting that the nation is closer to those citizens and is best able to determine the will of their own citizens to mediate this considerable impasse in opinion on these rights.And I’m saying the citizens are a better place still to determine their will, and we should ensure they have that opportunity.But are the rights of the individual above the rights of society?Quite right. We shouldn't have a blanket answer (which has tended to be the case in the past) - which is why we consider national soverignty sometimes more important that the rights of the individual, and vice versa. In this case, we consider the rights of the individual more important on the basis that the direct impact is on the individual, the best understanding of their situation lies with the individual, and the consequences directly affect the individual. The nations role in this is secondary.

But are the rights of the individual above the rights of society?

I would claim yes in many areas, though I note that society and nation are not always the same thing - more so in less democractic countries. Even in RL, many democracies do not have the legalities set up to enforce all aspects of that society and there is a distinction between society and national law. Yes, in many other areas there is a correlation, but that doesn't mean one should necessarily follow the other.

I think a moderately good example would be my own nation's decision to legalize Same-Sex marriage. Obviously, it isn't a social norm, and according to many polls, the majority of Canadians leading up to the vote by the House of Commons was not in favor of Same Sex marriage. Interestingly enough, by the time the bill was passed, 9 provinces and one territory had passed similar laws (and I'm sure at least a few of them did it against the popular belief of the province, Alberta is only 10% of the population so it's hard to claim that it was the only one that was net against. Now, this point fails only in that by the time it did pass, they were able to get support for the bill up to 55%. Support has continued to rise for it since, so it has become representative of what's societally acceptable.

Which brings forth an additional concept (yes, I'm rambling - I'm bored, which is part of the reason why I broke my vow to stay off the board this month) - should we wait until it is societally acceptable in that nation before making it legal. Honestly, I say no. I think it is a bit humorous when I hear someone tell me that it shouldn't be legal unless the majority supports it. When it's sitting at 40-some odd percent support, you can easily get a majority if everyone who thinks that way went "well, why don't I just support it anyway" - not going to happen, but I think my point is clear. Such a belief stalls change and stalls the ability to move foreward. It stalls the progression of human rights, or the viability of an economic system in a world that's changing around it, or the ensurement of a ecosystem that we can live in or even an education or health care system that works (the latter a problem that's currently plaguing the US - along with Social Security).

Anyways, to get back to the original thread of discussion, absolutely there are areas where a human being's right outweigh's the right for the society to choose its own path. I think the intent of UNR 6 is one excellent example - if a society believes that slavery should be legalized, should the UN just stand aside and go "yup, you can have slaves because it's your right as a society to decide that". I say no. I say the same thing about Same Sex marriage, I say the same thing about Abortion, I say the same thing about passive Euthanasia, and dozens of other less-hotbed topics (Divorce?)

But are the rights of the individual above the rights of society?

I would claim yes in many areas, though I note that society and nation are not always the same thing - more so in less democractic countries. Even in RL, many democracies do not have the legalities set up to enforce all aspects of that society and there is a distinction between society and national law. Yes, in many other areas there is a correlation, but that doesn't mean one should necessarily follow the other.
Oh, I wasn't equating societies and nations. Just trying to hint that the individual sovereignty movement shouldn't fall into the trap of overvaluing individual sovereignty/liberty (whatever you want to call it). That way lies Objectivism. Ugh.

Meh - last paragraph still applies, second last one....less so

You mean the whole pro-choice vs pro-life debate. I’ve not spoken at all about that. My argument is to leave it to the individual to decide, not the nation, so this whole debate from my perspective thus far has been citizen vs nation.Actually, this whole thing (as in this topic, and these resolutions that have been proposed) has been about citizen vs nation and who is better placed to make a decision. If by choice or by design, nobody has really strayed onto the whole “is it a person” debate on here yet, and I’m glad that’s the case. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t get into the biological side of it any further.

Sorry, my friend, but attempts to make this a question of citizen versus nation are nothing more than attempts to blur the issue, which is individual nations versus the UN and which of these has the right to decide upon the contentious question of abortion. Since the many members nations obviously have divergent views on abortion, this proposal merely seeks to prevent the UN from mandating a "one-size-fits-all" answer.

We do agree, however, that getting into the question of "personhood" and biological issues have nothing to do with the real debate.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

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.


Some nation's governments are based on ideologies which deny their peoples the rights to make various kinds of decisions. The UN's rules say that resolutions can't ban ideologies, and that trying to impose a single ideology (such as, for example, the belief that individual rights trump state rights) on all nations counts as trying to ban the opposing ideologies & is therefore illegal...
Therefore I still don't see how any of the resolutions in which the UN has said specific 'human rights' must apply in all nations, regardless of the ideologies claimed by their governments, were considered legal in the first place...

Why are the rights of nations above the rights of the individual?


OOC: Because the game is 'Nationstates', not 'Individualpeople'.

Sorry, my friend, but attempts to make this a question of citizen versus nation are nothing more than attempts to blur the issue, which is individual nations versus the UN and which of these has the right to decide upon the contentious question of abortion. Since the many members nations obviously have divergent views on abortion, this proposal merely seeks to prevent the UN from mandating a "one-size-fits-all" answer.

We do agree, however, that getting into the question of "personhood" and biological issues have nothing to do with the real debate.

I'll disagree slightly in that I think the question of personhood and biological issues does raise reasonable doubt about the "one-size-fits-all" answer. The fact that reasonable people can debate these issues shows that this is an area where nations, who are more accountable to the citizens than this body, should address and come to a consensus.

The answers to the questions themselves are not germaine to this issue, but the presence of the questions are. Does that make any sense?

Because the game is 'Nationstates', not 'Indivdiualpeople'.

That is the most ridiculous, underhanded argument I've heard on this board from any UN regular. You have completely dodged the argument. But alas, let's move on to the game's category:

"nation simulation game"

If you honestly think that this is not an issue that needs to be considered by nations, you are clearly deluded. If you do think it's relevant, then my argument is relevant since we are simulating leaders of nations.

Sorry, my friend, but attempts to make this a question of citizen versus nation are nothing more than attempts to blur the issue, which is individual nations versus the UN and which of these has the right to decide upon the contentious question of abortion. Since the many members nations obviously have divergent views on abortion, this proposal merely seeks to prevent the UN from mandating a "one-size-fits-all" answer.

We do agree, however, that getting into the question of "personhood" and biological issues have nothing to do with the real debate.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: So appropriate that this argument is at probably its worst and will remain such until one or the other passes on abortion of all issues. NatSovs are going "We are trying to stop the tyranny of the UN over the nation" and the IntFeds are going "We are trying to stop the tyranny of the nation over the individual"

You mean the whole pro-choice vs pro-life debate. I’ve not spoken at all about that. My argument is to leave it to the individual to decide, not the nation, so this whole debate from my perspective thus far has been citizen vs nation.

Leaving it to the citizen IS the pro-choice debate. You've spoken about it constantly. This resolution isn't trying to actually decide the abortion issue, it's leaving it to the Nations to decide whether they will decide themselves or allow their citizens to choose. That is why you're not seeing more discussion of the pro-life debate.

If by choice or by design, nobody has really strayed onto the whole “is it a person” debate on here yet, and I’m glad that’s the case. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t get into the biological side of it any further.


We don't have to get into it all. That's the point of this resolution, let's NOT get into, let's allow the Nations to get into it if they choose to. But let's not pretend the issue doesn't exist simply because we're trying to not have that debate here.

Actually, I’m proposing that the nation is the worst place to mediate between these 2 issues. The UN is not much better, but at least we can ensure that the best place to mediate these issues - at the personal level - is where it is decided.

But you won't have mediation at the personal level, personal choice is one of the two positions to mediate between, and you are proposing that is decided/mediated here, in the UN.

Sorry, my friend, but attempts to make this a question of citizen versus nation are nothing more than attempts to blur the issue, which is individual nations versus the UN and which of these has the right to decide upon the contentious question of abortion. Since the many members nations obviously have divergent views on abortion, this proposal merely seeks to prevent the UN from mandating a "one-size-fits-all" answer.I should have been clearer there, I do apologise.

I've said it before, perhaps not clearly so I shall say it again. The argument of UN vs Nation is the same as Nation vs Individual. NatSov and Individual rights (which I only say because Individual sovereignty means something different to some people - although it would be easier to type IndSov, and a lot less hassle) are exactly the same things but with a difference of scale. When you think about it, so is one-worlder.

IndSov, NatSov, One-Worlder…all based on the same idea with simple variations in scale. You can’t completely ignore one without the other, and everything has to be considered on a case-by-case basis and how it fits.

International terrorism is clearly international in scope – the international community is the best place to deal with it, the international community is the most qualified to deal with it. Choosing what to have for breakfast is clearly individual in scope – the individual is the best person to know if they want cornflakes or toast. Choosing when to have elections is clearly national in scope. Other scenarios can be somewhere in between, but each should be considered on a case-by-case basis – who is best qualified to decide? The UN, the state, or the individual.

For me, it’s not about choosing between individual nations or the UN and which of these has the right to decide upon the contentious question of abortion, it’s about giving it to the third party, who is far more qualified to make the decision – the individual.

I agree many nations have divergent views, but then so do individuals. If it is wrong to impose a one-size-fits-all-answer on nations, then it is equally wrong to impose a one-size-fits-all-answer on individuals. By permitting something in the UN, it is not imposing one-size-fits-all on the individual, it is saying that they can have an abortion, but they don’t have to. If we (the UN or the nation) say they can’t have an abortion, then we are imposing a one-size-fits-all-answer.

I don’t know if I am expressing myself so that people can understand what I am getting at, and please don’t think I’m trying to undermine the good work the NSO or other national sovereignty advocates have done. I’m saying that national sovereignty is not the sum of all things, it’s just one piece of the pie.

I’d love to hear a one-world advocate on here, because I’ve got more ideas about how the whole thing is circular. I hope it won’t take me another 8 months to work out how to explain that particular theory.

Leaving it to the citizen IS the pro-choice debate.Possibly, but then so is leaving it to nations, With a variation of scale.You've spoken about it constantly. This resolution isn't trying to actually decide the abortion issue, it's leaving it to the Nations to decide whether they will decide themselves or allow their citizens to choose. That is why you're not seeing more discussion of the pro-life debate.Why should a nation be any more qualified than the individual? FL asked it, and it’s repeated here. All you are advocating is pro-choice on a national level.We don't have to get into it all. That's the point of this resolution, let's NOT get into, let's allow the Nations to get into it if they choose to. But let's not pretend the issue doesn't exist simply because we're trying to not have that debate here.I’d rather infringe on a nation to protect the rights of the directly affected and most qualified to decide on this matter.But you won't have mediation at the personal level, personal choice is one of the two positions to mediate between, and you are proposing that is decided/mediated here, in the UN.Actually, this whole thing has been about pro-choice – the question is pro-choice for the nation (at the expense of the individual) or vice versa? If anyone wanted pro-life they would outlaw abortion outright. Because the game is 'Nationstates', not 'Indivdiualpeople'. OOC: Very droll. Not relevant or useful however.

I'll disagree slightly in that I think the question of personhood and biological issues does raise reasonable doubt about the "one-size-fits-all" answer. The fact that reasonable people can debate these issues shows that this is an area where nations, who are more accountable to the citizens than this body, should address and come to a consensus.

The answers to the questions themselves are not germaine to this issue, but the presence of the questions are. Does that make any sense?

Makes perfect sense, my friend, and I agree completely.

By permitting something in the UN, it is not imposing one-size-fits-all on the individual, it is saying that they can have an abortion, but they don’t have to.

That IS imposing a one-size-fits-all if you understand the abortion debate.

I blame Vistadin, the swine. If they'd never proposed the original 'Abortion Rights' resolution, we wouldn't be spending so much time on the one issue that's guaranteed never to have a satisfactory resolution (in any sense of the word).

I've an idea - let's ask for both proposals to be deleted and never speak of this again...

*snip*

I've an idea - let's ask for both proposals to be deleted and never speak of this again...

You know very well that that's not at all realistic, my friend.

That IS imposing a one-size-fits-all if you understand the abortion debate.Don’t try and question my understanding of this. I’ve been on here discussing the abortion debate and a variety of other things for almost 2 years now. I don’t like bashing newcomers, but I’ll do it if you don’t listen. I’m sure you have all sorts of knowledge on the matter, but there’s nothing proven to me – right now you are just another newcomer who has to be judged on the merit of your 32 posts.

Giving the choice to a nation instead of a person is simply delegating the choice to someone. It’s still pro-choice, albeit with certain limitations, and conditional that the government wants to pass the same luxuries of choice onto their citizens.

It’s not about pro-choice and pro-life though – this whole conversation has been about who should make the choice – the state or the person (with the UN the tool to assign that choice to one of those groups).

As for imposing one-size fits all – the UN has done that with things in the past. Some unwarranted (computers for kids for example – which I opposed), Some definitely to protect minorities Gay rights (which I endorse), Sexual Freedoms (which I generally endorsed) and a whole host of other things. It’s what the UN does – read the FAQs. You join the UN and you risk being affected. You enjoy two freedoms the UN can never take away, the power to join the UN – and the power to leave

You know very well that that's not at all realistic, my friend.
Bah. Permit me my flights of fancy!

Don’t try and question my understanding of this. I’ve been on here discussing the abortion debate and a variety of other things for almost 2 years now. I don’t like bashing newcomers, but I’ll do it if you don’t listen. I’m sure you have all sorts of knowledge on the matter, but there’s nothing proven to me – right now you are just another newcomer who has to be judged on the merit of your 32 posts.


You're welcome to bash to your heart's content, I won't be fazed.
I don't really care how many posts you have below your name, you currently have 17 posts in this thread and I'm judging your understanding of this issue and this resolution on those 17 posts.
Those 17 posts indicate you do not understand the position that opposes you. If you would like to make additional posts contradicting your earlier posts that will demonstrate that you do, you are welcome to do so and I'll revise my assessment.

And of course, I expect you to judge my postion based on the 7 posts I've made here (8 now), whether I have 32 or 32,000 posts in total will not strengthen nor weaken what I put forward.

Giving the choice to a nation instead of a person is simply delegating the choice to someone. It’s still pro-choice, albeit with certain limitations, and conditional that the government wants to pass the same luxuries of choice onto their citizens.


No, it is not, unless you're misunderstanding what choice I am advocating giving to nations.
You are advocating giving the choice to abort or to not abort a pregancy to the pregnant woman.
I am advocating giving the choice to rule Abortion as legal or illegal to Nations.

That is a significant difference.

As for imposing one-size fits all – the UN has done that with things in the past. Some unwarranted (computers for kids for example – which I opposed), Some definitely to protect minorities Gay rights (which I endorse), Sexual Freedoms (which I generally endorsed) and a whole host of other things. It’s what the UN does – read the FAQs. You join the UN and you risk being affected. You enjoy two freedoms the UN can never take away, the power to join the UN – and the power to leave

That is all fine and understood, but at least now you are recognising that you are in fact pushing for a one-size fits all solution here.
You were denying that.

There are some parts of this resolution I may not like too much but that said. I have to agree that this is the true pro-choice resolution of the two and that makes it better then nothing in this case.


OOC: My position is that it’s difficult to say the rights of a living breathing human being are suspended when the possible rights of something that might be human or might not come into consideration. I don’t want to get into a debate about it.
We know that it's human, the question is, is it a "person" or not and does or should that even matter.

It will strengthen or weaken our perception of your understanding of the UN system at large - something that doesn't come from knowledge of a particular issue. This is unquestionably a pro-choice vs a pro-choice debate because pro-lifers are going to side with the NatSovs (or oppose both if they have less of a feel for the politics at large since I can assure you, no pro-life resolution will actually be passed by this body anytime in the near future - this proposal is about as good as it gets). This is an IntFed vs NatSov debate on whether Pro-choice should be mandated or if nations should be permitted to hold pro-life positions. Period.

We know that it's human, the question is, is it a "person" or not and does or should that even matter.

*sighs*

Bloody technicalities. Fine, it has the DNA of a homo sapient sapient, so my a purely scientific definition, it is a human. However, human in the context used by this debate is interchangable with person - please, let's stop bantering semantics and confusing the issue. I'd like to stay away from this entire thread of discussion because all we'll do is stalemate (especially with you which I know I couldn't move with the Holy Pro-Choice Bomb)

That is the most ridiculous, underhanded argument I've heard on this board from any UN regular. You have completely dodged the argument. But alas, let's move on to the game's category:

"nation simulation game"

If you honestly think that this is not an issue that needs to be considered by nations, you are clearly deluded. If you do think it's relevant, then my argument is relevant since we are simulating leaders of nations.


OOC: So I forgot to add the smilie, so sue me... ;)
But seriously, where are all these women about whose rights some people are getting so excited? Some people (Hint: One of whom runs a nation with the initial GG...) seem to have forgotten that we aren't legislating for the real world, it's only a game, and no real people will be harmed by the passing or non-passing of this proposal: Those women might exist in RP but the nations exist not only in RP but in the game mechanics too so doesn't that make them more important in a way? The game is supposed to be about having fun running nations, which needn't have systems of which we'd approve in RL, rather than parading 'liberal' credentials, isn't it? I just think that some of the people involved in this debate, on both sides, need to lighten-up a bit...

It’s what the UN does – read the FAQs. You join the UN and you risk being affected. You enjoy two freedoms the UN can never take away, the power to join the UN – and the power to leave


And supposedly, at least according to the rules about proposals, the right not to have your ideology banned...

OOC: So I forgot to add the smilie, so sue me... ;)
But seriously, where are all these women about whose rights some people are getting so excited? Some people (Hint: One of whom runs a nation with the initial GG...) seem to have forgotten that we aren't legislating for the real world, it's only a game, and no real people will be harmed by the passing or non-passing of this proposal: Those women might exist in RP but the nations exist not only in RP but in the game mechanics too so doesn't that make them more important in a way? The game is supposed to be about having fun running nations, which needn't have systems of which we'd approve in RL, rather than parading 'liberal' credentials, isn't it? I just think that some of the people involved in this debate, on both sides, need to lighten-up a bit...

Honestly, welcome to the UN forums. Half of us here are here because we want to try and debate our politics SOMEWHERE and have even an effect on some place - even if it is only virtual realm. If you can't deal with it, I'm serious when I say you're in the wrong place. Don't get mad at people who do feel strongly about some of these resolutions. This is where they chose to fight, and you aren't better than them because you still see it as a game.

i do not beieve in abortion because you are murdering sumbody and that is not right i mean its just the same as going out and shooting somebody

i do not beieve in abortion because you are murdering sumbody and that is not right i mean its just the same as going out and shooting somebody

Please read the proposal and understand what the argument is about before you enter this debate. If I wanted to have a debate on the rights of a fetus, I could gouge my eyes out to get the same effect.

Half of us here are here because we want to try and debate our politics SOMEWHERE

There's always the 'General' forum...

There's always the 'General' forum...

Ahem

Want to debate it somewhere where we aren't going to get flamed every third post.

OOC: I hate the 'take it to General' attitude. If we're not talking about important and contentious issues, it would suggest we're talking about the wrong things.

You're welcome to bash to your heart's content, I won't be fazed.I don't bash. I do try and aspire to certain standards better than that. I'm an arrogant sod from time to time, but we all have our faults I suppose.I don't really care how many posts you have below your name, you currently have 17 posts in this thread and I'm judging your understanding of this issue and this resolution on those 17 posts.
Those 17 posts indicate you do not understand the position that opposes you. If you would like to make additional posts contradicting your earlier posts that will demonstrate that you do, you are welcome to do so and I'll revise my assessment.This topic comes up so many times in the UN that i Have a lot more than 17 posts on this topic of abortion - although these 17 posts are arguing it from a different angle than before (and angle which I have hinted at since July 05), and you are trying to drag things back to the old, oft-repeated arguements. I've been there done that, brought the T-shirt and got the DVD thanks. This particular topic from that perspective is very tired, and I'm not going to repeat myself.And of course, I expect you to judge my postion based on the 7 posts I've made here (8 now), whether I have 32 or 32,000 posts in total will not strengthen nor weaken what I put forward.I'd rather not judge at all, otherwise I would not be certain I would take the time to try and discuss these things with you.No, it is not, unless you're misunderstanding what choice I am advocating giving to nations.
You are advocating giving the choice to abort or to not abort a pregancy to the pregnant woman.
I am advocating giving the choice to rule Abortion as legal or illegal to Nations.

That is a significant difference.Yup, there is a difference, but also there is not a difference. We are either giving the choice to the nation, or to the person. We take the choice away from the other.

So, I say, and I say again and again and again that the choice should be given to whoever is more qualified to decide, and that in this case is the person, the individual.

If nations could have abortions and go to their national abortion clinic and terminate their national embryos then I'd love to give nations the choice. But nations are not mums are they? Nations can't get accidentally pregnant even if they take appropiate protection. Nations don't get morning sickness, or take contraception, or meet boy nations in nation nightclubs and have drunken nation sex regardless of how much contraception is used to ensure that the pitter patter of tiny nations doesn't happen 9 months down the line. Nations don't get pregnant whilst at university and worry their whole future is ruined.

So, What exactly does a nation have to do with the whole damned process? How does a nation have more qualification than an individual?

Till someone can explain to me why a nation is more qualified than an individual then I will maintain the individual is more qualified to decide, and the nation is a secondary consideration.

Yes I know I am ranting and being flippant, but it's still valid. Nations don't have sex, people do. So let people decide how to deal with the consequences that directly affect them.

That is all fine and understood, but at least now you are recognising that you are in fact pushing for a one-size fits all solution here.
You were denying that.The solution will be inevitably imposed on someone. Be it a government, or a population who have the government imposing a one size fit all. The end result of permitting abortion is people can do what they want. Te end result of outlawing abortion is people is people cannot do what they want - have a solution pushed or imposed upon them. Again, it's the individual who is more important and more qualified to decide, so the individual should have the choice. Just like how I think international issues require the international arena to decide (imposing values on nations), and how national issues require the nation to decide, based upon their qualification to decide, and who is affected.

Any solution, any resolution is imposing something on someone. So if you really dislike imposition of any kind you are either:
A) In the wrong place
B) Saying the UN should do nothing. At all - anything the UN does is imposing on someone.
C) Saying that a nation should do nothing - anything a nation does is imposing on someone.

And supposedly, at least according to the rules about proposals, the right not to have your ideology banned..Yeah well, there is at least one category for increasing democratic freedoms. Hardly protective of dictatorships is it?

As for having your ideology banned - if a nation can do it to individuals, they can hardly complain if the UN decides to ban a nations ideology.

(no, I don't really mean that - although the UN has opposed ideologies in the past, still does and still will in the future. Best I can think is that the ideology should be considered - but I doubt we will ever see it when all nations even do that.)

Want to debate it somewhere where we aren't going to get flamed every third post.Would be nice wouldn't it? But sadly St Edmund seems to have decided to drag this whole discussion into the gutters.

We know that it's human, the question is, is it a "person" or not and does or should that even matter.Talk about splitting hairs....<sigh> very well. I suppose my ear wax is human too. But it's just as much a person as early embryos.:D

and you are trying to drag things back to the old, oft-repeated arguements. I've been there done that, brought the T-shirt and got the DVD thanks. This particular topic from that perspective is very tired, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

In fact, I am specifically NOT trying to drag things back to that argument.
I'm saying let's NOT do that, let's push this back to the Nations and let them decide and do that for themselves.

But, it is difficult to do that when YOU continue to trot out the Pro-Choice arguments over and over. If we were to ignore the Pro-Life arguments, if we were to pretend they don't exist because we are tired of them, then I concede you'd win. It would be a win by default since you're not allowing the alternative position to even show up.


So, I say, and I say again and again and again that the choice should be given to whoever is more qualified to decide,

To decide what though?
If we've already decided that abortions are legal, if we've already decided that abortion is not denying a person the right to life, then I'm right there on board with you.
In THAT situation, then the pregnant woman is easily and obviously the most qualified to decide.

But, if you're asking who is most qualified to decide whether abortion is taking a life and whether abortion should be legal, then I absolutely believe you are wrong in your belief that the individual, any individual is best able to decide.

So, What exactly does a nation have to do with the whole damned process? How does a nation have more qualification than an individual?

Till someone can explain to me why a nation is more qualified than an individual then I will maintain the individual is more qualified to decide, and the nation is a secondary consideration.


A nation is more qualified to determine whether a life is being lost and whether it is legal or not because it will make that determination without consideration of the emotional needs of distraught University students to extricate themselves from situations arising from foolish drunken behaviour and will instead consider the evidence science can or cannot provide and the society in question's values that impact rights to life and where they begin.

Are you ready to change the position you maintained then? I have explained it as requested.


I suppose my ear wax is human too. But it's just as much a person as early embryos.:D


T-Shirt... DVD... browsing for the coffee mug now?
I thought you didn't want to have this discussion?

FYI, you are very wrong, and even a high school understanding of biology should be ample to prove that to you, if you do actually want to have that discussion.

[Numerous things in several posts]I like you. Enjoy this picture of my mother's cat in a box:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Smidge_in_Box.jpg

I like you. Enjoy this picture of my mother's cat in a box:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Smidge_in_Box.jpg

What? No picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head?

Hirota - as much as there is an issue of nation vs people, it is a life vs choice debate that you're dragging us towards. Pick, either fight the argument or pull out. Unfortunately, they do have us beat insofar as if we try to force Waterana's version on them, we have to fight pro-choice vs right to legislate pro-life. You've drifted to why it should be universally pro-choice and a guy sitting there with pro-life arguments has been given a nice bullseye to attack. (Heck, I am itching to attack it myself because it is such an open target).

And supposedly, at least according to the rules about proposals, the right not to have your ideology banned...

Read it through before you actually start claiming something

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology[/B}. While it should go without saying, this is up to the [b]Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

#1 - with possible exception to religious ideology, abortion doesn't hit ANY of those points. Religious ideology it only hits insofar as it contradicts the teachings of various religions.

Step back a bit

The moderators have tended to turn a blind eye to allowing people to defy their religion - state enforced or not. So long as they don't ban religion and don't force theocracies to get lost, it's all fair game. Sheesh

#2 - what in the almighty Hack do you think you're trying to pull? Do you honestly think that the mods are going to pull an "ideological ban" as a reason to boot this resolution? Sheesh.

<sigh> Fine, I accept that giving the choice to citizens is far more in line with pro-choice than pro-life.

I maintain there is still no reason why a nation is any more qualified to have the choice than the individual, and it’s hypocritical for a nation to complain about not having the choice on abortion, and then when they do have the power of choice to grant their citizens the same level of choice that the UN granted to them, that they choose otherwise and decide to ban abortion. But then I know hypocritical and UN nation are hardly mutually exclusive phrases.

On hindsight this is perhaps the weakest area for arguing for individual choice, as saying the individual should have the choice on this subject raises such concern from pro-lifers. Don’t ask me why pro-lifers think they can get away with meddling with other peoples lives.

I’m not trotting out the pro-choice argument deliberately; I’m arguing that whoever is best qualified to decide should decide. I’m arguing, and always been arguing that a nation is not best qualified to decide and that we should ensure whoever is best qualified to decide should decide – the individual. It’s a shame that has the coincidental effect of promoting a pro-choice agenda, and that pro-lifers think it is OK to interfere in other peoples lives.

Yes, I suppose I am pro-choice as a result of thinking the individual is the best person to decide, but not just on abortion. Whoever is best placed to decide anything should be the one to decide – the UN the state or the individual.

To decide what though?
If we've already decided that abortions are legal, if we've already decided that abortion is not denying a person the right to life, then I'm right there on board with you.
In THAT situation, then the pregnant woman is easily and obviously the most qualified to decide.I don’t think the UN can decide that, nor the nation. I don’t think either should have any role to play. The only reason the UN has to play some role in the way I would advocate is because it nullifies any intervention by the state and lets whoever is best placed (the individual) to choose.But, if you're asking who is most qualified to decide whether abortion is taking a life and whether abortion should be legal, then I absolutely believe you are wrong in your belief that the individual, any individual is best able to decide.You seriously think the state or the UN is any better?

A nation is more qualified to determine whether a life is being lost and whether it is legal or not because it will make that determination without consideration of the emotional needs of distraught University students to extricate themselves from situations arising from foolish drunken behaviour and will instead consider the evidence science can or cannot provide and the society in question's values that impact rights to life and where they begin.I was being flippant. I do that when it’s late and I’m tired. However….
1. Nations are just as emotional as individuals (especially in NS)
2. Science has not really answered anything so far, and I’m cynical it will happen anytime soon.
3. Nations cannot possibly legislate on every different scenarios. Drunken uni students are one scenario, I can’t think of every scenario, neither can a governmentFYI, you are very wrong, and even a high school understanding of biology should be ample to prove that to you, if you do actually want to have that discussion.1. See previous flippant remark.
2. Don’t assume I’m American. I’m lucky, I got a British education. Incidentally I was better at physics, but had a good understanding of Chemistry and Biology.

Please don’t let this turn into a conversation on biology though – it’s a dead horse.

To summarise
1. I’m flippant when I’m cranky and tired
2. When I’m saying it should be the individual who can choose rather than the nation, I’m saying that as a matter of qualification and who is directly affected, the individual is the most relevant person to be able to decide.
3. That has the secondary result of promoting the pro-choice agenda in favour of the pro-life agenda. I accept that giving the choice to citizens is far more in line with pro-choice than pro-life, but it is not the direct intention.
4. In an ideal world, neither the UN nor the nation should be involved
5. However, the can UN ensure that the nation is not involved if policy is made correctly

what in the almighty HackI'm an epithet? Score!

What? No picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head?Meh. I hate that picture and it's overused.

Meh. I hate that picture and it's overused.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/maw349/bunny_pancake.jpg

:p

I like you. Enjoy this picture of my mother's cat in a box:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Smidge_in_Box.jpg


OOC: Aww, cute... :)

Don’t assume I’m American. I’m lucky, I got a British education.Don't take much to get a rise out of you, now do it? :rolleyes:

#1 - with possible exception to religious ideology, abortion doesn't hit ANY of those points. Religious ideology it only hits insofar as it contradicts the teachings of various religions.

Each of which is, as that rule acknowledges, a separate ideology.

what in the almighty Hack do you think you're trying to pull? Do you honestly think that the mods are going to pull an "ideological ban" as a reason to boot this resolution? Sheesh.

I can hope, can't I? Seriously, I think that that rule really needs clarifying and that this is one of several possible test-cases that are currently around...

Each of which is, as that rule acknowledges, a separate ideology.

And which is why I noted it and then continued to tackle that argument

I can hope, can't I? Seriously, I think that that rule really needs clarifying and that this is one of several possible test-cases that are currently around...

You can ask the mods to consider your argument, yes, but tossing it out the way you did isn't attracting mod attention, it's claiming a legitamite argument. We know how they have traditionally implemented the Ideological ban rule, so why you would actually try and toss it out in such a manner is totally beyond me. It sounds more like grasping at straws

Honestly, if you can actually find an all-encompassing way to word it that describes the application of how mods deal with ideological bans - what constitutes one and what doesn't - put it forth. Yes the rules aren't clear, but considering the complexity of BS that's put forth by various newbies, it is difficult for them not to be. If you want it improved, well absolutely nothing on this planet is perfect. If you want to suggest an improvement, then do so. You know how the rule is actually implemented so use that knowledge to help clarify the rules.

Don't take much to get a rise out of you, now do it? :rolleyes:

I have been a bit snide today. Apologies - didn't sleep at all last night (was on here at 3am GMT!)

I should do better and practice what I preach.

I like you. Enjoy this picture of my mother's cat in a box:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Smidge_in_Box.jpg


Why thank you.
Nice cat.
Not much of a box though.

To decide what though?
If we've already decided that abortions are legal, if we've already decided that abortion is not denying a person the right to life, then I'm right there on board with you.
In THAT situation, then the pregnant woman is easily and obviously the most qualified to decide.

I don’t think the UN can decide that, nor the nation. I don’t think either should have any role to play. The only reason the UN has to play some role in the way I would advocate is because it nullifies any intervention by the state and lets whoever is best placed (the individual) to choose.

Keeping my comments there for context.
I understand how and why you believe that the individual is best placed to choose for themselves whther they should or should not have a legal abortion.

I do not understand how or why you can possibly say that the nation has no role in determining whether it is legal in the fiorst place and I'm baffled that you can say that the individual would ever be best placed to decide what is or is not legal.

Regardless of whether a Nation rules that abortions are illegal (and the Pro-lifers cheer) or that abortions are legal (and the Pro-choicers cheer) I cannot understand why it isn't obviously a National decision.

But, if you're asking who is most qualified to decide whether abortion is taking a life and whether abortion should be legal, then I absolutely believe you are wrong in your belief that the individual, any individual is best able to decide.

You seriously think the state or the UN is any better?


Of course, that is what they do.
If we had any kind of consensus regarding the rights in question here, I'd say it may well be a UN issue.
In the absence of any consensus as to whether there is a right to life\right to privacy\right to choose issue here then I believe it must clearly belong to Nations to decide.


Don’t assume I’m American.

LOL, I never did, I rightly assumed you were British.
BTW, don't assume I'm American, because I'm also not American.


To summarise
1. I’m flippant when I’m cranky and tired
2. When I’m saying it should be the individual who can choose rather than the nation, I’m saying that as a matter of qualification and who is directly affected, the individual is the most relevant person to be able to decide.
3. That has the secondary result of promoting the pro-choice agenda in favour of the pro-life agenda. I accept that giving the choice to citizens is far more in line with pro-choice than pro-life, but it is not the direct intention.
4. In an ideal world, neither the UN nor the nation should be involved
5. However, the can UN ensure that the nation is not involved if policy is made correctly

1. Understood, I'm not easily bothered, so no worries.
2. Understood, but I believe that we are still not talking about the same decision.
3. I understand it was not the intent, but felt it necessary to highlight it was the result.
4. I can't agree with or understand that perspective.
5. Agreed, but one must acknowledge that there will never be agreement as to what the "correct" UN policy would be.

Why thank you.
Nice cat.
Not much of a box though.Well, she seems to like it well enough. Please accept this instead:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Smidge_Pawing_Bowl.jpg

http://www.personal.psu.edu/maw349/bunny_pancake.jpg

:p

Yay for the pancake bunny! I had someone take a pic of herself with a pancake on her head. I must see if I still have it....

Okay, could find my friend's pic, but I found this other one. To make up for bringing up the pancake bunny, Hack, I give you two very happy bunnies.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/menchekia/happy_bunnies.jpg

Since this is going to reach the floor for a vote soon...

Bring Us More Pie!