NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny2 (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)

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


Proposal FAQ

I'm confused by the title. Will this proposal require me to legalize abortion in my nation?
No. It merely recommends that abortion remain legal. Your nation, however, will be free to legalize, restrict or outlaw abortion as it sees fit.

But abortion is a fundamental women's right; why allow nations to outlaw it?
Because there has been no international consensus reached on whether it is a fundamental right. If you think it is, that is only your opinion, and thousands of nations in this body do not share it. Simply put, this issue is far too painful and divisive for the UN to step in and issue a presumptuous decree (either for or against) upon all members; it would be better to block the UN from doing so, and allow all nations to decide on this issue for themselves.

But what about "individual sovereignty"?
What about it? (Aside from the fact that it is a widely misused term, because individuals are not "sovereign" absent anarchy? The state has every right to regulate individual behavior; it's sort of the entire point of making law.) If you think individual sovereignty is more important than national sovereignty, that's only your opinion. If you believe that the rights of the person exceed the rights of the nation in this case, do not vote for this resolution. The fact of the matter is, many, many nations do not think that the woman is the only individual whose rights are at stake here, and many, many nations do. That's fair. If you think women should have the right to have an abortion, it is entirely within your rights as a sovereign nation to make it legal in your nation; apply diplomatic pressure on other nations to do so; refuse to recognize or trade with nations that do not; establish a covenant with likeminded nations to impose multilateral economic sanctions on all those backward regimes that still criminalize abortion. Heck, invade those nations and force them to change their laws if you feel they are endangering women's rights. But your nation's specific values have never been universally established as "right" or "correct." Just because you have very strong emotions about this issue, it does not mean you are automatically right and everyone else is automatically wrong, or even "backward."

Unborn babies have a beating heart after eight weeks; they can feel pain; they have their own genetic code, immune system, blood type, etc., etc., etc. We cannot kill unborn babies.
Respectfully, that is not what this proposal is about. The issue at hand is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether nations should have the right to self-determination on the subject. Endless debates about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of abortion will contribute nothing to this discussion.

But what about that IDX (partial-birth) ban language? You just said nations should be free to decide upon this issue for themselves.
It is not a ban; it is only an admonition. The clause was added simply because the partial-birth abortion procedure is widely regarded as excessively brutal and unnecessary. If you don't think so, you do not have to outlaw it.

Do not support this proposal!! Its sponsors have a radical neoconservative agenda!!
Well, first off, I don't think you understand what "neoconservative" means. Second off, if by "radical neoconservative" you mean that we think abortion should be outlawed, that simply is not true. This proposal is not about condemning abortion, declaring it murder, and forcing member nations to outlaw it. In fact, it is just the opposite. This proposal is just as much about preventing an international abortion ban is it is about preventing an international declaration of abortion rights.

Does the National Sovereignty Organization support this?
Not necessarily. Not all NSO members have endorsed this, though many have. Sovereigntists do not agree on everything. In fact, we poll our members on every UN resolution at vote, and most of the time there is at least a lopsided division. Very little of the time is there an "official NSO stance" on any UN proposal.

Seriously, don't I look cute in this hat?
Girl, it's to die for. Now go vote for this proposal.

What gives a nation the "sovereign" right that the NSO proclaims?

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh - and, of course, opposed.

What the hell are you talking about?

The National Sovereigntists go on and on about Nations' Sovereignty, but where has it been proclaimed that nations have sovereignty by default. Where is it determined that a nation is the end point of sovereignty. It was not that many centuries ago when it was land owners who held sovereignty. Before then, it was city states. Yet NatSovs complain and moan about the UN infringing upon their sovereignty as if it were a guaranteed right.

So - what gives a nation that "sovereign" right?

The National Sovereigntists go on and on about Nations' Sovereignty, but where has it been proclaimed that nations have sovereignty by default. Where is it determined that a nation is the end point of sovereignty. It was not that many centuries ago when it was land owners who held sovereignty. Before then, it was city states. Yet NatSovs complain and moan about the UN infringing upon their sovereignty as if it were a guaranteed right.

So - what gives a nation that "sovereign" right?
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48

Ouch. That's some hardcore PWNAGE, baby.

Fonzoland is against. More on that later.

150% for. Choice über alles.

Seriously... it's a proposal that gives you the choice to do whatever you want (as regards abortion at least). Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but who cares. How can you be opposed to a thing like this, except by directly violating a few past resolutions? It finally lets the abortion issue rest in peace, where it really deserves to belong right now, after all the squabbling (believe me, I live in General, I know).

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=48

Nice. That's just what I would have done, interestingly.

150% for. Choice über alles.

Seriously... it's a proposal that gives you the choice to do whatever you want (as regards abortion at least). Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but who cares. How can you be opposed to a thing like this, except by directly violating a few past resolutions? It finally lets the abortion issue rest in peace, where it really deserves to belong right now, after all the squabbling (believe me, I live in General, I know).
Care to enlighten us?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline

Jey is For...:upyours: (just thought I'd use the new smiley)

Not new. Just ask The City By the Live S(ea). :rolleyes:

150% for. Choice über alles.

Seriously... it's a proposal that gives you the choice to do whatever you want (as regards abortion at least).

No it isn't. It's a resolution which allows governments to do anything they want, specifically including outlawing their citizens from choosing what they want regarding abortion.

This resolution safeguards a nations right to outlaw a medical procedure, something we will not permit to occur unopposed.

Against. In the strongest possible terms.

Care to enlighten us?

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline
I think somebody already posted a link earlier in this thread.

However: http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States -- Going against this will basically be going against the rights of national sovereignty...

No it isn't. It's a resolution which allows governments to do anything they want, specifically including outlawing their citizens from choosing what they want regarding abortion.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7

The UN is based on an agreement between governments, not an agreement between individuals. FOR.

But what about "individual sovereignty"?
What about it? (Aside from the fact that it is a widely misused term, because individuals are not "sovereign" absent anarchy? The state has every right to regulate individual behavior; it's sort of the entire point of making law.)

I'm sorry, the irony there is killing us.

It would be nice if the national sovereigntists would keep that in mind when discussing international (ie:UN) law... the fact that the UN has every right to regulate member nation behavior... that that is the entire point of UN law.... before crying "how dare you try to tell my nation (which I voluntarily made a member of the UN with full knowledge that it would then be subject to UN legislation) what to do!"

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7

What exactly did you think that was supposed to accomplish?

I think somebody already posted a link earlier in this thread.

However: http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Rights_and_Duties_of_UN_States -- Going against this will basically be going against the rights of national sovereignty...
Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Seriously. Pulling Rights and Duties is ridiculous.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=7
What's your point? Nations can outlaw abortion if this passes.

I'm sorry, the irony there is killing us.

It would be nice if the national sovereigntists would keep that in mind when discussing international (ie:UN) law... the fact that the UN has every right to regulate member nation behavior... that that is the entire point of UN law.... before crying "how dare you try to tell my nation (which I voluntarily made a member of the UN with full knowledge that it would then be subject to UN legislation) what to do!"

It would also be nice if the Reformentian Delegation did not paint sovereigntists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907) with quite such a broad brush.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

It would also be nice if the Reformentian Delegation did not paint sovereigntists (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430907) with quite such a broad brush.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Point taken. We will requisition a smaller brush from UN supply.

Yes. So they can outlaw abortion. But Citizen Rule Required establishes that the citizens of UN nations have to have some kind of say in their government. This was against Reformentia's post that the government might outlaw abortion without the citizens' consent.

(And as we have Rights and Duties, nations would be obliged to accept Numero Ocho, so I don't see how the choice would be undemocratic even if the government chose to outlaw abortion—with the citizens' consent, as stipulated. The people would be supporting it themselves after all, otherwise it'd be in direct contradiction of yet another resolution.)

I'm sorry, the irony there is killing us.

It would be nice if the national sovereigntists would keep that in mind when discussing international (ie:UN) law... the fact that the UN has every right to regulate member nation behavior... that that is the entire point of UN law.... before crying "how dare you try to tell my nation (which I voluntarily made a member of the UN with full knowledge that it would then be subject to UN legislation) what to do!"Pretty lame. If we're to be making "international law" here, we should be discussing international issues. And individual nations' abortion laws ain't one of them.

Yes. So they can outlaw abortion. But Citizen Rule Required establishes that the citizens of UN nations have to have some kind of say in their government. This was against Reformentia's post that the government might outlaw abortion without the citizens' consent.

(And as we have Rights and Duties, nations would be obliged to accept Numero Ocho, so I don't see how the choice would be undemocratic even if the government chose to outlaw abortion—with the citizens' consent, as stipulated. The people would be supporting it themselves after all, otherwise it'd be in direct contradiction of yet another resolution.)
Have you even read Citizen Rule Required? They can outlaw abortion without citizens' consent. They have to give citizens say in some part of government, but not in every decision.

Seriously. Pulling Rights and Duties is ridiculous.

Hardly. "Rights and Duties of UN States" is one of the defining pieces of UN legislation (perhaps the most defining piece), and there are very few cases in which the resolution is entirely irrelevant. The resolution can certainly be used to point out that the concept of national sovereignty has been recognized in international law and does in fact exist even in the context of said law. What is ridiculous is the suggestion that the resolution guarantees freedom from interference in national affairs by the UN, because as you pointed out the text of the resolution indicates no such guarantee.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Hardly. "Rights and Duties of UN States" is one of the defining pieces of UN legislation (perhaps the most defining piece), and there are very few cases in which the resolution is entirely irrelevant. The resolution can certainly be used to point out that the concept of national sovereignty has been recognized in international law and does in fact exist even in the context of said law. What is ridiculous is the suggestion that the resolution guarantees freedom from interference in national affairs by the UN, because as you pointed out the text of the resolution indicates no such guarantee.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith
Which is precisely what he was doing. Of course Rights and Duties is relevant to many debates, and to this one. By 'pulling', I meant 'using it to pretend there's any formal justification for the view'. There's plenty of very valid informal justification - "this isn't an international issue", for example - but I don't see how he can possibly argue that Rights and Duties renders opposing this proposal illegal, and am still awaiting a retraction of that comment.

OOC: Czardas, are you going to assume the comment was made by you, not your puppet?

Have you even read Citizen Rule Required? They can outlaw abortion without citizens' consent. They have to give citizens say in some part of government, but not in every decision.
Perhaps you haven't quite considered that not everyone is in favor of legalizing abortion... In addition, if the citizens have a say in some part of the government, and are mainly against abortion, if the government anyway illegalizes abortion, can't they campaign for its legalization with whatever part of the government they're allowed to participate in?

Perhaps you haven't quite considered that not everyone is in favor of legalizing abortion...
No shit.

In addition, if the citizens have a say in some part of the government, and are mainly against abortion, if the government anyway illegalizes abortion, can't they campaign for its legalization with whatever part of the government they're allowed to participate in?
If they were against abortion, why would they campaign for its legalisation?

Assuming you meant the citizens were for abortion, and it was criminalised, yes, they could campaign for it, I guess. What's your point? No member state is obliged to recognise those protests. To comply with Citizen Rule Required, you can only give them local representation, and pass a national abortion law.

Which is precisely what he was doing. Of course Rights and Duties is relevant to many debates, and to this one. By 'pulling', I meant 'using it to pretend there's any formal justification for the view'. There's plenty of very valid informal justification - "this isn't an international issue", for example - but I don't see how he can possibly argue that Rights and Duties renders opposing this proposal illegal, and am still awaiting a retraction of that comment.

OOC: Czardas, are you going to assume the comment was made by you, not your puppet?
[ooc:] Yes, I was just too lazy to log in when posting with my puppet, and only did so now to update an RP and continue this debate in a better fashion.

[ic:]

Please note that my view was actually delivered in a rather informal fashion; I don't see how it can be viewed as more formal than the other views expressed so far in this thread. I will nonetheless retract that comment on the presumption that I used hyperbole, which for some reason tends to occur quite frequently to me, sometimes as a form of sarcasm.

/retracted

Assuming you meant the citizens were for abortion, and it was criminalised, yes, they could campaign for it, I guess. What's your point? No member state is obliged to recognise those protests. To comply with Citizen Rule Required, you can only give them local representation, and pass a national abortion law.
That was, indeed, what I meant.

But assuming the citizens have local representation, they can simply override the abortion laws in all areas where the people are primarily in favor of legalisation, and keep it illegal where they're not in favor. Thus, everyone goes home happy. (See for example the Alien & Sedition Acts.) Unless I'm misunderstanding a basic principle of government here, which I probably am, I'm like that. :(

It would be nice if the national sovereigntists would keep that in mind when discussing international (ie:UN) law... the fact that the UN has every right to regulate member nation behavior... Yes, it does. But that right, I feel, should only be used in areas where there aren't reasonable, widespread divisions among the members' political ideas--UN resolutions shouldn't be more inflammation than unification. There's no rule anywhere that says that and I'm not claiming this to be part of the UN liturgy.

Rather, I consider it common sense.

that that is the entire point of UN law.... before crying "how dare you try to tell my nation (which I voluntarily made a member of the UN with full knowledge that it would then be subject to UN legislation) what to do!"
Membership in the UN is related to power in the game: invading, defending, delegateship, etc. I think it's unfair to withhold that power from nations at the ransom of their subscription to various divisive political ideologies.

That was, indeed, what I meant.

But assuming the citizens have local representation, they can simply override the abortion laws in all areas where the people are primarily in favor of legalisation, and keep it illegal where they're not in favor. Thus, everyone goes home happy. (See for example the Alien & Sedition Acts.) Unless I'm misunderstanding a basic principle of government here, which I probably am, I'm like that.
OOC: What the hell have the Alien & Sedition Acts got to do with it?

IC: Look. There is NOTHING in Citizen Rule Required which would require any government to legalise abortion, even if 100% its populace voted for that. Banning abortion IS NOT ILLEGAL.

OOC: What the hell have the Alien & Sedition Acts got to do with it?
[ooc:] They were so unpopular that several state legislatures repealed them with the 2/3 majority or whatever. I think Pennsylvania was one of them, but yeah.


IC: Look. There is NOTHING in Citizen Rule Required which would require any government to legalise abortion, even if 100% its populace voted for that. Banning abortion IS NOT ILLEGAL.
[ic:]

You misunderstand me. Even if the government does ban abortions, the local governments, controlled by the people, can override the ban within their own territories. Thus, the people who want abortion get it, and the people who don't do not have to. Simple.

[ooc:] They were so unpopular that several state legislatures repealed them with the 2/3 majority or whatever. I think Pennsylvania was one of them, but yeah.
OOC: Yes, because they were unconstitutional. How do you account for 30,000 constitutions?

[ic:] You misunderstand me. Even if the government does ban abortions, the local governments, controlled by the people, can override the ban within their own territories. Thus, the people who want abortion get it, and the people who don't do not have to. Simple.
How do you know local governments have that authority? It may be the case in Czardas, but it's not in all nations, and there is no requirement in UN law for it to be so.

OOC: Yes, because they were unconstitutional. How do you account for 30,000 constitutions?
[ooc:] I'd think that most constitutions would be defined by some kind of popular government and not forced at gunpoint upon the citizens, although I don't know if there is even a UN requirement for a constitution.

How do you know local governments have that authority? It may be the case in Czardas, but it's not in all nations, and there is no requirement in UN law for it to be so.
[ooc:] That just gave me an idea for a new resolution.

[ic:]

One would assume that local governments are given the power to administrate over the territories of their constituents. Otherwise, they are not really local governments at all and thus are in violation of the mentioned UN Resolution #8, as they really don't give the people power within the government.

Or maybe that's just the kind of thinking that comes from living within one of the most liberal nations around, I don't know.

Oh, is this a debate about Resolution #8 now? Silly, stupid me; I thought the topic was ALC. I'll just quietly slink off, then, and work on some wiki or something. Have fun, everyone.

[ooc:] I'd think that most constitutions would be defined by some kind of popular government and not forced at gunpoint upon the citizens, although I don't know if there is even a UN requirement for a constitution.

That just gave me an idea for a new resolution.
There is not, and consider the Ideological Ban rule. If Citizen Rule Required weren't so piss-weak, I'd wager it'd be illegal today. In fact, I think The Most Glorious Hack has said it would be, before.

[ic:] One would assume that local governments are given the power to administrate over the territories of their constituents. Otherwise, they are not really local governments at all and thus are in violation of the mentioned UN Resolution #8, as they really don't give the people power within the government.

Or maybe that's just the kind of thinking that comes from living within one of the most liberal nations around, I don't know.
IC:

This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.
This is the entire text of CRR. It states they must 'have some say and control'. It does not say how. It does not say in what areas. It does not say to what extent. You are clutching at straws.

OOC: Look, I think I'm right, honestly, but I'm obviously not making the case well. Would anyone else care to weigh in, on either side?

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Excellent, we hit the meat already

NationState[/b], all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

And the moderators have ruled that the United Nations is not a NationState therefore Nations are not sovereign from the UN if they are members.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Again, member nations are not sovereign from the UN.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Altogether now, member nations are not sovereign from the UN.

It's like saying "That province in my nation does not have the right to dictate to this province on what it can and cannot do - but my national government can."

You have no sovereign right from the UN enshrined anywhere and it is not a fundamental principle. NEXT!

Forgottenlord, we're looking at it from different angles. Rights & Duties affirms we are sovereign, except where the UN legislates. We're not claiming anything more. You were claiming we were not even that empowered.

Which would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't withdrawn from the UN on...oh yeah, grounds of sovereignty.

Oh, is this a debate about Resolution #8 now? Silly, stupid me; I thought the topic was ALC. I'll just quietly slink off, then, and work on some wiki or something. Have fun, everyone.
While the topic is indeed that stated in the proposal, it's tied in deeply with Resolution #8 (and a few others as well, #49 for instance), so we're debating #8 in order to be able to debate the current one... er... anyway, back to the debate!

Forgottenlord, we're looking at it from different angles. Rights & Duties affirms we are sovereign, except where the UN legislates. We're not claiming anything more. You were claiming we were not even that empowered.
With respect to Forgottenlord and Gruenberg, I don't really see how this is relevant. Perhaps I'm just inexperienced... or drunk... or both... but to me it appears as though we're not debating whether nations are sovereign from the UN, but whether they should have the right to decide for themselves whether to legalise abortion or not. I recognize the connection between these two, but I don't see how the possible passage of a UN resolution allowing national sovereignty to take precedence at this juncture will have any effect on Resolution #49.

With respect to Forgottenlord and Gruenberg, I don't really see how this is relevant. Perhaps I'm just inexperienced... or drunk... or both... but to me it appears as though we're not debating whether nations are sovereign from the UN, but whether they should have the right to decide for themselves whether to legalise abortion or not. I recognize the connection between these two, but I don't see how the possible passage of a UN resolution allowing national sovereignty to take precedence at this juncture will have any effect on Resolution #49.
Except you quoted it as a reason that opposing this was 'illegal'. Arrrr.

Let's get back to the actual subject of this debate. Yarrrr.

Forgottenlord, we're looking at it from different angles. Rights & Duties affirms we are sovereign, except where the UN legislates. We're not claiming anything more. You were claiming we were not even that empowered.

Which would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't withdrawn from the UN on...oh yeah, grounds of sovereignty.

Withdrawn would be a false way to put it

Not bothered to return.....

Except you quoted it as a reason that opposing this was 'illegal'. Arrrr.
Hyperbole. Heard of it?

Besides, I believe I retracted that comment... but it's beside the point, I agree, let's get back to the real topic of this debate.

Look, the bottom line is: this proposal gives states the UN-endorsed to prohibit abortion where:
1. The mother is raped.
2. The fetus is severely abnormal and will die anyway.
3. Carrying it to term would severely endanger or even kill the mother.

Look, the bottom line is: this proposal gives states the UN-endorsed to prohibit abortion where:
1. The mother is raped.
2. The fetus is severely abnormal and will die anyway.
3. Carrying it to term would severely endanger or even kill the mother.
No, it doesn't. It recommends that nations legalise abortion in those cases, but it doesn't specifically endorse the prohibition of abortion. Now you appear to be twisting the proposal to satisfy your own lack of justification.

No, it doesn't. It recommends that nations legalise abortion in those cases, but it doesn't specifically endorse the prohibition of abortion. Now you appear to be twisting the proposal to satisfy your own lack of justification.
It permits them to prohibit it in those cases. If their laws were challenged, they could point to this proposal, if it is voted into UN law. That's close enough for an 'endorsement' for me.

And what do you mean by my 'own lack of justification'?

OOC: Given the whole "the Moderators have ruled" thing I'm going to treat this as OOC. And frankly, I don't give a damn about whatever Mod ruling is being referred to. It's irrelevant anyway. Onward, ho!

Excellent, we hit the meat already

Actually, what you're hitting is a straw man. Care to pick on something a bit more substantial?

Let's take a look at your main point.

Altogether now, member nations are not sovereign from the UN.

That's the whole reason sovereigntists are advocating the legislation they do. What, did you think sovereigntists were upset because national sovereignty was completely guaranteed in the UN? :rolleyes: Of course not. Sovereigntists are upset precisely because their sovereignty has been violated (to one degree or another), which implies that it is not guaranteed rather than that it is.

Sovereigntists believe not(A) and you claim that they believe (A). You're attacking the opposite of their position.

Now if you want to attack the idea that national sovereignty should be upheld by the UN but is not in most cases, then we may have finally hit the meat.

Pretty lame. If we're to be making "international law" here, we should be discussing international issues.

What exactly did you think you were doing putting "international law" in quotation marks there? Were you under some kind of delusion that that was not in fact what we were doing here?

And individual nations' abortion laws ain't one of them.

And yet we have a specific human rights legislation category right there in UN law which would strongly suggest that basic human rights are in fact an international issue. Imagine that...

Quite frankly the fact of the matter is that the UN has every right to require that its member nations meet certain minimum standards regarding human rights. To not do so reflects poorly on every nation here. To actively prevent the UN from doing so says things about a nation I would prefer to leave not spelled out in detail.

Quite frankly the fact of the matter is that the UN has every right to require that its member nations meet certain minimum standards regarding human rights.
And what exactly measures the right to an abortion as a 'minimum standard'? Who, or what, is the judge of the minimum standards?

To not do so reflects poorly on every nation here. To actively prevent the UN from doing so says things about a nation I would prefer to leave not spelled out in detail.
...Because giving nations a choice on the matter prevents them from establishing that standard in their own nations. Obviously.

And what exactly measures the right to an abortion as a 'minimum standard'? Who, or what, is the judge of the minimum standards?
Depends on context, I suppose, but surely the individual is best placed to make that decision.

...Because giving nations a choice on the matter prevents them from establishing that standard in their own nations. Obviously.
No, it actually doesn't. It allows them to ban it, though, which isn't all that nifty for the women whose lives are ruined as a result.

And yet we have a specific human rights legislation category right there in UN law which would strongly suggest that basic human rights are in fact an international issue. Imagine that...

Lol! The fact that we are discussing human rights so narrow mindedly here is exactly the reason this bill needs to be passed. Whether you agree with it or not, quite a few nations believe that the mass killing of innocent human life (abortion) is a human rights issue. They could just as easily propose an issue preventing ANY abortion.

However, the obvious here is that the U.N. membership is sharply divided over the humanity of the unborn and if we should protect them or not. For that reason, we should pass a unifying proposal such as this one that allows U.N. nations to rule for themselves. To adopt a proposal that guarantees the rights of the unborn on all nations, or a proposal that guarantees the rights of women who want to abort their children are the two extremes. This proposal insures neither of those will happen and half of the U.N. members in this hall will not be permanently divided.

Lol! The fact that we are discussing human rights so narrow mindedly here is exactly the reason this bill needs to be passed. Whether you agree with it or not, quite a few nations believe that the mass killing of innocent human life (abortion) is a human rights issue. They could just as easily propose an issue preventing ANY abortion.

However, the obvious here is that the U.N. membership is sharply divided over the humanity of the unborn and if we should protect them or not. For that reason, we should pass a unifying proposal such as this one that allows U.N. nations to rule for themselves. To adopt a proposal that guarantees the rights of the unborn on all nations, or a proposal that guarantees the rights of women who want to abort their children are the two extremes. This proposal insures neither of those will happen and half of the U.N. members in this hall will not be permanently divided.
Why is it any better that fetuses (lumps of cells) are aborted in other countries than in Dorksonia? I assume once this proposal passes, you'll ban it. Ok. But others won't. So why support it? Don't you see this proposal as enshrining their right to 'murder children' (abort lumps of cells)?

And what exactly measures the right to an abortion as a 'minimum standard'? Who, or what, is the judge of the minimum standards?

If you can think of a more fundamental human right than the ability to control your own body and what is done with it please provide it here: ______________


...Because giving nations a choice on the matter prevents them from establishing that standard in their own nations. Obviously.

What this peice of legislation actually does is prevents the UN from guaranteeing the right to abortion to citizens of UN nations. That is it's only practical active effect. All it's "recommendations" and "urgings" and "reminders" to the contrary accomplish precisely nothing. They're window dressing to make it look more palatable.

quote=Texan Hotrodders
That's the whole reason sovereigntists are advocating the legislation they do. What, did you think sovereigntists were upset because national sovereignty was completely guaranteed in the UN? Of course not. Sovereigntists are upset precisely because their sovereignty has been violated (to one degree or another), which implies that it is not guaranteed rather than that it is.

Sovereigntists believe not(A) and you claim that they believe (A). You're attacking the opposite of their position. /quote

+


quote=Texan HotroddersIt would also be nice if the Reformentian Delegation did not paint sovereigntists with quite such a broad brush./quote


=

:confused:



OOC: Some things are basic to the sovereigntist view. Some are not. Suggesting that a particular argument in favor of national sovereignty is common to all sovereigntists is painting with too broad a brush. Suggesting that all sovereigntists have basic beliefs that make them a sovereigntist is simple truth. There has to be some commonality for any group of people to have a common label.

For example, saying that all Christians believe that Christ existed in some form would be simple truth. Saying that all Christians believe in the teleological argument would be painting with too broad a brush.

Hope that helps to clarify. :)

If you can think of a more fundamental human right than the ability to control your own body and what is done with it please provide it here: ______________


I find it rather odd that some people are calling the "right" to an abortion a "fundamental human right," when only about one half of the human population is cabable of exercising it.

I find it rather odd that some people are calling the "right" to an abortion a "fundamental human right," when only about one half of the human population is cabable of exercising it.

So protecting you from having your testicals cut off would also not qualify as falling under your human rights according to your view of things then?

Try to be serious.

Again, not everyone is going to buy into your characterization of a fetus as a "lump of cells" and in fact, science has proven otherwise. I believe such discussion, however, would be a distraction from the main issue at hand here. You're basically asking for a debate on abortion to understand the position of why those who disagree with your position should be validated in this argument. Just accept the fact that we're not going to agree on the issue. For that reason, should we divide the U.N. body by insisting one of these positions is the right one? A vote in favor of this proposal ensures that this will not happen.

For that reason, we will gladly vote FOR this proposal WHENEVER it is available to vote on. I have over 100 delegate endorsements just waiting to approve it as soon as it pops up.

Again, not everyone is going to buy into your characterization of a fetus as a "lump of cells" and in fact, science has proven otherwise. I believe such discussion, however, would be a distraction from the main issue at hand here. You're basically asking for a debate on abortion to understand the position of why those who disagree with your position should be validated in this argument. Just accept the fact that we're not going to agree on the issue. For that reason, should we divide the U.N. body by insisting one of these positions is the right one? A vote in favor of this proposal ensures that this will not happen.

For that reason, we will gladly vote FOR this proposal WHENEVER it is available to vote on. I have over 100 delegate endorsements just waiting to approve it as soon as it pops up.
If we're not likely to agree, what makes it any more likely the people of Golgothastan will agree? The people of Dorksonia? That any people will agree? Nothing. So it is better that there is no disagreement, and each individual make the choice. That negates the need for debate. But a proposal which allows states to bar individuals from making that choice doesn't permit that.

If you can think of a more fundamental human right than the ability to control your own body and what is done with it please provide it here: ______________

How about: The right not to be killed because of another's right to control their body?

This is a losing argument that cannot be won.

Depends on context, I suppose, but surely the individual is best placed to make that decision.
So if it's the individual's decision... what does the UN have to do with it?

If you can think of a more fundamental human right than the ability to control your own body and what is done with it please provide it here:
I note that it is Reformentia who appears to be judging the universal minimum standard. Although I share your view on this, there are undoubtedly many people who do not, and you are not speaking for them, but only for your own personal view. In response to your statement, no one nation has the right to judge the minimum standard; it can only be left to the individual, and this is thus not a UN issue at all. Unless you can explain to me exactly how much say the average individual has in the UN, as per the Golgothastani earlier arguments regarding Resolution #8.

What this peice of legislation actually does is prevents the UN from guaranteeing the right to abortion to citizens of UN nations. That is it's only practical active effect. All it's "recommendations" and "urgings" and "reminders" to the contrary accomplish precisely nothing. They're window dressing to make it look more palatable.
Once again, the 'right to abortion' is a standard of human rights judged by the Reformentian delegation, not anyone else. Many nations may not consider it a valid human right, nullifying your point.

Again, not everyone is going to buy into your characterization of a fetus as a "lump of cells" and in fact, science has proven otherwise. I believe such discussion, however, would be a distraction from the main issue at hand here. You're basically asking for a debate on abortion to understand the position of why those who disagree with your position should be validated in this argument. Just accept the fact that we're not going to agree on the issue. For that reason, should we divide the U.N. body by insisting one of these positions is the right one? A vote in favor of this proposal ensures that this will not happen.

You have got to be kidding. This proposal could be summarized with a single line.

"Any nation hereby has the right to outlaw abortion if they feel like it."

That's at least as divisive as declaring the opposite. A vast section of the UN does not believe any nation has any such right to infringe on the basic human rights of its citizenry.

So protecting you from having your testicals cut off would also not qualify as falling under your human rights according to your view of things then?

Try to be serious.

I'm being completely serious. If only one half of the population can exercise said "right," it can't be very fundamental. Moreover, your comparison of my testicles to a fetus doesn't work. Nobody's talking about ripping out womens' ovaries here.

If we're not likely to agree, what makes it any more likely the people of Golgothastan will agree? The people of Dorksonia? That any people will agree? Nothing. So it is better that there is no disagreement, and each individual make the choice. That negates the need for debate. But a proposal which allows states to bar individuals from making that choice doesn't permit that.

Unreal! So basically you don't see any conflict with insisting your view of human rights is the superior view over a divided hall here! Every law that is passed restricts someone's right to do something. So we look at what it is that is chosen, not just wrap everything under the term "choice." In this instance, half or more feel the choice is killing an unborn child. We do not have to agree with that position. But if the international community is divided over what is human rights in this discussion, it cannot use human rights to pass it's view as the only correct one. So much for tolerance.

You have got to be kidding. This proposal could be summarized with a single line.

"Any nation hereby has the right to outlaw abortion if they feel like it."

That's at least as divisive as declaring the opposite. A vast section of the UN does not believe any nation has any such right to infringe on the basic human rights of its citizenry.

No, it can be summarised with this line: "Any nation hereby has the right to outlaw or legalise abortion if they feel like it."

The decision is left up to the individual nation. You either fail at reading comprehension, or you're intentionally being disingenuous.

If we're not likely to agree, what makes it any more likely the people of Golgothastan will agree? The people of Dorksonia? That any people will agree? Nothing. So it is better that there is no disagreement, and each individual make the choice. That negates the need for debate. But a proposal which allows states to bar individuals from making that choice doesn't permit that.
However, as it is, states can anyway bar individuals from making that choice. I don't see your point.

So protecting you from having your testicals cut off would also not qualify as falling under your human rights according to your view of things then?
Actually, that's just protection from undue physical harm, which is a fundamental human right that can be exercised by anyone, and usually is. No matter what ... *delicate cough* ... gender is targeted, there can really be no comparison.

I can almost anticipate that your next comment will be about broadness, and if so, abortion then counts under the right for people to do whatever they like with their own bodies. I won't disagree with you there.

I note that it is Reformentia who appears to be judging the universal minimum standard.

I note that Czardas is dodging the question. I didn't unilaterally dictate the standard there, I asked that if you disagreed with where it should be placed to provide a single example of what would constitute a more fundamental human right than the one at issue.

Although I share your view on this, there are undoubtedly many people who do not,

Which is a reason to take legislative action, not to AVOID it. The existence of a significant number of people who feel it is acceptable to violate basic human rights is a threat to be addressed, not an excuse to just go ahead and allow them to be violated.

and you are not speaking for them,

You're damn right we're not.

but only for your own personal view. In response to your statement, no one nation has the right to judge the minimum standard; it can only be left to the individual, and this is thus not a UN issue at all.

Ahem, this legislation removes that choice from the individual and places it in the hands of their governments to dictate to them. I would be entirely in favor of legislation that left the choice of whether or not to have an abortion in the hands of the individual! That's where it belongs! Of course that requires abortion to be legal.

So if it's the individual's decision... what does the UN have to do with it?
If it's the individual nation's choice what does the UN have to do with it? Why not leave it to them?

And, to answer that: because the UN can protect the individual's choice from the nation.

You have got to be kidding. This proposal could be summarized with a single line.

"Any nation hereby has the right to outlaw abortion if they feel like it."

That's at least as divisive as declaring the opposite. A vast section of the UN does not believe any nation has any such right to infringe on the basic human rights of its citizenry.

Logically there are three options on this divisive issue:

1. We pass legislation protecting the rights of the unborn in all nations. Abortion is outlawed.
2. We pass legislation giving the rights of the woman to abort her unborn child in every nation. Abortion is a fundamental right.
3. We pass legislation saying the U.N. is divided on this issue, and individual nations will decide this for themselves.

Proposals #1 and #2 are the two extremes that mandate one opinion over another. Position #3, the position of this bill, is not the opposite, but the neutral position in this matter. If you still think like you have the superior position and feel so strongly about it that you believe it should be an international issue that your view is more important than our local governments, then go ahead and vote against the bill. I just don't call that tolerance.

Actually, that's just protection from undue physical harm,

Like being forced to endure a nine month pregnancy against your will.

I can almost anticipate that your next comment will be about broadness, and if so, abortion then counts under the right for people to do whatever they like with their own bodies. I won't disagree with you there.

Ok then.

"Any nation hereby has the right to outlaw abortion if they feel like it."
We'll agree with the Cluichstani delegation's assessment of this comment...

That's at least as divisive as declaring the opposite. A vast section of the UN does not believe any nation has any such right to infringe on the basic human rights of its citizenry.
Then explain exactly, how is it that the Abortion Legality Convention has garnered almost twenty more endorsements than its sister proposal, the Clinical Abortion Rights? 'A vast section of the UN' indeed...

Unreal! So basically you don't see any conflict with insisting your view of human rights is the superior view over a divided hall here! Every law that is passed restricts someone's right to do something. So we look at what it is that is chosen, not just wrap everything under the term "choice." In this instance, half or more feel the choice is killing an unborn child. We do not have to agree with that position. But if the international community is divided over what is human rights in this discussion, it cannot use human rights to pass it's view as the only correct one. So much for tolerance.
Do you not accept that when you ban abortion in Dorksonia, there will be nationals who disagree with that? How is that different? You will still be imposing your views on them. Whether we do it in the General Assembly of the United Nations, a national parliament, or a local hall makes little difference.

And I never claimed I intended to 'tolerate' oppression.

Actually, that's just protection from undue physical harm, which is a fundamental human right that can be exercised by anyone, and usually is. No matter what ... *delicate cough* ... gender is targeted, there can really be no comparison.

I can almost anticipate that your next comment will be about broadness, and if so, abortion then counts under the right for people to do whatever they like with their own bodies. I won't disagree with you there.
You don't think being made to carry and deliver an unwanted child counts as undue harm?

Then explain exactly, how is it that the Abortion Legality Convention has garnered almost twenty more endorsements than its sister proposal, the Clinical Abortion Rights? 'A vast section of the UN' indeed...

Please don't pretend you don't know the purpose of all those urgings and reminders in there that are all, each and every one, pro legal abortion... but which conveniently lack any compelling legislative effect. Unlike the single declarative clause that will prevent the right to abortion from being protected by future legislation.

It's not exactly a new tactic.

Logically there are three options on this divisive issue:

1. We pass legislation protecting the rights of the unborn in all nations. Abortion is outlawed.
2. We pass legislation giving the rights of the woman to abort her unborn child in every nation. Abortion is a fundamental right.
3. We pass legislation saying the U.N. is divided on this issue, and individual nations will decide this for themselves.

Proposals #1 and #2 are the two extremes that mandate one opinion over another. Position #3, the position of this bill, is not the opposite, but the neutral position in this matter. If you still think like you have the superior position and feel so strongly about it that you believe it should be an international issue that your view is more important than our local governments, then go ahead and vote against the bill. I just don't call that tolerance.
At the national level, logically there are three options on this divisive issue:

1. We pass legislation protecting the rights of the unborn in our nation. Abortion is outlawed.
2. We pass legislation giving the rights of the woman to abort her unborn child in our nation. Abortion is a fundamental right.
3. We pass legislation saying the nation is divided on this issue, and individual regions/towns will decide this for themselves.

Proposals #1 and #2 are the two extremes that mandate one opinion over another. Position #3, the position of this bill, is not the opposite, but the neutral position in this matter. If you still think like you have the superior position and feel so strongly about it that you believe it should be an national issue that your view is more important than our local governments, then go ahead and vote against the bill. I just don't call that tolerance.

Ahem, this legislation removes that choice from the individual and places it in the hands of their governments to dictate to them. I would be entirely in favor of legislation that left the choice of whether or not to have an abortion in the hands of the individual! That's where it belongs! Of course that requires abortion to be legal.I'm probably one of the most vocal supporters of that idea on here.

I agree that handing the choice to the individual is a vote for pro-choice (not out of any particular bias between pro-choice and pro-life, although I do have leanings towards pro-choice - but my stance on this is based on who is best placed to decide).

If you were extremely pro-life, I'd imagine you would vote against this, as this still allows abortion to happen in other countries. If you feel governments are best qualified to decide, you would vote for this. If you feel the female is best qualifed to decide, you would vote against this and vote for the one next in the queue.

I suspect this will go through, because a majority of nations will fail to see a difference between their government and their nation, or be willing to allow abortions outside their nation. But Hirota will vote against this proposal as has been repeated so many times before.

I note that Czardas is dodging the question. I didn't unilaterally dictate the standard there, I asked that if you disagreed with where it should be placed to provide a single example of what would constitute a more fundamental human right than the one at issue.
[ooc:] Perhaps I ought to put a note to this effect in my signature: my ambassador to the UN is an over-emotional eloquent speaker named Czardaniél i Starfire IX. Anyway...



Quite simply, the right to life. I hope you agree that the right not to be killed is more important than the rights to do what you like with your body, as without the first the second would be a moot point. Before this devolves into a debate over whether the foetus is alive or not, let me just say this: We have no way of knowing whether the foetus is alive or not before its actual birth, when it gains consciousness, etc. Therefore, we cannot use the choice argument here.

Which is a reason to take legislative action, not to AVOID it. The existence of a significant number of people who feel it is acceptable to violate basic human rights is a threat to be addressed, not an excuse to just go ahead and allow them to be violated.
Let's look at this another way. The nations you claim to be violating human rights could be, in fact, protecting them—the rights of the unborn babies, that is. Once again we have no way of knowing whether they are alive or not at this stage.

Ahem, this legislation removes that choice from the individual and places it in the hands of their governments to dictate to them. I would be entirely in favor of legislation that left the choice of whether or not to have an abortion in the hands of the individual! That's where it belongs! Of course [i]that requires abortion to be legal.
I have to acknowledge that this could be a valid point... but see my statements above.

Do you not accept that when you ban abortion in Dorksonia, there will be nationals who disagree with that? How is that different? You will still be imposing your views on them. Whether we do it in the General Assembly of the United Nations, a national parliament, or a local hall makes little difference.

And I never claimed I intended to 'tolerate' oppression.

You don't understand. The overwhelming majority in Dorksonia know that the unborn child is a live human being that deserves the protection of the government. Our nation believes the rights of the unborn child to life are superior to the pregnant woman's right to kill it.

So my view would naturally tend to come out and argue the opposite of what you are declaring here. However, my tolerance is based on the fact that good people disagree on this issue, and will allow you to permit abortion in your nation if you choose. However, I would rather that you not allow abortion because we feel it's a human rights issue that does not protect the mass killings of innocent human life. You don't see me insisting my view is the right one and everyone must believe what I believe.

You don't think being made to carry and deliver an unwanted child counts as undue harm?

We agree that it should be illegal to open a woman's womb against her choice and place a baby in there.

You don't understand. The overwhelming majority in Dorksonia know that the unborn child is a live human being that deserves the protection of the government. Our nation believes the rights of the unborn child to life are superior to the pregnant woman's right to kill it.
Two don't add up, I'm afraid. "Overwhelming majority" would imply there is a minority; "our nation" would not. Which is it? And are you comfortable forcing your views on that minority?

So my view would naturally tend to come out and argue the opposite of what you are declaring here. However, my tolerance is based on the fact that good people disagree on this issue, and will allow you to permit abortion in your nation if you choose. However, I would rather that you not allow abortion because we feel it's a human rights issue that does not protect the mass killings of innocent human life. You don't see me insisting my view is the right one and everyone must believe what I believe.
Why is it that abortion is murder in one country, and allowed in another? Are you saying a human life has a different value in individual countries? Why is abortion any more acceptable in Golgothastan than in Dorksonia?

We agree that it should be illegal to open a woman's womb against her choice and place a baby in there.
Rape? Having sex without knowing the consequences? An accident? A change of mind?

[ooc:] I kind of have to go now; keep up the debate, and TG me if there's anything further. I'll be back this evening.

Oh come on! I mean really, look at the freakn' FACTS already! Its a FETUS, it is not alive until it grows A BRAIN. The whole reason that killing a human being is a tragedy is because the human being THINKS! Not because he(for the sake of not calling a human it) feels pain, but because he feels love, true emotion, had hopes, dreams, goals, and an imagination. And having that all cut short, that is the tragedy of taking a human life.

Does a fetus have any of those? Not until it grows a brain, because without a brain that sort of thing is impossible. Jellyfish feel pain, but they don't have brains, do they count? Ants feel pain, but they don't have emotions, or goals, they are mindless organic robot drones. You could debate WHEN a fetus has a brain, but to say it is alive from the MOMENT of conception, or anywhere near concpetion, is ludicerous.

Besides, whats the difference between an early abortian and a contraceptive. NONE, either way you end up with no baby. COME ON PEOPLE, THINK ABOUT THIS SCIENTIFICALLY.




TJR, defending civil rights since 1991 :sniper:

Ahem, this legislation removes that choice from the individual and places it in the hands of their governments to dictate to them.

Note the word you bolded. Let's keep in mind that "Abortion Rights" was repealed and frankly wasn't very effective to begin with. In truth, prior to the passage of this resolution, the state of affairs is thus: in some nations individuals have the right to an abortion and in some nations they do not have that right. Guess what? After the passage of the resolution the state of affairs will be thus: in some nations individuals have the right to an abortion and in some nations they do not have that right. There is no removal of individual choice in the ALC. Things simply continue as they did before when it comes to individuals. Now where the effect of the resolution is happens to be in making sure nations can continue to have the same choice they have currently.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

[ooc:] Perhaps I ought to put a note to this effect in my signature: my ambassador to the UN is an over-emotional eloquent speaker named Czardaniél i Starfire IX. Anyway...

[ic:]

Quite simply, the right to life. I hope you agree that the right not to be killed is more important than the rights to do what you like with your body,

And you don't consider having your body killed to involve something happening to your body?

They're the same right.

as without the first the second would be a moot point. Before this devolves into a debate over whether the foetus is alive or not, let me just say this: We have no way of knowing whether the foetus is alive or not before its actual birth,

Of course we do, it clearly is alive. So is my liver of course... it's certainly not dead. It's just not a person (my liver or the fetus, take your pick) without a minimal level of consciousness.

when it gains consciousness, etc.

We can set a level of brain development with a more than sufficient margin of error for determining this.

Let's look at this another way. The nations you claim to be violating human rights could be, in fact, protecting them—the rights of the unborn babies, that is. Once again we have no way of knowing whether they are alive or not at this stage.

Whether they are "alive" or not is irrelevent. Tuna are alive, that does not nor should it make tuna fishing illegal. Life does not automatically confer a right to life. It never has.

As for consciousness (which is a really much lower bar for granting human rights than required, but whatever), as an absolute minimum criteria if you don't have a brain or brain activity, you don't have consciousness. That much at least is not really open for debate. So don't try arguing it's impossible to tell if consciousness is present or not. Impossible to exactly pinpoint the precise moment it is acheived? Sure. That's what margins of error are for however.

Now where the effect of the resolution is happens to be in making sure nations can continue to have the same choice they have currently.
Yes, ok, his use of 'removes' was incorrect. Collect a brownie while they're still warm.

But what you also know is that resolution's effect happesn to be in making sure individuals continue to have the same lack of choice they have currently.

Note the word you bolded. Let's keep in mind that "Abortion Rights" was repealed and frankly wasn't very effective to begin with. In truth, prior to the passage of this resolution, the state of affairs is thus: in some nations individuals have the right to an abortion and in some nations they do not have that right.

Which is an unnacceptable state of affairs.

Guess what? After the passage of the resolution ...

That state of affairs will be specifically protected from being altered. Also unnacceptable.

Two don't add up, I'm afraid. "Overwhelming majority" would imply there is a minority; "our nation" would not. Which is it? And are you comfortable forcing your views on that minority?

In Dorksonia we have laws on our books now that do allow women to kill their unborn babies. So your right, we do force our views on the minority. Just as every law on our books forces our views on the minority about something. We just do not feel with such divisiveness on the issue that it should be an issue of international law.


Why is it that abortion is murder in one country, and allowed in another? Are you saying a human life has a different value in individual countries? Why is abortion any more acceptable in Golgothastan than in Dorksonia?

No. I believe that if you are killing babies in Golgathastan that that is a serious human rights issue you are violating. You are elevating a mother's choice over the unborn child's right to life. But since we are having a disagreement on "human rights" I agree to disagree with your right to decide abortion in your own nation.

Rape? Having sex without knowing the consequences? An accident? A change of mind?

In your original post you made it sound like a woman has no idea that she could get pregnant from having sex. My point is that when a woman is pregnant she already has a baby.

1. Rape? In Dorksonia rapists are tried and imprisoned. But in Dorksonia, not even our rapists get the death sentence. Your suggesting the innocent unborn child should. That is not consistent. Unless you really don't care what the circumstances are that abortion should always be allowed. I believe that is more accurately your position.

2. Having sex without knowing the consequences? An accident? A change of mind:
These are not rights that should trump another's right to life.

In Dorksonia it is against the law to steal. We respect that others have the right to property. However, if a thief is breaking into my car to steal my camera, I do not have the right to shoot him. The thief's right to life is superior to my right to property. The right to life is the fundamental right and protection of that is the highest purpose of government.

Thats exactly what I just said.

Oh crap, how did my post end up down here???

I mean to agree with the pro-choice guy.

So summarize, fetuses are not human beiings.

In Dorksonia it is against the law to steal. We respect that others have the right to property. However, if a thief is breaking into my car to steal my camera, I do not have the right to shoot him. The thief's right to life is superior to my right to property. The right to life is the fundamental right and protection of that is the purpose of government.

Ah, but if the thief kidnaps you and holds you hostage in his basement for 18 years, making you finance his every whim and obeying his every command, what then?

It appears the definition of "life" is up for grabs. For you, it is "being alive". For Schartlefritzen, it is "being able to enjoy a reasonably stressfree life".


Lord-Governor Matthieu Tertulien
Ambassador to the UN
Most Serene Republic of Schartlefritzen

In Dorksonia we have laws on our books now that do allow women to kill their unborn babies. So your right, we do force our views on the minority. Just as every law on our books forces our views on the minority about something. We just do not feel with such divisiveness on the issue that it should be an issue of international law.
No, you're not answering my question. What distinguishes between a national and international issue? It can't be that there's disagreement on it, because there is disagreement on national issues. How are Dorksonia's laws less divisive or oppressive than international laws?

No. I believe that if you are killing babies in Golgathastan that that is a serious human rights issue you are violating. You are elevating a mother's choice over the unborn child's right to life. But since we are having a disagreement on "human rights" I agree to disagree with your right to decide abortion in your own nation.
We're not killing babies, we're aborting lumps of cells. And you are supporting a proposal which gives us the unrestricted right to do that. How does your 'overwhelming majority' feel about that one?

In your original post you made it sound like a woman has no idea that she could get pregnant from having sex. My point is that when a woman is pregnant she already has a baby.
Some women don't know they can get pregnant from having sex...

1. Rape? In Dorksonia rapists are tried and imprisoned. But in Dorksonia, not even our rapists get the death sentence. Your suggesting the innocent unborn child should. That is not consistent. Unless you really don't care what the circumstances are that abortion should always be allowed. I believe that is more accurately your position.
You don't consider that forcing a woman to carry a baby to term, that was conceived by her attacker, is only exacerbating the misery she suffers? I don't give a fuck about the rapist; my concern is for a woman forced to bear a burden of something which is not her fault, and actually for the baby that will then grow up unwanted.

2. Having sex without knowing the consequences? An accident? A change of mind:
These are not rights that should trump another's right to life.
So what gives the lump of cells the right to life? Why does a conscious human's actions trump the inactions of a fleshy parasite?

In Dorksonia it is against the law to steal. We respect that others have the right to property. However, if a thief is breaking into my car to steal my camera, I do not have the right to shoot him. The thief's right to life is superior to my right to property. The right to life is the fundamental right and protection of that is the purpose of government.
We're not discussing property. We're discussing the woman's right to life, and the lump's right to life. I would submit that the former trumps the latter; certainly, you can't be saying the latter trumps the former?

Which is an unnacceptable state of affairs.



That state of affairs will be specifically protected from being altered. Also unnacceptable.

Only to a nation that thinks it is so morally superior to others that it should be allowed to dictate what is and what is not acceptable in another nation.

Which is an unnacceptable state of affairs.

That state of affairs will be specifically protected from being altered. Also unnacceptable.

Welcome to the unfortunate reality of the situation. You know as well as I that no resolution is free of loopholes, and that those nations who wish to oppress their people will find a way to continue to do so despite whatever laws may be on the books. It is indeed what I would agree is unacceptable, but without a practical method of addressing the problem, I also see it as unacceptable to waste time and effort that could be used for more productive purposes on an exercise that is simply divisive. Even if I did not believe that the United Nations should not interfere in the domestic policies of its members, I would still not support the legalization of abortion at a UN level because there are simply insufficient practical benefits to outweigh the amount of international tension generated by such a move.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Yes, ok, his use of 'removes' was incorrect. Collect a brownie while they're still warm.

But what you also know is that resolution's effect happesn to be in making sure individuals continue to have the same lack of choice they have currently.

Yes, of course. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10514557&postcount=91) That is part of the current state of affairs, an unfortunate situation indeed, and one I am not inclined to make worse by adding international tension to.

I appreciate the offer of a brownie. Unfortunately, my wives are insisting that I eat more healthily these days, so I must decline.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

Yes, of course. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10514557&postcount=91) That is part of the current state of affairs, an unfortunate situation indeed, and one I am not inclined to make worse by adding international tension to.
So let's quickly and painlessly legalise it - given it's 'unfortunate' - and we can all talk about other matters.

It's also interesting you seek 'practical benefits' to justify the granting of rights. And by 'interesting', I mean sad.

Welcome to the unfortunate reality of the situation. You know as well as I that no resolution is free of loopholes, and that those nations who wish to oppress their people will find a way to continue to do so despite whatever laws may be on the books.

Oh, don't even go that route. Because some nations will always be able to wiggle and squirm their way through some little technical loophole we should just not bother trying at all and build every one of them a 4 lane tunnel with big neon signs saying "human rights abusers, right this way!" instead because making it more convenient for them will engender their good will?

Uh-uh.

As for the practical benefit vs. international tension weighing... human rights and the sore philosophical toes of those who don't hold them in high regard don't even belong on the same scale.

Welcome to the unfortunate reality of the situation. You know as well as I that no resolution is free of loopholes, and that those nations who wish to oppress their people will find a way to continue to do so despite whatever laws may be on the books.

Hell, we will. We're not afraid to admit it. If this proposal fails and the next passes, we'll find some way to eliminate abortions (In fact, a very clever method involving raffles has already been proposed by a member of the House of Jevian Representatives, and is likely to pass). We support this mainly because we would like a "4 lane tunnel with big neon signs"-method in order to outlaw abortions except in extreme cases, as opposed to having to resort to a small loophole.

So let's quickly and painlessly legalise it - given it's 'unfortunate' - and we can all talk about other matters.

Quicklessly and painlessly? I would hardly call generating international tension (not just from sovereigntists, but also from those who are often well-armed in addition to being oppressive) painless, though it may well happen quickly.

It's also interesting you seek 'practical benefits' to justify the granting of rights. And by 'interesting', I mean sad.

You are saddened? My dear sir, if you are saddened by a refusal to act based on the lack of real practical benefit rather than acting on the warm fuzzy feeling I might get from seeing women's rights promoted by the United Nations, then I must wonder what sort of decision-making process you would have me commit to. Shall I grant rights based on the fact that I would like to see people have them rather than on practical benefits? I do not see how that is any more appropriate than claiming that national sovereignty should be protected just because I would like it to be. The Federation consistently refuses to make law based on what it would like to see. Rather, the Federation makes law based on the benefit it will have. Perhaps our penchant for applying high standards to our actions rather than following our personal inclination saddens you. If so, perhaps you would like to explain how following our personal inclinations is more appropriate.

Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is firmly against this resolution. It allows nations to oppress women without any excuse. Only the woman concerned can decide about her own body. To deny that because some backwards nations appeal to some made-up god who supposedly told them different is just too silly for words. Only if someone voluntarily gives up their rights to a state can a state decide; if they do not, the state should have nothing to say about it. As many governments appear to ignore this basic rule, I will vote against, so the UN can force governments to stay out of this and leave the choice to the individuals concerned.

It is really sad that the concept of natural sovereignity, which does have value in many different situations, is now being abused to force a viewpoint on minorities, restricting their personal freedom, instead of standing up for their rights and provide that freedom to the people. If the interests of a national government are placed above the interests of the people living in that nation, we're going a huge step backwards.

Quicklessly and painlessly? I would hardly call generating international tension (not just from sovereigntists, but also from those who are often well-armed in addition to being oppressive) painless, though it may well happen quickly.
This proposal is generating international tension. Right now, this discussion is tension, and last time I checked we came from different nations, so oh yeah, it's international tension. Any discussion, on abortion, or on anything, really, will generate international tension. Generating international tension is not a deterrent to legislation. Of course, were we to bypass the whole process and return the decision to the individual, then perhaps the international tension would be less justifiable, than with this proposal, which invests its trust in nations and governments with no checks to their authority.

You are saddened? My dear sir, if you are saddened by a refusal to act based on the lack of real practical benefit rather than acting on the warm fuzzy feeling I might get from seeing women's rights promoted by the United Nations, then I must wonder what sort of decision-making process you would have me commit to. Shall I grant rights based on the fact that I would like to see people have them rather than on practical benefits? I do not see how that is any more appropriate than claiming that national sovereignty should be protected just because I would like it to be. The Federation consistently refuses to make law based on what it would like to see. Rather, the Federation makes law based on the benefit it will have. Perhaps our penchant for applying high standards to our actions rather than following our personal inclination saddens you. If so, perhaps you would like to explain how following our personal inclinations is more appropriate.
Except it is impossible to calculate the benefit of any legislative action. You can make predictions, and make preparations for misfortunes, and try to insulate damage, but you can't possibly predict what the benefits will be. So yes, I am promoting a decision based on (and I loathe the word, so forgive me) 'virtue' rather than consequences. Take this situation:

A terrorist suspect has information on a bomb. If he does not tell you, the bomb will explode and kill ten innocent civilians. He is tight-lipped, and the only possible way of extracting the information is torture. Torturing him would indeed procure 'practical benefits'. Would it be right? Would it be justified?

EDIT: And I would like to make it clear I separate the views of Golgothastan from those of Mrs Lane of Groot Gouda.

It allows nations to oppress women without any excuse.

Without any excuse?!? I don't want this to turn into an abortion-right or wrong- debate, but I think the killing of an innocent human organism is a PERFECT excuse for the outlawing of abortion.

Quicklessly and painlessly? I would hardly call generating international tension (not just from sovereigntists, but also from those who are often well-armed in addition to being oppressive) painless, though it may well happen quickly.

It was implemented for a long while without tension. Only when it's debated there's tension, once it's properly legalised like it more or less was, life goes on.

Without any excuse?!? I don't want this to turn into an abortion-right or wrong- debate, but I think the killing of an innocent human organism is a PERFECT excuse for the outlawing of abortion.
Then I'd advise you not vote for a proposal which allows nations to kill human organisms.

Then I'd advise you not vote for a proposal which allows nations to kill human organisms.

Or perhaps vote for the one that allows my government to outlaw it, as opposed to the next one that doesn't.

As said in this proposal, the passing of a legislation either way with a significant amount of support is unlikely. So, since Jey is not the UN, we cant tell you not to kill humans. In essence, its not our concern--let the nations decide on this one.

I still don't see why nations should be allowed to 'kill' 'babies'?

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda is firmly against this resolution. It allows nations to oppress women without any excuse. Only the woman concerned can decide about her own body. To deny that because some backwards nations appeal to some made-up god who supposedly told them different is just too silly for words. Only if someone voluntarily gives up their rights to a state can a state decide; if they do not, the state should have nothing to say about it. As many governments appear to ignore this basic rule, I will vote against, so the UN can force governments to stay out of this and leave the choice to the individuals concerned.
With all due respect Ms Lane, what does this really contribute to the debate?

With all due respect Ms Lane, what does this really contribute to the debate?

It doesn't contribute a bloody thing, other than letting us all know how morally superior Ms. Lane believes herself to be.

To deny that because some backwards nations appeal to some made-up god who supposedly told them different is just too silly for words. Only if someone voluntarily gives up their rights to a state can a state decide; if they do not, the state should have nothing to say about it.

Firstly, I, the Emperor of Jey, am atheist, and firmly against abortion. Secondly, well over half of the country is atheist, and well over half are also against abortion. Please do not make pro-lifers into automatic religious-folk. Also, I agree that everyone has the right to their own body (see "Recreational Drug Legalization), and am what I call a "no-harm-nihilist"--meaning "do whatever you want with your body, just dont harm anyone whilst doing so". So, in terms of that philosophy, abortion is wrong as it harms the unborn human organism. As a government, Jey follows this philosophy, and since the unborn human organism has "not voluntarily given up his/her right to the state", we will not endorse killing them.

As a government, Jey follows this philosophy, and since the unborn human organism has "not voluntarily given up his/her right to the state", we will not endorse killing them.

There is no "his" or "her" to speak of until at least self awareness is acheived.

Firstly, I, the Emperor of Jey, am atheist, and firmly against abortion. Secondly, well over half of the country is atheist, and well over half are also against abortion. Please do not make pro-lifers into automatic religious-folk. Also, I agree that everyone has the right to their own body (see "Recreational Drug Legalization), and am what I call a "no-harm-nihilist"--meaning "do whatever you want with your body, just dont harm anyone whilst doing so". So, in terms of that philosophy, abortion is wrong as it harms the unborn human organism. As a government, Jey follows this philosophy, and since the unborn human organism has "not voluntarily given up his/her right to the state", we will not endorse killing them.
Do you prohibit abortion at all stages? For example, when the human organism is very undeveloped? How, then, is abortion not allowed, but smoking - damaging human organisms (lungs) - permissible?

Do you prohibit abortion at all stages? For example, when the human organism is very undeveloped? How, then, is abortion not allowed, but smoking - damaging human organisms (lungs) - permissible?

If you did "see 'Recreational Drug Legalization'" as we said, you'd realize that drug consumption that harms others then the user is illegal.

If you did "see 'Recreational Drug Legalization'" as we said, you'd realize that drug consumption that harms others then the user is illegal.
The fetus at that stage is not an 'other', though. It is simply an organism, attached to the mother. It is no more or less human than her lungs. It is not another person.

The fetus at that stage is not an 'other', though. It is simply an organism, attached to the mother. It is no more or less human than her lungs. It is not another person.

Hmm...an "organism" is a living being comprised of millions of cells with organs working simultaneously to benefit the individual. The only different between that individual and you is its incompleteness, which is no reason to take away its right to life.

There is no "his" or "her" to speak of until at least self awareness is acheived.

And as a government, we will wait until that self awareness is achieved to ask the question "Hey Mr.Smith, do you want to live?".

Hmm...an "organism" is a living being comprised of millions of cells with organs working simultaneously to benefit the individual. The only different between that individual and you is its incompleteness, which is no reason to take away its right to life.
No. An amoeba, which consists of one cell, is an organism. We are both using it incorrectly.

And as a government, we will wait until that self awareness is achieved to ask the question "Hey Mr.Smith, do you want to live?".

That's good. Since prior to that time there is no "Mr. Smith" and asking would be rather stupid.

Since the only person involved in the situation prior to that time is therefore the mother, what exactly are your grounds for not asking her "Hey, Mrs. Smith, do you want to be pregnant?" before forcing her to continue a pregnancy?

Since the only person involved in the situation prior to that time is therefore the mother, what exactly are your grounds for not asking her "Hey, Mrs. Smith, do you want to be pregnant?" before forcing her to continue a pregnancy?

The first question is ultimately asked prior to intercourse. Now, we require her to continue the pregnancy becasue there is another little Smith in there that should decide its own life or lack thereof.

The first question is ultimately asked prior to intercourse. Now, we require her to continue the pregnancy becasue there is another little Smith in there that should decide its own life or lack thereof.

I was under the impression we just established that there was NOT another little Smith in there. Prior to the acheivement of self awareness there is no person involved here except the mother.

What little Smith are you referring to exactly? If you're going to even consider saying the non self-aware fetus please justify calling something that lacks even self awareness a person by explaining what criteria qualifies it as such.

Keep in mind that time travel is not an option. You do not get to jump forward several months and then start listing its properties as of that time, that is not when the question is being asked.

This resolution is worse than nothing. It says basically that the UN is limiting itself voluntarily to regulate an issue.
Why would an organisational body want it's member entities to think and know that it's a weak and ineffectual governing body?
I'm against this waste of space resolution and all other WoS actions similar to it.

Is it just me, or is the resolution not up for vote yet?

I was under the impression we just established that there was NOT another little Smith in there. Prior to the acheivement of self awareness there is no person involved here except the mother.

What little Smith are you referring to exactly? If you're going to even consider saying the non self-aware fetus please justify calling something that lacks even self awareness a person by explaining what criteria qualifies it as such.

Keep in mind that time travel is not an option. You do not get to jump forward several months and then start listing its properties as of that time, that is not when the question is being asked.

We never establised that. Just because there is no "self awareness" to the point of the ability to make a real decision doesn't mean they arent there. After all, we don't trust childrens "awareness" in most cases. We have their parents decide for them. As such, we wait until the fetus has acheived this awareness to make a decision on his/her life. That doesn't mean we're concluding it isnt a human life.

We never establised that. Just because there is no "self awareness" to the point of the ability to make a real decision doesn't mean they arent there. After all, we don't trust childrens "awareness" in most cases. We have their parents decide for them. As such, we wait until the fetus has acheived this awareness to make a decision on his/her life. That doesn't mean we're concluding it isnt a human life.
This isn't really an argument against this, but it's a bit funny: we let the parents decide for the child until it has self awareness, but we don't let them make the decision about the abortion?

Or perhaps vote for the one that allows my government to outlaw it, as opposed to the next one that doesn't.

That's not logical. You see unborn foetuses as human beings, yet you turn a blind eye when another nation allows mass killing of those human beings?

And why is it that an unborn foetus does get the right to harm others (an unwanted child which a mother has to bear) while the mother doesn't? Please explain this to me, because morals aside, you don't seem entirely logical about this.

This isn't really an argument against this, but it's a bit funny: we let the parents decide for the child until it has self awareness, but we don't let them make the decision about the abortion?

Uhh...are you ignoring the fact that abortions involve killing? We also don't allow parent to decide to kill their children. Likewise, no abortions.

With all due respect Ms Lane, what does this really contribute to the debate?

Well, some do, and it's silly.

That's not logical. You see unborn foetuses as human beings, yet you turn a blind eye when another nation allows mass killing of those human beings?

See we're not like the RL USA. We don't try to impose our values on others through force. We don't preach and try to convert. The most we can do is protect our values within our borders.

See we're not like the RL USA. We don't try to impose our values on others. We don't preach and try to convert. The most we can do is protect our values within our borders.
Are you saying that if someone invaded Jey and started murdering your people, the outside community should not intervene?

Are you saying that if someone invaded Jey and started murdering your people, the outside community should not intervene?

Are you serious? Those are not values. It's protection from invading forces.

We never establised that. Just because there is no "self awareness" to the point of the ability to make a real decision doesn't mean they arent there.

Then by all means list what qualifying criteria the fetus possesses prior to acheiving self awareness that qualifies it as being a person. Like I already asked.

After all, we don't trust childrens "awareness" in most cases.

What?

Self awareness and the quality of the judgement possessed by adolescents aren't even related concepts. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

It doesn't contribute a bloody thing, other than letting us all know how morally superior Ms. Lane believes herself to be.

Well, yes. My government and I can't help feeling morally superior over those who want to deny basic rights to individuals - to decide over their own body. And a foetus can be considered part of the mother's body up until birth (although there are arguments against that, which could be taken into account in a resolution on this subject to make it easier to pass).

Are you serious?
If they did, that would be imposing their values outside their own borders. Yes, I'm serious. If someone started a genocide of Jevians, should the outside community intervene?

If yes, what is your justification for supporting a proposal that gives 30,000 nations the right to 'kill' 'babies'?

Well, yes. My government and I can't help feeling morally superior over those who want to deny basic rights to individuals - to decide over their own body. And a foetus can be considered part of the mother's body up until birth (although there are arguments against that, which could be taken into account in a resolution on this subject to make it easier to pass).
And you feel morally superiority over those who believe in a deity?

If they did, that would be imposing their values outside their own borders. Yes, I'm serious. If someone started a genocide of Jevians, should the outside community intervene?

I suppose the best answer to this ridiculous question is that the Jevian government would call on these nations for assistance, thereby fulfilling its "values". Seriously, you consider genocide of Jevians to be a "value"? We should consider every opinion a "value" then.

I suppose the best answer to this ridiculous question is that the Jevian government would call on these nations for assistance, thereby fulfilling its "values". Seriously, you consider genocide of Jevians to be a "value"? We should consider every opinion a "value" then.
No. I consider the idea that genocide is bad to be a value. If someone invades Jey and instigates a genocide, any attempt to stop that genocide would be the imposition of a value, and it would not be confined to national borders.

To expand on this: it seems ludicrous to say that, if you believe abortion is murder, it is acceptable for other countries to do this. I know this proposal will block the next, but it still permits nations to have abortions, as well to not have abortions. I do not see how someone who regards abortion as murder can sanction that, and the idea that values should only be enforced in one's own country is risible.

And you feel morally superiority over those who believe in a deity?

No. In Groot Gouda, we give people freedom, but that also means they're free to give it away, in whatever form, and that includes some of the major religions. But that's their own choice, and we respect that. We object to religion being used as a justification to take away other people's liberty though, just as we object to any form of limiting people's freedom.

No. I consider the idea that genocide is bad to be a value. If someone invades Jey and instigates a genocide, any attempt to stop that genocide would be the imposition of a value, and it would not be confined to national borders.

No, it is our value that the genocide is wrong. We're asking nations to help us instigate our own value.

No, it is our value that the genocide is wrong. We're asking nations to help us instigate our own value.
Right, but what about the example I was actually using? Should nations who you don't request not come to your aid? What if you are unable to request help? Nevermind your changed scenario: are you saying that no government should try to enforce its values outside its sovereign territory? If so, then I'd advise a) not joining the UN and b) not submitting proposals.

Nevermind your changed scenario: are you saying that no government should try to enforce its values outside its sovereign territory?

Are you understanding what I'm saying? The UN is the international power who has the ability to issue international legislation. We are not. Jey is not the UN. We don't have the power to impose values on others, unless through UN proposals. That is the only way we would endorse imposing values on others. As I said before, in your scenario, were asking the other nations for assistance. If other nations just decided to "help" out without our consent, wouldn't that be nearly the same as invasion too?

Are you understanding what I'm saying? The UN is the international power who has the ability to issue international legislation. We are not. Jey is not the UN. We don't have the power to impose values on others, unless through UN proposals. That is the only way we would endorse imposing values on others. As I said before, in your scenario, were asking the other nations for assistance. If other nations just decided to "help" out without our consent, wouldn't that be nearly the same as invasion too?
No, I'm not understanding what you're saying. Because you're saying abortion is a violation of human rights, but that you're going to vote for a proposal which gives states the right to legalise abortion. Because you're saying the UN can - and should - impose values on other nations, but that it shouldn't impose the value that abortion is wrong on other nations. They do not add up. Or do you not think the UN should be protecting human rights?

No, I'm not understanding what you're saying. Because you're saying abortion is a violation of human rights, but that you're going to vote for a proposal which gives states the right to legalise abortion. Because you're saying the UN can - and should - impose values on other nations, but that it shouldn't impose the value that abortion is wrong on other nations. They do not add up. Or do you not think the UN should be protecting human rights?

I'm aware that a consensus on abortion cannot be completely reached, as said in this proposal. So Jey will make a concession on this issue and push for the NatSov of this be protected, rather then risk the other proposal completely removing our opinion from legality.

I'm aware that a consensus on abortion cannot be completely reached, as said in this proposal. So Jey will make a concession on this issue and push for the NatSov of this be protected, rather then risk the other proposal completely removing our opinion from legality.
Ok. How do your people feel about your vote being registered out of cowardice, rather than principle? What about the majority of people in Jey who think abortion is murder, and yet are having their national vote registered as for a proposal which:
1. Gives nations the right to legalise abortion;
2. Recommends it be legalised in all nations (including Jey);
3. Ends with a suggestion that legalisation is in everyone's long term interests?

This doesnt actually force anything upon anyone. All it does is re-affirm that your nation has the right to choose whatever it deems is the most appropriate, based on the values it holds. Even if you are against abortion, understand that this proposal also protects you from being forced to accept abortions as legal.

Basically, its asinine to vote against it.

This doesnt actually force anything upon anyone. All it does is re-affirm that your nation has the right to choose whatever it deems is the most appropriate, based on the values it holds. Even if you are against abortion, understand that this proposal also protects you from being forced to accept abortions as legal.

Basically, its asinine to vote against it.

You might want to try reading the thread before making that proclamation.

The primary purpose of this resolution is to make sure the UN cannot prevent nations from outlawing abortion. That is ridiculously obvious.

From now on, every poll should have an option that's a GTA:VC joke...

Anyway, yeah... this is gonna be fun. Almost hope the forums crash again just to keep this debate from going on and on and on and on with people yammering back and forth about the same bullshit.

"You backwards hick bastards!"
"You meddling liberal jackasses!"

Yeah... good times.

All right, I'll bite: which poll option is the "Vice City" joke?

What exactly did you think you were doing putting "international law" in quotation marks there? Were you under some kind of delusion that that was not in fact what we were doing here?No, it's in scare quotes because it is precisely the term you used. Try to keep up.

And yet we have a specific human rights legislation category right there in UN law which would strongly suggest that basic human rights are in fact an international issue. Imagine that...[OOC: The categories are a Gameplay issue. Irrelevant.]

We like to pretend that when the UN discusses a human rights issue, then there must be some international consensus that the topic at hand is an established right. Is there an international consensus, for example, on freedom from being brutalized or killed absent due process? Yes. Freedom of speech? Maybe. Freedom from having your penis "mutilated"? No. Freedom from being executed? No. The "right" to an abortion? No.

No such international consensus exists here, only a very sharp division. So you think abortion is a fundamental human right. Goody. Then enforce it in your own nation, and stop trying to impose your values on all disagreeing parties.

Quite frankly the fact of the matter is that the UN has every right to require that its member nations meet certain minimum standards regarding human rights. To not do so reflects poorly on every nation here. To actively prevent the UN from doing so says things about a nation I would prefer to leave not spelled out in detail.Good, then keep your big yapper shut and do not presume to assert that those who happen to disagree with you on a painful and divisive issue are beneath your contempt. ... But wait; you already did that. Without having said anything. Ain't you clever?! :rolleyes:

I still don't see why nations should be allowed to 'kill' 'babies'?Here I'd like to introduce you to the concept of national sovereignty, the belief that even though you have strong feelings about a particular issue, you wish not to impose your opinion on all member nations. It's a beautiful thing. Jey thinks abortion is murder, yet he is content to enforce such a doctrine in his own nation, and allow other nations to decide upon the issue according to their own collective conscience. You see, even if you have strong feelings on a major political isue, it doesn't mean you must endorse only those resolutions that would force that particular view on all signatory parties. I myself have major qualms about killing unborn children -- yet I do not wish to impose my particular POV on all nations through UN legislation. You wanna know why?!

Two words ... that's right.

Here I'd like to introduce you to the concept of national sovereignty, the belief that even though you have strong feelings about a particular issue, you wish not to impose your opinion on all member nations. It's a beautiful thing. Jey thinks abortion is murder, yet he is content to enforce such a doctrine in his own nation, and allow other nations to decide upon the issue according to their own collective conscience. You see, even if you have strong feelings on a major political isue, it doesn't mean you must endorse only those resolutions that would force that particular view on all signatory parties. I myself have major qualms about killing unborn children -- yet I do not wish to impose my particular POV on all nations through UN legislation. You wanna know why?!

Two words ... that's right.
And here we go back to...

...what is 'national' about abortion? You seem to be saying "we shouldn't impose our views on others". Well, the representative of Jey has admitted that a minority of his citizens do support abortion, but it is now illegal. They are having a point of view forced upon them.

I'm not going to say 'individual sovereignty'. I think it's a misleading term, and it's tangential to this debate anyway. But I am going to suggest that you need to:
1. Supply a reason as to why a nation imposing views on a citizen is better than the UN imposing views on a nation.
2. Acknowledge a difference - even if you don't see it as an important one - between the imposition of a law on those it does not affect (men, women who don't want to get an abortion) and those it does (women who do want to get an abortion).

That's not logical. You see unborn foetuses as human beings, yet you turn a blind eye when another nation allows mass killing of those human beings?

Perfectly logical. Our concern is focused on the people our own nation.

And why is it that an unborn foetus does get the right to harm others (an unwanted child which a mother has to bear) while the mother doesn't? Please explain this to me, because morals aside, you don't seem entirely logical about this.

Your arrogance aside, we fail to see the "harm." The "mother" in this case has chosen to engage in sexual intercourse. She should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

Well, yes. My government and I can't help feeling morally superior over those who want to deny basic rights to individuals - to decide over their own body. And a foetus can be considered part of the mother's body up until birth (although there are arguments against that, which could be taken into account in a resolution on this subject to make it easier to pass).

Well, morally superior Ms. Lane, you have chosen to ignore my remark regarding this as a basic human right. If it's so basic to humans, why is it a right that can only be exercised by roughly half the population? A basic human right should apply to all humans.

{OoC: Bollocks to being serious, I'm unleashing Pointy!}

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones introduces the military attache in order to speak on the subject...

"The Cobdenian military attache to the UN, Field Marshal Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock, would like to make his views known. God help us all"

"What? Oh, yes, right. Well, abortion. A lieutenant I knew once had an abortion. Too much horseplay with his batman or something, I don't know. Messy business. The doctor lost his watch. No, hang on, that wasn't an abortion. He had his appendix out. I remember now. Anyway, abortion, abortion, abortion. What the hell is an abortion?"

"When they kill a child before it is born, Sir Brian."

"Aha, one of those thingies. Well, abortion, what? Back when I was fighting the Fuzzy-Wuzzies we had never even heard of the word "abortion". If a lady got herself up the duff, and didn't want the sprog, we just stuck the nipper in the work house! Now it's all about women's rights, and individual whatchamacallit, and goats, and other things. Why, if we allow this abortion lark to continue, the next thing you know women will want the vote! And we all know what that would lead to! Every parliamentary debate will be about knitting, and cooking, and babies. Parliament should be a place where men can discuss important issues of the day, such as war and cufflinks. Why, I never..."

"Sir Brian, maybe you should stick on the subject of abortion?"

"Oh, yes, certainly Arnold"

"Cyril, Sir Cyril"

"Whatever. Now should abortion be legal? I couldn't give a toss! However, Sir Nigel here says that we are voting for this resolution. Haven't the faintest idea why. The entire subject could bore the balls of a brass monkey."

We restate our support for this proposal, but have little to add to the arguments already presented. Arrrrr.

If anyone wishes to discuss the proposal in a more...intimate setting, you can come polish my wooden leg in my cabin. Yarrrr.

~Captain Biggles McXiminez
Deputy Ambassador to the UN
Chief Minister of Penis Innuendos

No. In Groot Gouda, we give people freedom, but that also means they're free to give it away, in whatever form, and that includes some of the major religions. But that's their own choice, and we respect that. We object to religion being used as a justification to take away other people's liberty though, just as we object to any form of limiting people's freedom.

So long as such limiting conflicts with your agenda, of course.

And let us not forget that there are theocracies that are members of the UN. I'm sure they'd like to tell you to sod off.

And here we go back to...

...what is 'national' about abortion? You seem to be saying "we shouldn't impose our views on others".Be better to term it, "We shouldn't impose our nation's internal policies on other nations."

Well, the representative of Jey has admitted that a minority of his citizens do support abortion, but it is now illegal. They are having a point of view forced upon them.So what? It's his nation; he can govern it the way he pleases. This is an international body, and it should be reserved for discussing international issues; i.e., issues that cross international borders and affect multilateral relationships. Jey's outlawing abortion does not affect Golgothastan, so how is this subject worthy of the UN's time?! There should be some sort of central purpose to this organization, and to us, "A place where we can demand that the laws in all nations be identical to ours" just doesn't cut it.

I'm not going to say 'individual sovereignty'. I think it's a misleading term, and it's tangential to this debate anyway. But I am going to suggest that you need to:
1. Supply a reason as to why a nation imposing views on a citizen is better than the UN imposing views on a nation.Because it isn't an international issue.

2. Acknowledge a difference - even if you don't see it as an important one - between the imposition of a law on those it does not affect (men, women who don't want to get an abortion) and those it does (women who do want to get an abortion).Difference acknowledged. What's your point?

150% for. Choice über alles.

Seriously... it's a proposal that gives you the choice to do whatever you want (as regards abortion at least). Yeah, I'm oversimplifying, but who cares. How can you be opposed to a thing like this, except by directly violating a few past resolutions? It finally lets the abortion issue rest in peace, where it really deserves to belong right now, after all the squabbling (believe me, I live in General, I know).

Because I would rather continually fight to protect abortion in all nations from now until the end of time rather than, as you put it, let "the abortion issue rest in peace." I can assure you, this issue will not die if this resolution passes, no more than it will die if the alternate replacement passes (perhaps even less so).

How can I be opposed, because it is yet another resolution that attempts to strip the UN of its authority.

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

Hardly. "Rights and Duties of UN States" is one of the defining pieces of UN legislation (perhaps the most defining piece), and there are very few cases in which the resolution is entirely irrelevant. The resolution can certainly be used to point out that the concept of national sovereignty has been recognized in international law and does in fact exist even in the context of said law. What is ridiculous is the suggestion that the resolution guarantees freedom from interference in national affairs by the UN, because as you pointed out the text of the resolution indicates no such guarantee.

TH (and this is a response to a latter post as well), you are far from an average sovereigntist - you are experienced enough to know the logic errors of many NatSov arguments, but there are many who don't. Please realize that when we start gunning at NatSovs as a whole, you are generally not the one in our scopes. You're too good for that.

The problem - and this is why I stated my question to Kenny - is that too many sovereigntists act as if its their God given right to be free of UN control. Yes you guys want to promote a future where you are indeed sovereign from the UN, but too many NatSovs claim that we are violating your national sovereignty. We aren't - you don't have it. You might want it, but you don't have it.

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

Membership in the UN is related to power in the game: invading, defending, delegateship, etc. I think it's unfair to withhold that power from nations at the ransom of their subscription to various divisive political ideologies.

Because one MUST be delegate to be the head of a region, or the average invader/defender gives a shit about the RP game that is the UN, or that all offices in all regions must be tied to a UN membership. Please, try again.

And can we start debating an RP issue with an RP context? Thank you.

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

With respect to Forgottenlord and Gruenberg, I don't really see how this is relevant. Perhaps I'm just inexperienced... or drunk... or both... but to me it appears as though we're not debating whether nations are sovereign from the UN, but whether they should have the right to decide for themselves whether to legalise abortion or not. I recognize the connection between these two, but I don't see how the possible passage of a UN resolution allowing national sovereignty to take precedence at this juncture will have any effect on Resolution #49.

My point exactly

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


Lol! The fact that we are discussing human rights so narrow mindedly here is exactly the reason this bill needs to be passed. Whether you agree with it or not, quite a few nations believe that the mass killing of innocent human life (abortion) is a human rights issue. They could just as easily propose an issue preventing ANY abortion.

However, the obvious here is that the U.N. membership is sharply divided over the humanity of the unborn and if we should protect them or not. For that reason, we should pass a unifying proposal such as this one that allows U.N. nations to rule for themselves. To adopt a proposal that guarantees the rights of the unborn on all nations, or a proposal that guarantees the rights of women who want to abort their children are the two extremes. This proposal insures neither of those will happen and half of the U.N. members in this hall will not be permanently divided.

I would rather - and you can quote me until the day I leave the political spotlight on this - I would rather have a belief I abhor forced upon me than give up the fight for the rights I believe should be granted. I believe that the division of the UN comes only second as a priority to the importance of the rights that be granted. The division of the UN over NatSov vs IntFed/IndSov is a much more dominant chasm than any debate over abortion could ever be - for it is THE #1 debate in these halls. As such, our division over Abortion becomes #3 most important even before I start trying to exert myself.

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

I find it rather odd that some people are calling the "right" to an abortion a "fundamental human right," when only about one half of the human population is cabable of exercising it.

He didn't call abortion a fundamental human right.

If you can think of a more fundamental human right than the ability to control your own body and what is done with it please provide it here: ______________

Abortion is nothing more than an extension of that human right - one of many such extensions. Right to not be, say, mind controlled would be yet another extension. Now take the strawman back to the shed.

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

How about: The right not to be killed because of another's right to control their body?

There is a difference. You can, within reason, not murder someone while maintaining absolute control of your body. You cannot maintain control of your body while a fetus lives inside you. You cannot choose what it does and when it does things. You may choose to allow it to do this, and we want you to be able to choose to want control of your body returned.

This is a losing argument that cannot be won.

Your right, yours is.

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

Unreal! So basically you don't see any conflict with insisting your view of human rights is the superior view over a divided hall here! Every law that is passed restricts someone's right to do something. So we look at what it is that is chosen, not just wrap everything under the term "choice." In this instance, half or more feel the choice is killing an unborn child. We do not have to agree with that position. But if the international community is divided over what is human rights in this discussion, it cannot use human rights to pass it's view as the only correct one. So much for tolerance.

Half? Hardly. Last abortion resolution passed with decent support without even giving an argument. It's repeal passed by the skin of its teeth despite being an excellently argued repeal to a poorly done, severely flawed, and unquestionably unacceptable by today's standards for UN resolution quality and the massively growing NatSov movement. So let's not claim that the UN is pro-life. I won't claim that the UN is pro-choice either, but don't make a claim that you have NO statistics to back up.

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

Logically there are three options on this divisive issue:

1. We pass legislation protecting the rights of the unborn in all nations. Abortion is outlawed.
2. We pass legislation giving the rights of the woman to abort her unborn child in every nation. Abortion is a fundamental right.
3. We pass legislation saying the U.N. is divided on this issue, and individual nations will decide this for themselves.

Proposals #1 and #2 are the two extremes that mandate one opinion over another. Position #3, the position of this bill, is not the opposite, but the neutral position in this matter. If you still think like you have the superior position and feel so strongly about it that you believe it should be an international issue that your view is more important than our local governments, then go ahead and vote against the bill. I just don't call that tolerance.

False, but they are the 3 logical ones. Extremes you would find with those that slay any who even think of abortion without automatically begging forgiveness from their diety and those that think any child not conceived on a full moon on Feb 28th should be aborted immediately. So let's not talk about extremes.

My previous statement stands.

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


Welcome to the unfortunate reality of the situation. You know as well as I that no resolution is free of loopholes, and that those nations who wish to oppress their people will find a way to continue to do so despite whatever laws may be on the books. It is indeed what I would agree is unacceptable, but without a practical method of addressing the problem, I also see it as unacceptable to waste time and effort that could be used for more productive purposes on an exercise that is simply divisive. Even if I did not believe that the United Nations should not interfere in the domestic policies of its members, I would still not support the legalization of abortion at a UN level because there are simply insufficient practical benefits to outweigh the amount of international tension generated by such a move.

I might not be able to write a loophole free resolution, but that doesn't mean I should stop trying. Just because I can't make a perfect resolution that will stop even Gruenberg from slaying anyone who has an abortion in his nation doesn't mean I won't stop trying to work at giving those rights to his citizens. His citizens are not worth so little that they aren't worth effort. No citizen is. If I help one person, my deed has been accomplished. But I know that I will help many more than that one person. The number of nations that fail to look beyond the wish and into the letter to exploit loopholes is impressive. The number of nations that bow their heads to the will of the UN even if they disagree with it is enough that I know people have been helped. How could you claim otherwise?

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

Quicklessly and painlessly? I would hardly call generating international tension (not just from sovereigntists, but also from those who are often well-armed in addition to being oppressive) painless, though it may well happen quickly.

I've got my backup (double check's Angel Fire).

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

So what? It's his nation; he can govern it the way he pleases. This is an international body, and it should be reserved for discussing international issues; i.e., issues that cross international borders and affect multilateral relationships. Jey's outlawing abortion does not affect Golgothastan, so how is this subject worthy of the UN's time?! There should be some sort of central purpose to this organization, and to us, "A place where we can demand that the laws in all nations be identical to ours" just doesn't cut it.

What gives his nation any greater right to govern itself than the UN has the right to govern itself? What gives his nation a right to impose a position upon its people than the UN has a right to impose a position upon its members? You want a central purpose? To make issues that we feel have an International significance and deal with them at the International level. How's that for a guiding principle?

For me, that INCLUDES (in fact, more than anything but some environment issues) many human rights issues. Right at the top of the list - Abortion, Marriage (and, to a lesser degree, divorce) rights, equality rights, and passive euthanasia. Yes there are things I disagree with enshrined in the UN (UNSA at the top of the list, UNR 30) but I accept them.

So, answer the bloody question.

All right, I'll bite: which poll option is the "Vice City" joke?Ah shit, I remembered wrong. It's a Simpson's reference. Still, "Abortions for some; miniature American flags for others," reminded me of something said on VCPR. Nevermind. I'll slink off now.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote FOR this resolution. Although for the poll we had to go with the Marvin the Martian option.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Is it just me, or is the resolution not up for vote yet?Yes... there's been some... ah... difficulties... with the updates. Salsa-man's aware of it, and (presumably) working to fix it.

Yes... there's been some... ah... difficulties... with the updates. Salsa-man's aware of it, and (presumably) working to fix it.
I don't know, going by his latest post in the tech forum, he's still trying to figure out what the problem is, let alone how to fix it.

Against, limitation of United Nations powers. As could be expected.

*disappears into the shadows*

I don't know, going by his latest post in the tech forum, he's still trying to figure out what the problem is, let alone how to fix it.Well, figuring out the problem is the first step towards fixing it. Right? Right?

Because I would rather continually fight to protect abortion in all nations from now until the end of time rather than, as you put it, let "the abortion issue rest in peace." I can assure you, this issue will not die if this resolution passes, no more than it will die if the alternate replacement passes (perhaps even less so).Quite right.TH (and this is a response to a latter post as well), you are far from an average sovereigntist - you are experienced enough to know the logic errors of many NatSov arguments, but there are many who don't. Please realize that when we start gunning at NatSovs as a whole, you are generally not the one in our scopes. You're too good for that.Again, quite right. I’ve said it to the NSO myself that they do good work, and I respect each of them. But I feel that NatSov is only one part of the whole, and should not be promoted endlessly and indiscriminately at the expense of others. So let's not claim that the UN is pro-life. I won't claim that the UN is pro-choice either, but don't make a claim that you have NO statistics to back up.If the UN was pro-life, we would be seeing a resolution outlawing all abortions. We don’t see one happening soon.

So what? It's his nation; he can govern it the way he pleases. This is an international body, and it should be reserved for discussing international issues; i.e., issues that cross international borders and affect multilateral relationshipsI agree international issues should be discussed. But I happen to think that global human rights also need to be discussed – and the UN has had a long history of doing so. Heck, the most successful resolution of all time (FGM) is infringing on national sovereignty in order protect women. We have legislation protecting gay rights all over the shop. My resolution (indigenous peoples) protected human rights from government interference. FL made further examples – euthanasia being the obvious (and most debated) example.Jey's outlawing abortion does not affect Golgothastan,Except it could if women start going abroad to have abortions. And we know that could happen (it does in RL, so no reason it could not happen in NS). so how is this subject worthy of the UN's time?! There should be some sort of central purpose to this organization, and to us, "A place where we can demand that the laws in all nations be identical to ours" just doesn't cut it.1. Like I said, I feel the UN is the right place to discuss the promotion of global human rights, and has done so in the past, overriding national sov.

Secondly, it’s a tad hypocritical to say a nation should not be forced to do the same thing as other nations, when inevitably some nations will force their populace into complying with their wishes. What’s the difference? Apart from scale, not much.

See we're not like the RL USA. We don't try to impose our values on others through force. We don't preach and try to convert. The most we can do is protect our values within our borders.

No you don't, you try to convert people to the idea that somehow a government should have more to say on this personal matter than an individual. You're preaching as much as I am.

And worse, you're wrong. :p

Here I'd like to introduce you to the concept of national sovereignty, the belief that even though you have strong feelings about a particular issue, you wish not to impose your opinion on all member nations.

Here I'd like to introduce you to the concept of individual liberty (some call it individual sovereignity), the belief that even though you have strong feelings about a particular issue, you wish not to impose your opinion on all citizens.

I have repeated several times that a human being is born free, and that the body of a person does not belong to any government. To make abortion illegal, as some nations have done, violates a very basic human right. No-one has yet made clear to me why this right should suddenly be transferred to a government without consent, and why the right of a lump of cells should be ranked higher than the right of a woman who for whatever good reason does not want a child but is forced to have it.

Perfectly logical. Our concern is focused on the people our own nation.

Ah, you're selfish and egoistic (nationistic?). Well that explains.

Your arrogance aside, we fail to see the "harm." The "mother" in this case has chosen to engage in sexual intercourse. She should be prepared to deal with the consequences.

The mother may not always have chosen to have sex. And not all nations will take that into account. Not only will women be raped, they will also be forced to have a baby of their rapist. You accept that that happens by supporting this resolution. Secondly, there are contraceptives, and by using them a couple chooses not to have a child. So why should they have it? If I lock my door and still get burgled, is it my fault?

Well, morally superior Ms. Lane, you have chosen to ignore my remark regarding this as a basic human right. If it's so basic to humans, why is it a right that can only be exercised by roughly half the population? A basic human right should apply to all humans.

No doubt there are NS nations where men can have children. So then it applies to them as well.

This is an international body, and it should be reserved for discussing international issues; i.e., issues that cross international borders and affect multilateral relationships.

If that was the task of the UN, it wouldn't be able to do anything else. But it can. It can declare that people must all wear an orange hat.

The UN can legislate on anything a national government can. That means that it can govern for the people, rather than just for intergovernmental affairs. It has the power to give freedom to people which they don't get from their national governments. So why not use that power?

The international issues argument is never an argument by itself why the UN should or shouldn't do something. It perhaps shouldn't do something because it's impractical to organise for 35000 nations. That's a good reason. But not just "the UN shouldn't do this".

He didn't call abortion a fundamental human right.

Yes, he did, so my statement stands:

I find it rather odd that some people are calling the "right" to an abortion a "fundamental human right," when only about one half of the human population is cabable of exercising it.

Ah, you're selfish and egoistic (nationistic?). Well that explains.

No, we're just not running about claiming to be morally superior to our fellow nations who differ with us on this issue (abortion is legal in Cluichstan). And yes, the government of Cluichstan represents the interests of its people. It does not pretend to know what is best for the people of Groot Gouda, Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Optischer, or any other nation. We're not that presumptuous and arrogant.

No doubt there are NS nations where men can have children. So then it applies to them as well.

Now you're just being an ass.

Be better to term it, "We shouldn't impose our nation's internal policies on other nations."

So what? It's his nation; he can govern it the way he pleases. This is an international body, and it should be reserved for discussing international issues; i.e., issues that cross international borders and affect multilateral relationships. Jey's outlawing abortion does not affect Golgothastan, so how is this subject worthy of the UN's time?! There should be some sort of central purpose to this organization, and to us, "A place where we can demand that the laws in all nations be identical to ours" just doesn't cut it.

Because it isn't an international issue.

Difference acknowledged. What's your point?
All a fine defence of your position. But it doesn't really answer my point. What is 'national' about abortion? If abortion is murder, then it's murder in every country. If it's a right, then it's a right in every country. You seem to be saying "different nations have different morals". But different people have different morals. There are anti-abortion protestors in Golgothastan; I'm sure there are pro-abortion groups in Omigodtheykilledkenny. The fact that nations don't agree on abortion is largely immaterial; people don't agree on abortion. And you seem to want to avoid discussing it, or rather, think the UN or nations shouldn't discuss it. Right: so why not leave it to the individual?

As to your view of what the UN should do, perfectly sensible, and I'm broadly inclined to agree. As much as anything, the UN simply doesn't work as well when it tries to take into account the domestic policies of 30,000 members. But, for all your talk of international issues, you haven't explained why abortion is not an international issue. There are women in many countries who want to get abortions.

No, we're just not running about claiming to be morally superior to our fellow nations who differ with us on this issue (abortion is legal in Cluichstan). And yes, the government of Cluichstan represents the interests of its people. It does not pretend to know what is best for the people of Groot Gouda, Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Optischer, or any other nation. We're not that presumptuous and arrogant.

Of course you shouldn't, that is our own business. It is a well known fact that the Fonzolandian government alone "knows what is best" for the people of Groot Gouda, Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Optischer, or any other nation. OK, maybe not for the people of Optisher, but that is an ill posed problem.

No doubt there are NS nations where men can have children. So then it applies to them as well.
Ms Lane, no offence, but that's a fucking stupid argument. The point should be that all humans have a right to their own body, and not to be subjected to undue physical or emotional trauma. That only women can have the particular trauma of abortion doesn't make it any less important.

No, we're just not running about claiming to be morally superior to our fellow nations who differ with us on this issue (abortion is legal in Cluichstan). And yes, the government of Cluichstan represents the interests of its people. It does not pretend to know what is best for the people of Groot Gouda, Fonzoland, Gruenberg, Optischer, or any other nation. We're not that presumptuous and arrogant.
Could I just say: we don't consider ourselves morally superior to anyone. We also don't think we know what's best for the people of any particular country - even our own. That's why we think they should be the ones to make these sort of decisions.

Against. No grandfather provision.

(I'd like to abort my grandfather.)

Now you're just being an ass.Probably right, although he is hardly the only one.

I suppose a better response would have been to point out that other resolutions in the past have discriminated towards gender in the past, most notable being Female Genital mutilation – if the UN was really worried about treating genders equally it should have a male equivalent.

This proposal does not mention gender at all, and I don’t think the other one does either, so I can’t see this as an issue. If a man happens to get pregnant, it appears he would be covered as well.

Mind you, would you like to get pregnant, and have to have the child pass through your urethra because your nation says you cannot have an abortion???

<shudders at the thought> ;)

Re: Moral superiority - Hirota does not consider itself superior to anyone, and vice versa - we consider nobody to be superior to anyone. Which is why we oppose this legislation - because this is letting the nation claim superiority to the individual. Sure the alternative suggests the superiority of the UN over the nation, but the result is ensuring the person who should decide can decide.

All a fine defence of your position. But it doesn't really answer my point. What is 'national' about abortion? If abortion is murder, then it's murder in every country. If it's a right, then it's a right in every country.

Aye, therein lies the rub. For it to be murder, the fetus has to be viewed as a person, which is precisely the point upon which both camps on either side of the abortion issue disagree. And since there is no firm resolution to that question (is it or is it not a person, or when does it become a person?), the UN should not be passing legislation either way.

Aye, therein lies the rub. For it to be murder, the fetus has to be viewed as a person, which is precisely the point upon which both camps on either side of the abortion issue disagree. And since there is no firm resolution to that question (is it or is it not a person, or when does it become a person?), the UN should not be passing legislation either way.
Once more: since there is no resolution to that question, nations shouldn't be passing legislation either.

Once more: since there is no resolution to that question, nations shouldn't be passing legislation either.which leaves it down to the individual.

Once more: since there is no resolution to that question, nations shouldn't be passing legislation either.

OOC: I agree with your position personally. As I've stated before on these forums, I'm personally against abortion (except, of course, under extreme circumstances), but I don't feel I have that right to impose my personal beliefs on others. It's a whole libertarian thing. ;) However, that said...

IC: This proposal merely says that national governments, being closer to their people, are in a better position to legislate on this issue than an international body that would seek to impose a blanket, all-encompassing decision either way. Just as the Cluichstani government doesn't feel it has the right to decide upon the issue for its people, the UN doesn't have the right to decide this issue for all nations.

OOC EDIT: And on that note, it's time for me to play Star Wars Battlefront II for a bit. I'll check in later. :cool:

[QUOTE=Cluichstan]IC: This proposal merely says that national governments, being closer to their people, are in a better position to legislate on this issue than an international body that would seek to impose a blanket, all-encompassing decision either way. Just as the Cluichstani government doesn't feel it has the right to decide upon the issue for its people, the UN doesn't have the right to decide this issue for all nations.[/QUOTE
IC: Of course it does. You're making a false parallel, between the individual decision to have an abortion, and the national decision to legislate abortion. Both are in their own way complex, but they're not comparable.

And there is no inherent reason why national governments are in a better position to legislate. The UN has access to the medical research of potentially billions of scientists, the views of countless scholars and researchers. But you know who's even better placed than the UN? THE INDIVIDUAL.

To be honest I believe that a decision such as Abortion should be allowed to remain legal however under controlled legal conditions.

Would it not make sense to allow a couple, who can prove to a court, that they cannot afford to maintain a baby because of financial difficulty, or maybe who are a having a child which will turn out disabled in someway, or perhaps even where the mother is imply not read to be a parent for whatever reason yet. It will be then a joint decision where the mother, father and the legal system will decide on whether the abortion should be allowed to continue or not.

That way, one person (say the father) cannot force the mother to abort the baby because he is imposing his will, or religious beliefs, or whatever.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/77693004.jpg

From: The laptop of the Meddling Monk PUND, Representative of Tzorsland
To: The good people of the Nation States United Nations

It has come to my attention that the resolution is finally up for a vote. Tzorsland wants to officially endorse this resolution that has is currently up for official debate. Is it perfect? No, but I have yet to see a perfect resolution and I have faith that I never will. The “perfect” is the enemy of the good so let’s dismiss that argument off hand. I can easily support the imperfect, considering that most of the resolutions we discuss border, if not completely cross into the moronic.

In the end, this proposal does not in and of itself ban or force abortions. It does the opposite, it prevents – for the time being – the United Nations from doing so on a global level. It gives the right to the individual nation state which is where it belongs because that right already exists in all individual nation states that are not in the UN.

Now is not the time for the majority to “force” their self seemingly superior morality on the minority. This is not a debate of abortion. This is instead a debate about the debate on abortion. And it is clearly obvious that there is such a major debate. This debate is significant enough to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that no resolution can be drafted that will satisfy both sides, and in fact no resolution can be drafted that can satisfy all the members of a give side. Therefore making no uniform decision at this time is the best alternative.

I should remind the delegates that all nation states that are members of the UN are probably near other nation states that are not in the UN. Currently each nation not in the UN decides this issue on a nation by nation basis. This resolution simply gives UN nations the same ability as non UN nations along with guiding principles that the member states can or can not choose to follow.

Finally I would like to address a few issues. In my opinion, abortion is not a “right.” Privacy can be considered a right in some cases, but privacy is not absolute. Some people have brought up the question of the suitability of having women be forced to nine months of pregnancy. I wonder how many members of the UN have mandatory military service for periods far longer than nine months. This is a goose/gander problem. How can one impose a “privacy” argument on abortion while not trying to impose a same “privacy” argument on organ donations? Is this an international issue suitable for the UN? I think not. Is there a consensus on the issue? I think not. Are we going to have this silly debate again and again if this resolution does not pass? You bet. I guarantee that if this resolution does not pass, and the next abortion resolution passes then we will soon have a repeal resolution on the queue and we will have these same arguments for the next six months or more!

Therefore, a vote YES is a vote to table the madness.

[IC: This proposal merely says that national governments, being closer to their people, are in a better position to legislate on this issue than an international body that would seek to impose a blanket, all-encompassing decision either way. Just as the Cluichstani government doesn't feel it has the right to decide upon the issue for its people, the UN doesn't have the right to decide this issue for all nations. Saying people can have abortions is not applying a blanket decision. It means people can decide to have abortions, or they can decide not to have abortions. It’s not a blanket decision as it lets everyone decide for themselves.

A blanket decision would be outlawing abortions on the UN level, as then neither the nation nor state could decide.

Whilst governments might be closer to the people, the people themselves are closer still. Give the power to the people, not the state on the basis they are directly affected. That's the only reason the UN is involved, to give the power to whoever is directly affected, just like the UN has given the power to the state regarding nukes (as clearly, national security and defence is a national issue). We've used the UN in the past to promote national soverignty on certain matters where it is clear it's the nation which is responsible. Now let the same happen for the individual.

OOC – I played Battlefront 2 on my xbox a while back – I enjoyed the space battles. Good game, not as good as Halo 2, but good game.

In the end, this proposal does not in and of itself ban or force abortions.Neither does the other. It delegates the choice to the individual - the person best qualified, best placed and most directly affected. This proposal delegates the choice to the state, who is not best placed, and not directly affected.

If we forced abortions it would say "all nations must ensure everyone has abortion", which is absurd. If we banned abortions, it would say "nobody can have an abortion" which is equally absurd (in my opinion anyway, and I suppose I should not let my bias show).

This isn't about permitting for forbidding abortion, it's about who should decide. I agree the UN shouldn't in an ideal world, but then neither should the state, and if the UN has to be used to cancel the state in order to ensure that the individual is able to make the choice,then so be it.

If we're to be making "international law" here, we should be discussing international issues. And individual nations' abortion laws ain't one of them.

Quite to the contrary, national abortion laws are very much an international issue.

If a number of nations outlaw abortions, it will inevitably lead to 'abortion traffic' from these nations, whereby women going through unwanted pregnancies but cannot legally terminate them in their respective nations, will instead seek abortion abroad, in nations where abortion is legal.

This in turn leads to the 'recipient nations' having to accomodate for foreign women seeking abortion, which creates need for increased medical administration and workforces.

So yes, it is indeed an issue with international ramifications and consequences. Claiming it is not is failing to see the entire scope, narrow-minded and patently false.

In case it isn't obvious already, our stance is AGAINST.

In the end, this proposal does not in and of itself ban or force abortions.
No, individual nations will take care of that.

It does the opposite, it prevents – for the time being – the United Nations from doing so on a global level.
It also prevents the UN legalising abortion.

It gives the right to the individual nation state which is where it belongs because that right already exists in all individual nation states that are not in the UN.
And it allows nations to take away the right of individual citizens to make that decision.

Now is not the time for the majority to “force” their self seemingly superior morality on the minority.
Absolutely. Which is why a proposal endorsing abortion bans is right out.

This is not a debate of abortion. This is instead a debate about the debate on abortion. And it is clearly obvious that there is such a major debate. This debate is significant enough to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that no resolution can be drafted that will satisfy both sides, and in fact no resolution can be drafted that can satisfy all the members of a give side. Therefore making no uniform decision at this time is the best alternative.
But this gives states a right to make that uniform decision. This does the opposite of what you're asking for it to do.

I should remind the delegates that all nation states that are members of the UN are probably near other nation states that are not in the UN. Currently each nation not in the UN decides this issue on a nation by nation basis. This resolution simply gives UN nations the same ability as non UN nations along with guiding principles that the member states can or can not choose to follow.
Every resolution does this. By your logic, we should pass no resolutions at all.

Finally I would like to address a few issues. In my opinion, abortion is not a “right.”
That's nice, but as you said earlier, you shouldn't be forcing your opinion on others.

Privacy can be considered a right in some cases, but privacy is not absolute.
No, but we'd like to think the right to one's body is pretty absolute.

I wonder how many members of the UN have mandatory military service for periods far longer than nine months.
We don't.

This is a goose/gander problem. How can one impose a “privacy” argument on abortion while not trying to impose a same “privacy” argument on organ donations?
I don't understand your comparison here. But you do know we have two organ donation resolutions?

Is this an international issue suitable for the UN? I think not. Is there a consensus on the issue? I think not. Are we going to have this silly debate again and again if this resolution does not pass? You bet.
All of which can be said for any national laws.

I guarantee that if this resolution does not pass, and the next abortion resolution passes then we will soon have a repeal resolution on the queue and we will have these same arguments for the next six months or more!
Well, then I suggest leaving your holiday plans flexible.

Therefore, a vote YES is a vote to table the madness.
I'm sure the millions of women whose lives will be destroyed by this decision will be overjoyed.

TH (and this is a response to a latter post as well), you are far from an average sovereigntist - you are experienced enough to know the logic errors of many NatSov arguments, but there are many who don't. Please realize that when we start gunning at NatSovs as a whole, you are generally not the one in our scopes. You're too good for that.

Flattery will get you everywhere. ;)

But seriously, don't tackle the sovereignty issue and expect me to sit back and enjoy the show. It's my IC pet issue and I will defend the validity of the pro-sovereignty position even when others are using it.

The problem - and this is why I stated my question to Kenny - is that too many sovereigntists act as if its their God given right to be free of UN control. Yes you guys want to promote a future where you are indeed sovereign from the UN, but too many NatSovs claim that we are violating your national sovereignty. We aren't - you don't have it. You might want it, but you don't have it.

The funny thing is that it truly is our "God given right" to be free of UN control. We can leave at any time and not even have to use loopholes or a lack of enforcement to get around resolutions. You know this is as well as I.

The starting condition for a nation is one of sovereignty, being free from UN control and the control of other nations. Max (might as well equate him with God in this context) made the game such that this would be the case.

Now what happens is that nations (all of which are created sovereign) choose to give up some of that sovereignty for various reasons, just like some individuals choose to give up their own sovereignty or liberty (whatever you prefer to call it) to a national government. And just like individuals, they may believe that some of the laws that the body they ceded their sovereignty to are inappropriate violations of their sovereignty or liberty.

For example, abortion laws. ;) An individual, though that individual may have chosen to give some of their sovereignty up to the national government, may believe that the laws that a national government has made with regard to abortion restrict their sovereignty inappropriately. After all, they gave up said sovereignty so that the national government could facilitate items of national importance. They didn't give up their sovereignty so that the government could make their personal decisions for them. Likewise, a nation that joins the UN does not give up their sovereignty so that the UN can make their national decisions for them. Rather, they do so in order that the international government can facilitate items of international importance.

Now this is simply a general rule. Of course there are a few unusual individuals who just want their government to make their personal decisions for them, and there are a few nations that want the UN to make their national decisions for them. But most of the persons and nations agree that they should be left largely to their own devices when it comes to making decisions. And in both the cases of persons and nations, the entity that has given up its sovereignty often disagrees with the other such entities about exactly where the greater entity should stop in its efforts to make law.

I happen to think that in the case of individuals, they should be left alone to make their personal decisions, and in the case of national governments, they should be left alone to make their national decisions, and in the case of international governments, they should be left alone to make international decisions. Like Kenny's (also anarchic like mine) nation, I do not succumb to the extreme individualism or nationalism or internationalism of those who wish to raise any of those three types of political entities to a position of utmost authority. Instead, I believe that persons should make personal decisions, nations should make national decisions, and international bodies should make international decisions, and that all of these should work within the scope of their own authority rather than trampling on the sovereignty of others.

As you may note, this is simply my ideal. When it comes to what really happens, things are not quite so clear. What, for instance, should we do when a nation chooses to interfere in purely personal decisions? What should we do when an international government interferes in purely national decisions? In both cases, I advocate for freedom, keeping in mind that my advocacy may not be very effective if others are insistent on using a greater entity to violate each other's sovereignty. So why do I not support an international government interfering in purely national decisions by writing national law on abortion? Because it is a violation of the right of a nation to make national decisions, just as it is the right of individuals to make personal decisions, and violating that national right in order to preserve the right of individuals is no better than violating the right of individuals in the first place. It simply creates a second violation of rights.

What gives his nation any greater right to govern itself than the UN has the right to govern itself?

What gives an individual any greater right to govern himself than the nation has the right to govern itself? I would very much like an answer to this question so I can compare it to Kenny's answer to your question.

I might not be able to write a loophole free resolution, but that doesn't mean I should stop trying. Just because I can't make a perfect resolution that will stop even Gruenberg from slaying anyone who has an abortion in his nation doesn't mean I won't stop trying to work at giving those rights to his citizens. His citizens are not worth so little that they aren't worth effort. No citizen is. If I help one person, my deed has been accomplished. But I know that I will help many more than that one person. The number of nations that fail to look beyond the wish and into the letter to exploit loopholes is impressive. The number of nations that bow their heads to the will of the UN even if they disagree with it is enough that I know people have been helped. How could you claim otherwise?

Several people are making this point, so I'll do a separate post to address the issue more thoroughly.

I've got my backup (double check's Angel Fire).

Hehe. I have backups too. We're not as fluffy as most UNers. :)

Now is not the time for the majority to “force” their self seemingly superior morality on the minority.

Interesting that you should mention it, because I thought I read somewhere in the current resolution that the UN

DECLARES the sovereign right of member nations to force their morality on the minority;

But I might be wrong...

Instead, I believe that persons should make personal decisions, nations should make national decisions, and international bodies should make international decisions, and that all of these should work within the scope of their own authority rather than trampling on the sovereignty of others.We have consensus on this. Some things are clearly national in nature, some are clearly international in nature, and some are clearly personal in nature. What we need to do is ensure that whoever should be able to decide, is given the opportunity to decide over all others.So why do I not support an international government interfering in purely national decisions by writing national law on abortion? Because it is a violation of the right of a nation to make national decisions, just as it is the right of individuals to make personal decisions, and violating that national right in order to preserve the right of individuals is no better than violating the right of individuals in the first place. It simply creates a second violation of rights.The argument is then: does two wrongs make a right? Does the ends justify the means? Should we ensure the end result is right?
In this case, I feel it is. Clearly others do not. I think as long as the person can make the personal decision on this matter, then everything else is secondary. On other issues I’ll say it’s a national issue (because it clearly is), and the same for international issues. I’ll use the UN to ensure whoever should have the decision can have the decision. Others have done the same, with varying results, hence this proposal and the other proposal.

Saying people can have abortions is not applying a blanket decision.

If an international body declares thus, yes, it is.

OOC EDIT: SWBF II is awesome! I play it on the PC. Anyone else who does can find me on Gamespy. Just strip the "-stan" off my nation name, or look for a session called "Ewoks suck!!!1one." :D

this should pass because everyone should have a choice as to whether or not to limit your country's freedoms. though if everyone votes yes for this, it could be assumed that they will give their country's people choice

this should pass because everyone should have a choice as to whether or not to limit your country's freedoms. though if everyone votes yes for this, it could be assumed that they will give their country's people choiceNo it means they (the government) want the choice, not necessarily their populace. Sure some will allow abortion, but not all.
Sadly, It’s a faulty assumption.

Sorry to intrude, but I thought I should respond to this. I don't know to what extent it's IC or OOC...I'd rather keep it IC, so I shall assume it as such.

The funny thing is that it truly is our "God given right" to be free of UN control. We can leave at any time and not even have to use loopholes or a lack of enforcement to get around resolutions. You know this is as well as I.

The starting condition for a nation is one of sovereignty, being free from UN control and the control of other nations. Max (might as well equate him with God in this context) made the game such that this would be the case.

Now what happens is that nations (all of which are created sovereign) choose to give up some of that sovereignty for various reasons, just like some individuals choose to give up their own sovereignty or liberty (whatever you prefer to call it) to a national government. And just like individuals, they may believe that some of the laws that the body they ceded their sovereignty to are inappropriate violations of their sovereignty or liberty.
Except that that really weakens the sovereigntist argument in my view. Given all those possibilities, any nation which stays in the UN and abides by the resolutions is choosing to render some of its sovereignty subject to the UN. Doesn't mean they can't say "this is going too far" or "not an international issue" - although I'm still waiting on a definition of that - but it does mean that saying that you are making a deliberate decision to cede your sovereignty...

For example, abortion laws. ;) An individual, though that individual may have chosen to give some of their sovereignty up to the national government, may believe that the laws that a national government has made with regard to abortion restrict their sovereignty inappropriately. After all, they gave up said sovereignty so that the national government could facilitate items of national importance. They didn't give up their sovereignty so that the government could make their personal decisions for them. Likewise, a nation that joins the UN does not give up their sovereignty so that the UN can make their national decisions for them. Rather, they do so in order that the international government can facilitate items of international importance.
...which is not the case here. It's a false parallel. When a nation bans abortion, the people are not choosing to give up their individual sovereignty; they are having it forced from them. For all the hyperbole about a "dictatorial UN" or whatever, you have just acknowledged that isn't so. So the ceding of national sovereignty is voluntary; the ceding of individual sovereignty (and yes, I hate the term) is not. Do you see the difference?

Instead, I believe that persons should make personal decisions, nations should make national decisions, and international bodies should make international decisions, and that all of these should work within the scope of their own authority rather than trampling on the sovereignty of others.
Abortion is an individual decision. This proposal gives nations the right to make it. I assume you'll be voting against it?

As you may note, this is simply my ideal. When it comes to what really happens, things are not quite so clear. What, for instance, should we do when a nation chooses to interfere in purely personal decisions? What should we do when an international government interferes in purely national decisions? In both cases, I advocate for freedom, keeping in mind that my advocacy may not be very effective if others are insistent on using a greater entity to violate each other's sovereignty. So why do I not support an international government interfering in purely national decisions by writing national law on abortion? Because it is a violation of the right of a nation to make national decisions, just as it is the right of individuals to make personal decisions, and violating that national right in order to preserve the right of individuals is no better than violating the right of individuals in the first place. It simply creates a second violation of rights.
Except you seem to be thinking a nation has a right to deny its citizens jurisdiction over their own body. Surely a relativist such as yourself would acknowledge belief in that right is not universal, and given we should only be legislating universal rights, apparently, we shouldn't then be protecting it. Yes, an abortion legalisation proposal infringes on national sovereignty. I'm struggling to see that as a negative.

What gives an individual any greater right to govern himself than the nation has the right to govern itself? I would very much like an answer to this question so I can compare it to Kenny's answer to your question.
Depends on your definition of 'nation', I would say. What do you mean when you say 'the nation has the right to govern itself'? Are you talking about the government? The geographical entity? The people?

I'd just like to point out for the record one more time (since so many opponents of the bill can't be bothered to read the FAQ) that the idea that the UN should just leave abortion in the hands of the individual would be a perfectly accepable argument, if there was some sort of international consensus that abortion is a fundamental human "right."

No such consensus exists.

The Assembly is far too divided to be able to rule with any sense of legitimacy on this issue. The United Nations should just butt the fuck out.

That's all. I'll be telegramming in favor of this thing over the next hour or so, now that this thing has finally gotten to vote. Peace out.

I'd just like to point out for the record one more time (since so many opponents of the bill can't be bothered to read the FAQ) that the idea that the UN should just leave abortion in the hands of the individual would be a perfectly accepable argument, if there was some sort of international consensus that abortion is a fundamental human "right."

No such consensus exists.

The Assembly is far too divided to be able to rule with any sense of legitimacy on this issue. The United Nations should just butt the fuck out.

That's all. I'll be telegramming in favor of this thing over the next hour or so, now that this thing has finally gotten to vote. Peace out.
And, as has been stated and not rebutted, that is exactly the same for national abortion laws. No consensus exists. So why does the nation get priority over the UN and the individual?

I'd just like to point out for the record one more time (since so many opponents of the bill can't be bothered to read the FAQ)I’ve read it. that the idea that the UN should just leave abortion in the hands of the individual would be a perfectly accepable argument, if there was some sort of international consensus that abortion is a fundamental human "right."Last time I checked there is also no consensus that a nation is any better placed to decide, so why should we let it happen? At least an individual is the right person to decide if they have the right to have an abortion,.
The Assembly is far too divided to be able to rule with any sense of legitimacy on this issue. The United Nations should just butt the fuck out.1. Don’t swear. It just undermines your argument.
2. The UN has decided on this matter before
3.The UN delegacy has deemed that it is right and proper to discuss this.

What's your point? Nations can outlaw abortion if this passes.



What's you point nations can make them legal and the state pay for them?

Who's individual rights are stepped on here? A majority in a nation say no abortions? But some UN resolution says yes free abortions. Nations are made up of individuals who have views on issues.. this allows them to decide within their own borders their stand on an issue that nobody really has a solution for. ABORTION. As yet nobody has proven when life begins or even proven when it ends. So what's wrong with letting nations decide where they stand on ABORTION and life.? There will be those who will open clinics and give them away. So one can get an ABORTION, just not in a place folks oppose it.

The only thing missing is a clause that protects persons getting abortions from legal actions by their home nations should they go outside it to get one. This even would be hard to do as many women who get abortions face expulsion from their family for such actions today in real world. Then again many women who don't get them face the same problem if they are not married and have a child. So who wins? This does nothing that I see to protect anyone... Mother or Child involved in abortion.

All it does is say let each nation decide it's stand on abortion.... The UN needs to look at other issues dealing with greater threats to the UN as a whole rather then push an issue that will only divert and divide the UN.. ABORTION...

What's you point nations can make them legal and the state pay for them?
Nations can do that. But nations can criminalise it; that's what I'm concerned about. And yes, I would oppose a proposal which forced states to pay for abortion; if there's a working private healthcare system, why trample on that?

Who's individual rights are stepped on here?
Millions of women.

A majority in a nation say no abortions?
So they don't have to get abortions.

But some UN resolution says yes free abortions.
No, it doesn't.

Nations are made up of individuals who have views on issues.. this allows them to decide within their own borders their stand on an issue that nobody really has a solution for.
That's got to be the biggest contradiction on terms I've ever seen. If individuals have views on issues, why aren't they allowed to make decisions?

As yet nobody has proven when life begins or even proven when it ends.
No, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say we can prove pregnant women are alive.

So what's wrong with letting nations decide where they stand on ABORTION and life.?
What's wrong with letting individuals decide where they stand on abortion and life?

There will be those who will open clinics and give them away. So one can get an ABORTION, just not in a place folks oppose it.
Oh how lovely. What other people think is irrelevant to the abortion itself.

The only thing missing is a clause that protects persons getting abortions from legal actions by their home nations should they go outside it to get one. This even would be hard to do as many women who get abortions face expulsion from their family for such actions today in real world. Then again many women who don't get them face the same problem if they are not married and have a child. So who wins? This does nothing that I see to protect anyone... Mother or Child involved in abortion.
No, it doesn't. It does, however, protect precious nations.

All it does is say let each nation decide it's stand on abortion.... The UN needs to look at other issues dealing with greater threats to the UN as a whole rather then push an issue that will only divert and divide the UN.. ABORTION...
You don't see this debate as divisive? You don't think we're, right now, having, an argument? Any abortion decision causes division. National abortion decisions divide nations. And in terms of 'greater threats', I'm not sure I see many greater threats than governments who deny their people rights to make decisions about their own body.

If a number of nations outlaw abortions, it will inevitably lead to 'abortion traffic' from these nations, whereby women going through unwanted pregnancies but cannot legally terminate them in their respective nations, will instead seek abortion abroad, in nations where abortion is legal.

This in turn leads to the 'recipient nations' having to accomodate for foreign women seeking abortion, which creates need for increased medical administration and workforces..

I believe you will find many nations that will welcome this market to their economy. As it will bring in funds and provide jobs to those who are willing to open abortion clinics and perform these. Thus many nations will welcome this as a new market.. Those that don't want to enter this market now have the option not to do so.

Do you believe that if it were approved to have nuke bomb plants in every UN nation that it would be right to have them? So why would it be right to say open abortion clinics in every UN nation..? Nations have rights and those rights are what their citizens want them to have. Thus the individual has spoken not the UN... as it not made up of individuals but nations.....

I believe you will find many nations that will welcome this market to their economy. As it will bring in funds and provide jobs to those who are willing to open abortion clinics and perform these. Thus many nations will welcome this as a new market.. Those that don't want to enter this market now have the option not to do so.

Do you believe that if it were approved to have nuke bomb plants in every UN nation that it would be right to have them? So why would it be right to say open abortion clinics in every UN nation..? Nations have rights and those rights are what their citizens want them to have. Thus the individual has spoken not the UN... as it not made up of individuals but nations.....
Muddled, ridiculous logic. We're not talking about opening abortion clinics; we're talking about giving nations the right to ban abortion even where carrying the fetus to term will kill the mother. The individual has spoken, and is now being stomped in the face.

No, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say we can prove pregnant women are alive..
Yes pregnant women are alive but when is the fetus? I once asked a doctor at what point in the so called 39 week period could the fetus be taken out of womb and only given basic care survive. He beat around the bush and never did give me an answer. Then I asked him what if the fetus were removed and needed special care beyond basic.. who was going to help it.? He showed me all sorts of flyers from groups that would do that then stuck his hand out for money. He worked for one of these so called support groups thus was trying to drum up funds for his group so he could drive his big car to his big house and later go on vaction. Leaving many women in pain over the issue of abortion. At no time did he say 'I will take the child and care for it myself'.. so we can either build abortion clinics or find other solutions.

The UN here has to many different views on how to deal with the issue thus only creates more problems than a smaller group might. Each individual nation knows it citizens better than the UN..

What's wrong with letting individuals decide where they stand on abortion and life?.

Thus by moving this down to each individual nation you are giving individuals the right to decide rather than a small higher archy of the UN.

Thank in real life how many normal citizens pay any attention to what goes on in the UN unless they might see something on it in news... Thus those millions of women who need abortions probably know little about the UN. As many to busy getting pregnant to listen or watch news.

Yes pregnant women are alive but when is the fetus? I once asked a doctor at what point in the so called 39 week period could the fetus be taken out of womb and only given basic care survive. He beat around the bush and never did give me an answer. Then I asked him what if the fetus were removed and needed special care beyond basic.. who was going to help it.? He showed me all sorts of flyers from groups that would do that then stuck his hand out for money. He worked for one of these so called support groups thus was trying to drum up funds for his group so he could drive his big car to his big house and later go on vaction. Leaving many women in pain over the issue of abortion. At no time did he say 'I will take the child and care for it myself'.. so we can either build abortion clinics or find other solutions.
Great story...

But what is your point? That we don't know when a fetus is alive? No, we don't. And that means nations don't either. So that can't be a rational basis on which to hand them the decision.

The UN here has to many different views on how to deal with the issue thus only creates more problems than a smaller group might. Each individual nation knows it citizens better than the UN..
And each individual citizen knows themselves better than their nation.

Thus by moving this down to each individual nation you are giving individuals the right to decide rather than a small higher archy of the UN.
No. We're giving nations the right to deprive individuals of that choice.

Muddled, ridiculous logic. We're not talking about opening abortion clinics; we're talking about giving nations the right to ban abortion even where carrying the fetus to term will kill the mother. The individual has spoken, and is now being stomped in the face.


I don't like the idea of opening abortion clinics because the profit margin is high but it's would happen if their were no restrictions on abortions. Also unless there is a total ban on abortion a woman can get one some place.

You for sake of individual rights can't force me to perform an abortion on a woman.. even if I'm the only person can do it. Thus the solution is to make sure if a woman must have an abortion.. Note I say 'must' not just wants one; that she can get one some place without doing more harm to her as result of improper medical care or actions from others.

I don't believe abortion should be used a a final birth control.. As any woman that continues to have children and thinks all she needs do go get an abortion needs something done to correct her problem. Also most of the time the issue forgets the man involved and lays this only on the woman. We need to consider both parties involved and come up with a solution.

One such would be like did in early England with Bastardly Bonds. A man plays he pays for his time. Thus a woman could have her child and the father end up paying for it. These children were often taken in by the Church or one of the family took them in if the mother couldn't care for the child herself. Abortion makes it easy to play so folks get dirty... because a little blood will wash it all away...

Because of all the beliefs on abortion it's not a simple matter to deal with.. Thus each nation... being closer to the individual would best serve to find a solution that fits them and works best for all concerned.

That's got to be the biggest contradiction on terms I've ever seen. If individuals have views on issues, why aren't they allowed to make decisions?


I understand your position and the position touted throughout this thread called "individual sovereignty." We used to call it anarchy. I'm for your right to believe that. I just disagree with it myself and for my own nation.

Abortion is not an international issue. I realize some of you believe it is an international issue because you have said it is a "human rights issue." Yet those of you who believe that cannot even give a legitimate difference between the words "human" and "person". Obviously the unborn is human. But those who wish to push their argument use rhetoric such as, "Sure it's human but not a "person." All definitions of human I have looked up use the word person in it. So others believe the protection of these humans is a human rights issue. So, again, abortion is not an international issue.

Those in favor of making abortion an international issue here, and are in favor of the UN's current stand on ruling issues such as prostitution and euthanasia, might as well hand over ruling their nation to the United Nations Hall. I am in favor of all these issues being daily issues for a nation to decide for themselves rather than abdicating my national legislature authority to a panel of nations (socialists, communists, psychotic dictators, anarchists - such as the view of individual sovereignty you are espousing, etc) many of whom my people differ with ideologically. I am a U.N. member nation because I believe there is a purpose for the United Nations with international issues. Making abortion one of those is clearly stepping across the line.

I plead with all nations to vote FOR the current proposal so as not to divide this body further. The argument has been on this thread, well if this resolution passes we are divided. True, but the opposite of what those who oppose this bill is a bill outlawing abortion in all nations. A law outlawing abortion in all nations, or making it a fundamental right in all nations will deeply divide the United Nations. This bill recognizes that division and is the least divisive. Your concern about "human rights" will not be able to help those "millions" of troubled pregnant mothers in non-UN member nations. And by pushing the extreme bill "Clinical Abortion Rights" following this one (only if it is defeated) will cause many more UN nations towards a UN exodus. I would prefer a strength through diversity approach rather than forcing all nations here to adhere to a certain side of a divisive issue like this. Again, please vote FOR the current resolution.

I don't like the idea of opening abortion clinics because the profit margin is high but it's would happen if their were no restrictions on abortions. Also unless there is a total ban on abortion a woman can get one some place.

Even if there was a total ban, a woman could still get one some place. The actual percentage of women getting abortions is unlikely to fall substantially just because they've been made illegal. The number of underground clinics would be shocking. The number of deaths due to failed abortions would increase dramatically. You might be saving a few babies, but at the sacrifice of many more women.

Even if there was a total ban, a woman could still get one some place. The actual percentage of women getting abortions is unlikely to fall substantially just because they've been made illegal. The number of underground clinics would be shocking. The number of deaths due to failed abortions would increase dramatically. You might be saving a few babies, but at the sacrifice of many more women.

And this is the height of rhetoric and emotional blackmail. It ignores the fact that women die from "legal" abortion today and suffer numerous complications. It ignores the fact that when abortion was made legal in the past, those "backstreet abortionists" just moved their locations up front. It ignores the fact that numbers of hundreds of thousands of maternal deaths to illegal abortions were falsified as evidenced by the Center for Disease Control and the Department for Health Statistics. Those statistics show that in real life there was no difference between the number of maternal deaths before abortion was made legal and afterwards. This post is an attempt to do nothing more than scare people into taking their position.

I understand your position and the position touted throughout this thread called "individual sovereignty." We used to call it anarchy. I'm for your right to believe that. I just disagree with it myself and for my own nation.
I'm not talking about individual sovereignty. I hate the term, I've repeatedly disowned it. And I'm not talking about anarchy. An anarchy is a society without a leader or government. More broadly, one might say an anarchy is a lack of laws. But this would both indicate a lack of laws governing interpersonal conduct: for example, murder. I am not promoting that: I'm talking solely about the right one has to exercise control over one's own body.

Abortion is not an international issue. I realize some of you believe it is an international issue because you have said it is a "human rights issue." Yet those of you who believe that cannot even give a legitimate difference between the words "human" and "person". Obviously the unborn is human. But those who wish to push their argument use rhetoric such as, "Sure it's human but not a "person."
Why is it a national issue? What is national about abortion?

All definitions of human I have looked up use the word person in it.
Main Entry: human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs

Those in favor of making abortion an international issue here, and are in favor of the UN's current stand on ruling issues such as prostitution and euthanasia,
Irrelevant.

might as well hand over ruling their nation to the United Nations Hall. I am in favor of all these issues being daily issues for a nation to decide for themselves rather than abdicating my national legislature authority to a panel of nations (socialists, communists, psychotic dictators, anarchists - such as the view of individual sovereignty you are espousing, etc) many of whom my people differ with ideologically. I am a U.N. member nation because I believe there is a purpose for the United Nations with international issues. Making abortion one of those is clearly stepping across the line.
Well we're capitalists in Golgothastan, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I plead with all nations to vote FOR the current proposal so as not to divide this body further. The argument has been on this thread, well if this resolution passes we are divided. True, but the opposite of what those who oppose this bill is a bill outlawing abortion in all nations. A law outlawing abortion in all nations, or making it a fundamental right in all nations will deeply divide the United Nations. This bill recognizes that division and is the least divisive. Your concern about "human rights" will not be able to help those "millions" of troubled pregnant mothers in non-UN member nations. And by pushing the extreme bill "Clinical Abortion Rights" following this one (only if it is defeated) will cause many more UN nations towards a UN exodus. I would prefer a strength through diversity approach rather than forcing all nations here to adhere to a certain side of a divisive issue like this. Again, please vote FOR the current resolution.
First, we oppose Clinical Abortion Rights too.

Second, you admitted there were Dorksonians who supported abortion. Any law you pass will divide your country? Why is this any different?

partial birth abortion is not done because of last might regrets from the mother.



It is done when the life of the mother is at grieve risk.


The decision of weather it's the Mother or the Baby should be left up to the Mother (shocker) and family and NEVER THE GOVERNMENT!


This is the fundamental problem when men try to legislate Abortion.


Hey, here's an idea, grow an uterus first, then write restrictive laws regarding that new Uterus.




I bet there would be drive-through Abortion clinics on every corner in 25 seconds.

Flattery will get you everywhere. ;)

But seriously, don't tackle the sovereignty issue and expect me to sit back and enjoy the show. It's my IC pet issue and I will defend the validity of the pro-sovereignty position even when others are using it.

Just don't say 'we', 'cause not all of your crew-mates are innocent

The funny thing is that it truly is our "God given right" to be free of UN control. We can leave at any time and not even have to use loopholes or a lack of enforcement to get around resolutions. You know this is as well as I.

The starting condition for a nation is one of sovereignty, being free from UN control and the control of other nations. Max (might as well equate him with God in this context) made the game such that this would be the case.

Now what happens is that nations (all of which are created sovereign) choose to give up some of that sovereignty for various reasons, just like some individuals choose to give up their own sovereignty or liberty (whatever you prefer to call it) to a national government. And just like individuals, they may believe that some of the laws that the body they ceded their sovereignty to are inappropriate violations of their sovereignty or liberty.

Good try.

Max (praise to his glory) himself stated that sovereignty was not guaranteed in joining the UN. While yes, you might be right about his tongue-in-cheek aspect of it, his statement definately does make it so that sovereignty isn't the default position (nor is International Federalism). Sovereignty isn't your Max-given right in the UN. It is a right that must be implemented, that must be decided by the members of this body. You have decided that, and I respect that - but don't claim it as a right. That's where I took issue.



He chose to be born in the nation with that government so obviously he "gave" up his "sovereignty".

[QUOTE]may believe that the laws that a national government has made with regard to abortion restrict their sovereignty inappropriately. After all, they gave up said sovereignty so that the national government could facilitate items of national importance. They didn't give up their sovereignty so that the government could make their personal decisions for them. Likewise, a nation that joins the UN does not give up their sovereignty so that the UN can make their national decisions for them.

Is abortion a national decision? I actually would be curious to hear your answer and reasoning behind this one. Obviously, marriage and equality laws you could argue more strongly are national issues, but we're hearing people suggest it's both a national and individual issue - so which do you think, and why?

Rather, they do so in order that the international government can facilitate items of international importance.

Now this is simply a general rule. Of course there are a few unusual individuals who just want their government to make their personal decisions for them, and there are a few nations that want the UN to make their national decisions for them. But most of the persons and nations agree that they should be left largely to their own devices when it comes to making decisions.

Source of this dazzling statistic?

And in both the cases of persons and nations, the entity that has given up its sovereignty often disagrees with the other such entities about exactly where the greater entity should stop in its efforts to make law.

Or, in the case of pro-UN-wide-abortion-legalization, the lesser entity.

I happen to think that in the case of individuals, they should be left alone to make their personal decisions, and in the case of national governments, they should be left alone to make their national decisions, and in the case of international governments, they should be left alone to make international decisions. Like Kenny's (also anarchic like mine) nation, I do not succumb to the extreme individualism or nationalism or internationalism of those who wish to raise any of those three types of political entities to a position of utmost authority. Instead, I believe that persons should make personal decisions, nations should make national decisions, and international bodies should make international decisions, and that all of these should work within the scope of their own authority rather than trampling on the sovereignty of others.

Did you notice how when Hirota starts piping up about "Individual Sovereignty", he's basically saying "use the International body to keep the national governments from infringing upon the individual in areas where the individual should be the one that chooses"? Basically, the entire concept of IndSov (not to be confused with IntFed) IS to protect that very concept that you're touting right here. We are protecting the right of the individual to make individual decisions. The concept is not about removing national sovereignty from nations, but rather giving the power back to the individuals. You keep focusing on the state's right to make decisions, but yet you fail to see the contradiction in your own work when the right you give the state means that the state removes the right you believe the individual should have from the individual. You put the state's right to make state decisions before the individual's right to make individual decisions. As far as I can tell, you value to the state above the international and individual levels. Why?

Think about it for a second

As you may note, this is simply my ideal. When it comes to what really happens, things are not quite so clear. What, for instance, should we do when a nation chooses to interfere in purely personal decisions? What should we do when an international government interferes in purely national decisions? In both cases, I advocate for freedom, keeping in mind that my advocacy may not be very effective if others are insistent on using a greater entity to violate each other's sovereignty. So why do I not support an international government interfering in purely national decisions by writing national law on abortion? Because it is a violation of the right of a nation to make national decisions, just as it is the right of individuals to make personal decisions, and violating that national right in order to preserve the right of individuals is no better than violating the right of individuals in the first place. It simply creates a second violation of rights.

So you are willing to grant the state the right to infringe upon individual decisions......so long as the international body does not infringe upon the right of the states to make a state decision to infringe upon the individual decision? You see it as a greater evil that the International body protects the right of the individual to make individual decisions than it is for the nation to have the right to make decisions for individuals? Why does this logic completely fail to compute? Oh right, simple numbers game. There's, what, 6 Trillion citizens, 1 Trillion (as a very low number) are in the UN and you would put these trillion entities rights to decide behind the rights of the 30,000 nations to make their own decisions? Fine, 500 billion, hell, we'll say 5 billion (so only 5% of the UN has the abhorent beliefs - I think we can all agree that this is an extremely low number).

50 000 000 000 people vs 30 000 states

Why am I not sold?

What gives an individual any greater right to govern himself than the nation has the right to govern itself? I would very much like an answer to this question so I can compare it to Kenny's answer to your question.

50 000 000 000 people vs 30 000 states

That's not necessarily my full answer, but it is part of it, and the easiest to understand and defend against when the pendulum swings back

Several people are making this point, so I'll do a separate post to address the issue more thoroughly.

Ok

Hehe. I have backups too. We're not as fluffy as most UNers. :)

Indeed we aren't.

First, we oppose Clinical Abortion Rights too.

Second, you admitted there were Dorksonians who supported abortion. Any law you pass will divide your country? Why is this any different?

The current law in Dorksonia is that abortion is illegal except in rare circumstances where the mother's life is in danger. The legislature of Dorksonia has realized that individuals cannot make decisions that impose their will on the life of another.

We believe this is different from the United Nations because as a nation we have the legitimate right to rule on this issue. People are permitted to leave Dorksonia and establish residency somewhere else if they disagree strongly enough. Or if enough disagree strongly enough, they can elect new leaders that represent their position.

However, if a nation disagrees with a decision as divided as this one because it's mandated by the United Nations, it can always quit the U.N. This does not do any good for that nation or the United Nations. Basically, to rule on either extreme position could lead to a mass exodus from the U.N. out of adherence to one point of view. All of this because of legislating on an issue the United Nations should have no business taking up in the first place. And it is my belief that the U.N. would be a sad place if it placed one's belief about abortion as an additional requirement for U.N. membership. The current proposal will make sure that does not happen. That is why we are in favor of ALC.

The current law in Dorksonia is that abortion is illegal except in rare circumstances where the mother's life is in danger. The legislature of Dorksonia has realized that individuals cannot make decisions that impose their will on the life of another.
Which is exactly what the individuals in your legislature are doing.

Now, I know in Dorksonia the lump of cells is considered a person. Ok. But you must see that by banning abortion, you are imposing your will on the mother. Yes? Now, I agree that in your case, her having an abortion would also be her imposing her will on the fetus. Ok. So they cancel out. They don't, as you say, give you the moral high ground.

We believe this is different from the United Nations because as a nation we have the legitimate right to rule on this issue. People are permitted to leave Dorksonia and establish residency somewhere else if they disagree strongly enough. Or if enough disagree strongly enough, they can elect new leaders that represent their position.
The UN has the legitimate right to rule on this issue; please show me one resolution or other rule that says otherwise. Nations can leave the UN, or vote for repeals. So it is the same. Except it's not, because 'nations' don't make choices; individuals do, be they mothers, or legislators.

However, if a nation disagrees with a decision as divided as this one because it's mandated by the United Nations, it can always quit the U.N. This does not do any good for that nation or the United Nations. Basically, to rule on either extreme position could lead to a mass exodus from the U.N. out of adherence to one point of view. All of this because of legislating on an issue the United Nations should have no business taking up in the first place. And it is my belief that the U.N. would be a sad place if it placed one's belief about abortion as an additional requirement for U.N. membership. The current proposal will make sure that does not happen. That is why we are in favor of ALC.
Nations don't have beliefs, though. Individuals in nations have beliefs. A nation can't be opposed to abortion: an overwhelming majority of its population, or its legal code, can be, but a nation cannot hold or express an opinion.

Yes, undoubtedly some nations would leave were abortion legalised. However, nations resign after every resolution passes. I agree, a somewhat more sympathetic line should be towed; hence our opposition to Clinical Abortion Rights. But the ALC permits states to ban abortion in every case. That is unacceptable.

And this is the height of rhetoric and emotional blackmail. It ignores the fact that women die from "legal" abortion today and suffer numerous complications. It ignores the fact that when abortion was made legal in the past, those "backstreet abortionists" just moved their locations up front.

Actually, the percentage of women that die from legal abortions is extraordinarily smaller than illegal abortions. It's a simple matter of certification - and you can control certification when the procedure is legal (and people normally prefer certified facilities).

It ignores the fact that numbers of hundreds of thousands of maternal deaths to illegal abortions were falsified as evidenced by the Center for Disease Control and the Department for Health Statistics. Those statistics show that in real life there was no difference between the number of maternal deaths before abortion was made legal and afterwards. This post is an attempt to do nothing more than scare people into taking their position.

Source?

partial birth abortion is not done because of last might regrets from the mother.



It is done when the life of the mother is at grieve risk.


The decision of weather it's the Mother or the Baby should be left up to the Mother (shocker) and family and NEVER THE GOVERNMENT!


This is the fundamental problem when men try to legislate Abortion.


Hey, here's an idea, grow an uterus first, then write restrictive laws regarding that new Uterus.




I bet there would be drive-through Abortion clinics on every corner in 25 seconds.

The assumption made in this post is that the only ones who are opposed to abortion are males. This is certainly not true. So the thougts here are a bit ridiculous. Of course the other thought implied here is that men in decision making authority do not care about women. That is wrong also.

Sorry to intrude, but I thought I should respond to this. I don't know to what extent it's IC or OOC...I'd rather keep it IC, so I shall assume it as such.

Meh. It started as OOC and I see no reason to move it IC. But if you're more comfortable assuming it's IC then go ahead.

Except that that really weakens the sovereigntist argument in my view. Given all those possibilities, any nation which stays in the UN and abides by the resolutions is choosing to render some of its sovereignty subject to the UN. Doesn't mean they can't say "this is going too far" or "not an international issue" - although I'm still waiting on a definition of that - but it does mean that saying that you are making a deliberate decision to cede your sovereignty...

Actually, I would really careful with that argument. It leads to some interesting consequences, which I almost brought up in my response to FL but thought better of it. I wanted to chew on it more and perhaps save it for later. But more on that in a bit.

...which is not the case here. It's a false parallel. When a nation bans abortion, the people are not choosing to give up their individual sovereignty; they are having it forced from them. For all the hyperbole about a "dictatorial UN" or whatever, you have just acknowledged that isn't so. So the ceding of national sovereignty is voluntary; the ceding of individual sovereignty (and yes, I hate the term) is not. Do you see the difference?

Let's not pull the straw man business again. The parallels are these, just in case they weren't stated clearly enough:

--Person chooses to join/remain in nation and is therefore subject to the laws of the nation and whatever enforcement of those laws there might be.
--Nation chooses to join/remain in UN and is therefore subject to the laws of the UN and whatever enforcement of those laws there might be.

--Nation bans individual from making decision on abortion by making that decision for them.
--UN bans nation from making decision on abortion by making that decision for them.

Now of course there is at times some form of coercion that leads to either persons or nations joining/remaining in either nations or the UN. There is actually a significant difference, as you pointed out earlier, which is that nations generally have much more of an ability than individuals to choose to cede sovereignty rather than being forced or coerced to do so.

Some might suggest that it is because nations have more power than people and therefore can assert more independence. The evidence would indicate that this is true. After all, many nations oppress their people without reprisal in this NationStates world. In addition, because the UN, unlike many of the nations, has no police force or military (and has never hired mercenaries), it lacks the means of enforcement necessary to ensure that the laws it makes are carried out. Given these and my earlier points to FL, it seems that nations are in fact the most sovereign entity, and are perhaps in truth the only sovereign entity. Rather than weakening the sovereigntist argument as you suggested, your point actually strengthens it because it reinforces the view that the nation is ultimately the only sovereign.

[Note: It could be pointed out here that the UN does in fact have a means of enforcement, the changes to a nation's stats that occur after the passage of a resolution. But if we're going to reduce a nation to its stats, then we have a problem that talking about persons and their liberty doesn't make much sense anymore. And if instead we suggest an exact correlation between a nation's stats and roleplay, then we have a problem of lack of evidence for such a correlation.]

Abortion is an individual decision. This proposal gives nations the right to make it. I assume you'll be voting against it?

No. Nations can already make that decision, (and legitimately so if the foetus is defined as a person within their legal system, because then it is no longer a matter of purely personal choice on the part of the mother). This proposal affirms that nations have the right to make it.

Except you seem to be thinking a nation has a right to deny its citizens jurisdiction over their own body. Surely a relativist such as yourself would acknowledge belief in that right is not universal, and given we should only be legislating universal rights, apparently, we shouldn't then be protecting it. Yes, an abortion legalisation proposal infringes on national sovereignty. I'm struggling to see that as a negative.

Relativist? I'm a pragmatist. Back that train up.

Depends on your definition of 'nation', I would say. What do you mean when you say 'the nation has the right to govern itself'? Are you talking about the government? The geographical entity? The people?

A nation (like the UN) is not just its government or its geographical location or a group of people. It is a combination of all three elements.

And, as has been stated and not rebutted, that is exactly the same for national abortion laws. No consensus exists. So why does the nation get priority over the UN and the individual?OK, let's see: our people have designated us to issue decrees for the governance of our nation. As I recall, the people of UN member states have conferred no such legitimacy upon the United Nations to dictate internal national policy. So what gives the UN the right to decide on this issue?

This is a brave gamble you pro-choicers are making, because if this fails, there is no international consensus on abortion as a universally recognized "right," so the Assembly very well could reject Clinical Abortion Rights (which is likely, as the pendulum seems to be swinging to the right at the moment) and instead opt for a proposal by Dorksonia or James_xenoland restricting or banning abortion. Leftist nations will leave the UN in protest, moving the center of power more firmly to the right, national (and "individual") sovereignty will perish, and your gamble will have backfired terribly. Nice job.

Now, do you see why international consensus is important before the UN purports to rule on a controversial social issue? The last thing we need is to turn the United Nations into a zealous brigade of international vigilantes to usurp and overrule national assemblies on painful and divisive social issues and forcing them to conform to their own preferred value system. You ought at least applaud the abortion opponents for being willing to allow your nation to protect abortion rights within its own borders; you are affording no equal courtesy to them.

I won't continue to flog a tired and dead horse. I'm sure this'll pass; I'll spend my weekend sending telegrams, but I doubt it'll do much good.

I remain unconvinced that abortion is not an international issue. In fact, it seems the very essence of an international issue, because abortion has nothing to do with national boundaries. In every nation, women get pregnant. In every nation, women wish to terminate that pregnancy.

I remain unconvinced that nations are sufficiently morally endowed that they can judge what is best for their citizens' bodies better than they can. Some have argued that UN legalisation would mean the UN was making the decision: they are wrong. A resolution which simply said that the individual could make the choice for herself would not be dictatorial, or imposing.

I also do not believe the proposition are fascists, or sexists, or bigots, or evil, or stupid. They are just wrong.

Actually, the percentage of women that die from legal abortions is extraordinarily smaller than illegal abortions. It's a simple matter of certification - and you can control certification when the procedure is legal (and people normally prefer certified facilities).
Source?

"Even so, the situation today is better than the "5,000 to 10,000 women who died annually in the U.S.A. from back-alley abortions," isn’t it?
These figures, often cited by pro-abortionists, are simply false. During the debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Hatch-Eagleton Pro-Life Amendment in 1983, the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics provided the data on such deaths. Its reports showed that you must go back to the pre-Penicillin era to find more than 1,000 maternal deaths per year from illegal and legal abortions combined. The precipitous drop in maternal deaths in the 1950s and ‘60s occurred while abortions were still illegal. Before the first state legalized abortions in 1966, the total deaths were down to 120 per year. By 1972, before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states, it was down to 39 per year in the entire U.S. Since legalization, the slow decline has continued, so that now the only difference is that more mothers are dying from legal, rather than illegal abortions.


U.S. BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL

Reported Maternal Deaths from YEAR Illegal Abortion in U.S.

1940 1,679
1950 316
1960 289
1966 120 First State Legalized in 1967
1970 128
1972 39 Supreme Court Decision in 1973
1977 21
1981 8

Taken from U.S. Senate graph"
Source: http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_21.asp

The same source above shows evidence that the CDC is political in that it doesn't report all of the maternal deaths due to abortion today. The evidence is there that these cases were presented to the CDC and not reported (so of course it's a 'biased' source. There does not appear to be any sources that aren't biased when it comes to this issue. Even sources that should not be).

I hereby move that Yelda be booted from the UN for the heinous infraction of using puppets to rig the forum poll in favor of the Aludium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator option!! Oh, wait. Yelda's not even a UN member. Carry on.

I also do not believe the proposition are fascists, or sexists, or bigots, or evil, or stupid. They are just wrong.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. I believe you are sincere. I believe you are also sincerely wrong. I also am glad we have diversity of opinion here or it would be pretty boring.

No it isn't. It's a resolution which allows governments to do anything they want, specifically including outlawing their citizens from choosing what they want regarding abortion.

This resolution safeguards a nations right to outlaw a medical procedure, something we will not permit to occur unopposed.

Against. In the strongest possible terms.


Please reread the proposal and the accompanying FAQ which directly realtes to this. It will save us all the argument time.

What's you point nations can make them legal and the state pay for them?

Who's individual rights are stepped on here? A majority in a nation say no abortions? But some UN resolution says yes free abortions. Nations are made up of individuals who have views on issues.. this allows them to decide within their own borders their stand on an issue that nobody really has a solution for.

If every nation in the UN was a democracy it might.

What this resolution allows is for monarchies, theocracies, dictatorships, etc... to have individual or very small groups of people unilaterally remove the right to have an abortion from an entire national population.

That's whose individual rights are stepped on here.

As yet nobody has proven when life begins

Who cares? Bacteria are alive, we don't give them a right to live. When "life" begins is not a determining factor in this decision. It's when personhood begins that matters, and that can be established with more than sufficient margin of error.

Golgothastan, you may be convined that this is an international issue, but I will remain convinced that it is not. My nation cares not one wit about what the abortion policies in another nation are. There will always be nations that outlaw completely abortions ... and they will be outside UN jurisdiction.

There needs to be conditions where a state can outlaw certain procedures. There also needs to be conditions where a state can require certain procedures. Some governments do have and need "forced" abortions in order to meet larger more important issues. Some governments may ban a number of procedures due to other reasons. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. There is no need for a uniform standard across UN member states. There simply is no need.

I remain unconvinced that nations are sufficiently morally endowed that they can judge what is best for their citizens' bodies better than they can. Some have argued that UN legalisation would mean the UN was making the decision: they are wrong. A resolution which simply said that the individual could make the choice for herself would not be dictatorial, or imposing.

I remain unconvinced that the UN is sufficiently morally endowed that they can judge what is best for the member state citizens' bodies better than they can. Every day issues come across my desk and I respond to them. We pass a UN resolution and gnomes secretly write legislation. I don't even know what they are writing, because they classify it for UN gnome eyes only.

In the end I trust me more than I trust the UN gnomes. I find it insulting to the extreeme that you think that I am so stupid as to not understand the needs of my people and that the UN somehow has a higher moral ground. It does not. Any decision by the UN is going to be harmful to someone. The UN can make mistakes. I can make mistakes. Somehow it's easier for me to admit and correct them.

Please reread the proposal and the accompanying FAQ which directly realtes to this. It will save us all the argument time.

We read it, and we understood it. And we're quite certain you did as well so please don't waste our time with stupid games. My characterization of the effects of the proposal was completely accurate.

I remain unconvinced that the UN is sufficiently morally endowed that they can judge what is best for the member state citizens' bodies better than they can.

Great, then vote against this proposal and then vote to legalize abortion and let the citizens decide for themselves if they want to get one or not. That is the only way to leave the decision where it belongs, in the hands of the individual whose body it is effecting.

Please reread the proposal and the accompanying FAQ which directly realtes to this. It will save us all the argument time.

This resolution doesn't force nations to do that (as noted in the FAQ), it just allows them to. Please reread what he said and realize his argument is completely valid. It will save us all the argument time.

Quite to the contrary, national abortion laws are very much an international issue.

If a number of nations outlaw abortions, it will inevitably lead to 'abortion traffic' from these nations, whereby women going through unwanted pregnancies but cannot legally terminate them in their respective nations, will instead seek abortion abroad, in nations where abortion is legal.


People may also choose to move abroad, on either a temporary or a permanent basis, for many other reasons: seeking the freedom to do other things that are illegal in their old homelands, dislike of particular governments, fleeing high taxes, fleeing famines, seeking better jobs & higher standards of living, and so on... Would you therefore argue that all of these matters should be handled by the UN too? That seems a logical extension of your argument to me, but it would effectively turn the UN into a 'United Nation' with the former "national" governments reduced to being the local agents for carrying out the central government's decrees and I really doubt whether a majority of those governments would ever agree to that...

Quote:
As yet nobody has proven when life begins


Who cares? Bacteria are alive, we don't give them a right to live. When "life" begins is not a determining factor in this decision. It's when personhood begins that matters, and that can be established with more than sufficient margin of error.

Well, there's alot of people who care about human rights that care.

Could you please explain for the rest of us what is the difference between a live human and a live human person? Your personhood argument astounds me and I would love more of your perspective on this. What makes one a "person"?

Also, let's look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn't want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A? I'd be extremely interested in anyone's response to that.

If every nation in the UN was a democracy it might.

What this resolution allows is for monarchies, theocracies, dictatorships, etc... to have individual or very small groups of people unilaterally remove the right to have an abortion from an entire national population.


St Edmund is a democracy. Our pre-UN laws restricting abortion were democratically agreed upon. What any resolution forcing a single viewpoint (whether 'pro' or 'anti') on all nations would do is let the wishes of those monarchies, theocracies, dictatorships, etc -- as well as those of the UN's other democratic members -- over-ride the democratically expressed wishes of our people...

Quite to the contrary, national abortion laws are very much an international issue.

If a number of nations outlaw abortions, it will inevitably lead to 'abortion traffic' from these nations, whereby women going through unwanted pregnancies but cannot legally terminate them in their respective nations, will instead seek abortion abroad, in nations where abortion is legal.Yeah, outlawing recreational drugs inevitably leads to drug trafficking across international borders, too. Funny thing, though, the United Nations just ruled that national drug laws were not an issue meriting international action:

Last UN Decision

The resolution "Recreational Drug Legalization" was defeated 8,446 votes to 5,010.Hmm ...

Yeah, outlawing recreational drugs inevitably leads to drug trafficking across international borders, too. Funny thing, though, the United Nations just ruled that this was not an issue meriting international action:

Hmm ...

Um....yeah, because everyone who voted against a resolution that (amongst other things) legalized pot in all member nations were voting that drug trafficking "was not an issue meriting International action"

Please, give our intelligence a little more credit than that.

We read it, and we understood it. And we're quite certain you did as well so please don't waste our time with stupid games. My characterization of the effects of the proposal was completely accurate.


Apparently you missed the part of the FAQ regarding "individual soveriegnty". Please reread and save the insults for your stupid, stupid offspring. We are a gathering of civilized adults and if you are incapable of comporting yourself in such a fashion then please do not speak to me.

Um....yeah, because everyone who voted against a resolution that (amongst other things) legalized pot in all member nations were voting that drug trafficking "was not an issue meriting International action"

Please, give our intelligence a little more credit than that.

I voted against that one. I agree with you that if we made recreational drugs legal that having drugs would not be illegal anymore. The U.N. decided that was too high a price to pay to lower crime.

The argument you use would force nations (internationally via U.N.) to make drugs legal so we would not have to face the international issue of illegal drug trafficking. Nations like mine that voted against it do not wish to be told by the U.N. what to do with drug laws in our nation.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD, the St Edmundan ambassador, rises wearily to his feet.

"In all of this argument," he says, "one important detail has never been mentioned. The soul. We in St Edmund believe that what defines a being as a 'human' individual is the possession of a soul, and we have solid proof -- not just theological arguments, but convincing evidence from studies carried out, under scientific supervision, by mediums and other practicioners of 'the subtle arts' -- that in our nation and its neighbours a foetus normally acquires a soul after only a few weeks of gestation: We therefore hold that from that point onwards it is 'human', and that killing it would -- unless some sad circumstance actually made that death necessary -- be murder. If you ever try forcing us to legalise abortion after that point then you would be trying to force us to legalise murder, which we would find morally repugnant even though few people would actually take advantage of that rule, and we would have to leave the UN. I realise that the situation may be different in your lands, that your people might not acquire souls until later on -- perhaps at birth -- or might even lack them altogether and just be clever animals rather than truely 'human' as we use the term, but that is the situation as it applies to us."


______________________________________________

OOC: IN RL I'm an atheist and don't belive in souls at all, but in NS the fact that the St Edmundans do believe -- and know this much about them -- has already been established in RP...

Apparently you missed the part of the FAQ regarding "individual soveriegnty". Please reread and save the insults for your stupid, stupid offspring. We are a gathering of civilized adults and if you are incapable of comporting yourself in such a fashion then please do not speak to me.

Oh, you mean this part?

But what about "individual sovereignty"?
What about it? (Aside from the fact that it is a widely misused term, because individuals are not "sovereign" absent anarchy? The state has every right to regulate individual behavior; it's sort of the entire point of making law.) If you think individual sovereignty is more important than national sovereignty, that's only your opinion. If you believe that the rights of the person exceed the rights of the nation in this case, do not vote for this resolution. The fact of the matter is, many, many nations do not think that the woman is not the only individual whose rights are at stake here, and many, many nations do not. That's fair. If you think women should have the right to have an abortion, it is entirely within your rights as a sovereign nation to make it legal in your nation; apply diplomatic pressure on other nations to do so; refuse to recognize or trade with nations that do not; establish a covenant with likeminded nations to impose multilateral economic sanctions on all those backward regimes that still criminalize abortion. Heck, invade those nations and force them to change their laws if you feel they are endangering women's rights. But your nation's specific values have never been universally established as "right" or "correct." Just because you have very strong emotions about this issue, it does not mean you are automatically right and everyone else is automatically wrong, or even "backward."

Translation: "To those of you who believe that the rights of the individual exceed the rights of the state, I must respectfully disagree. It is your right to believe that, just as it's my right to believe differently. However, just because you believe a certain way about this resolution doesn't mean your belief is right and mine is wrong."

Now, let's look at what Reformentia originally said

No it isn't. It's a resolution which allows governments to do anything they want, specifically including outlawing their citizens from choosing what they want regarding abortion.

This resolution safeguards a nations right to outlaw a medical procedure, something we will not permit to occur unopposed.

Against. In the strongest possible terms.

Translation: "This is a resolution which allows governments to outlaw abortions. We will not stand by and allow such a resolution to pass unopposed. It is our belief that this should be a universal right for all citizens so therefore we shall fight for that right for all citizens of all member nations"

What you see there isn't a failure to read, it's a failure to agree. Kenny says "let them do what they want", Reformentia says "that's not acceptable". Now, why don't we try more civility from you and actually explain why what Reformentia said means that he failed at reading the FAQ rather than a one line argument that means nothing.

As I said before, it will save us all the argument time.

Well, there's alot of people who care about human rights that care.

They just don't have any actual reason to...

Could you please explain for the rest of us what is the difference between a live human and a live human person?

There isn't one. By the time something is a human it is a person. An individual. Living human tissue however does not automatically qualify as either.

My kidney is human. My kidney is alive. My kidney however is not a human. And if you can't figure out why it would be a waste of time attempting any further meaningful discourse with you.

The kidney is human. The kidney possesses life. Does the kidney all by itself therefore have a right to live if we were to remove it from the rest of the body? Are we obligated to provide it with life support to prevent its tissue from dying because "life" somehow automatically confers that right?

Of course not, because "life" is not a determining criteria in whether something has a right to live or not. It never has been.

Your personhood argument astounds me and I would love more of your perspective on this. What makes one a "person"?

You're not seriously suggesting you don't know what a person is are you?

Also, let's look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn't want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?

First of all, at six and a half months we are well past the point at which the fetus would have developped self awareness. At that point the fetus is entitled to certain rights, however those rights do not extend to removing the rights of others. Any decision to abort so late in the pregnancy must obviously be given much more serious consideration than a decision to abort earlier but it is still up to the mother to decide whether or not she wishes to continue to allow her body to be utilized in such a manner. Just as it is up to an organ donor to decide if they wish to allow their own kidney to be harvested to keep alive a hypothetical 5 year old child who will die without it. If the fetus requires the mother's body to continue to sustain it's own life it is the mothers decision whether or not to allow her body to be used to do so.

Or are you of the opinion that if someone else requires one of my non essential organs to live I should be forced to allow someone to cut it out of my body for them?

The fetus which has already become independent of the mother is no longer so infringing on the mothers rights to self determination over her own body, thus no such conflict exists to be taken into account.

Any other stumpers?

Just don't say 'we', 'cause not all of your crew-mates are innocent

It's certainly true that not all of them are innocent. And I certainly disagree, at the very least from an IC standpoint and often from an OOC standpoint, with many of their domestic policies and their underlying or partial motivations for being pro-sovereignty. Nonetheless, I will continue to defend the validity of the perspective.

Max (praise to his glory) himself stated that sovereignty was not guaranteed in joining the UN. While yes, you might be right about his tongue-in-cheek aspect of it, his statement definately does make it so that sovereignty isn't the default position (nor is International Federalism). Sovereignty isn't your Max-given right in the UN. It is a right that must be implemented, that must be decided by the members of this body. You have decided that, and I respect that - but don't claim it as a right. That's where I took issue.

That's quite understandable, but do be careful. Also remember that individuals don't have the right to an abortion without being granted it by the nation. So don't claim it as a right. ;)

He chose to be born in the nation with that government so obviously he "gave" up his "sovereignty".

Sarcasm noted. Take a look at my response to Golgothastan for why this fact actually strengthens the sovereigntist position.

Is abortion a national decision? I actually would be curious to hear your answer and reasoning behind this one. Obviously, marriage and equality laws you could argue more strongly are national issues, but we're hearing people suggest it's both a national and individual issue - so which do you think, and why?

It depends on the nation's legal system. In the case of a legal system wherein a foetus was defined as a person, then it would have certain rights and those rights would legitimately be protected by the nation. In the case of a legal system wherein a foetus was not defined as a person, then it would have no rights and the decision would be a purely personal one.

Source of this dazzling statistic?

What statistic? Wasn't this part of my argument from ill consequences that I'm still working on? Probably, but I just want to confirm that.

You keep focusing on the state's right to make decisions, but yet you fail to see the contradiction in your own work when the right you give the state means that the state removes the right you believe the individual should have from the individual. You put the state's right to make state decisions before the individual's right to make individual decisions. As far as I can tell, you value to the state above the international and individual levels. Why?

Think about it for a second

I've thought about it for rather more than a second, mate. ;)

There's actually no contradiction in my work (at least not the one you're alleging, though I'm pretty sure there is at least one that could be exploited that no one ever hits). My nation believes in scopes of authority, remember? There isn't a question of putting a nation's right above an individual's right, because in this case it's an issue of scope, not one of which is more important. [Note: Keep in mind that I'm not saying that nations are more important (though more powerful would certainly be fair), just that my nation cannot while being consistent with all its principles support the UN breaching its scope of authority by making law on issues in a different scope of authority.]

1. It's just that it's not within the UN's scope of authority or power to enforce the rights of individuals.

2. It's also that it's not within the nation's scope of authority to make personal choices for those individuals.

Now my nation does indeed apply this second statement within it's own borders, which is why it is highly consistent. What it also does do (because of a change in the scope of authority) when it comes to the UN is apply the first statement.

So you are willing to grant the state the right to infringe upon individual decisions......so long as the international body does not infringe upon the right of the states to make a state decision to infringe upon the individual decision? You see it as a greater evil that the International body protects the right of the individual to make individual decisions than it is for the nation to have the right to make decisions for individuals? Why does this logic completely fail to compute? Oh right, simple numbers game. There's, what, 6 Trillion citizens, 1 Trillion (as a very low number) are in the UN and you would put these trillion entities rights to decide behind the rights of the 30,000 nations to make their own decisions? Fine, 500 billion, hell, we'll say 5 billion (so only 5% of the UN has the abhorent beliefs - I think we can all agree that this is an extremely low number).

50 000 000 000 people vs 30 000 states

Why am I not sold?

50 000 000 000 people vs 30 000 states

That's not necessarily my full answer, but it is part of it, and the easiest to understand and defend against when the pendulum swings back

Do you know how long I've been waiting for someone to use this argument? It's been months. I'm glad someone finally got to it. :)

Let's play with those numbers a bit more, shall we? Take into account that (excluding for the sake of convenience all the alien/magic/etc nations that could cause problems either way) when it comes to abortion, we're dealing with only one part of the population: women, specifically women that are

1. not sterile and
2. are of child-bearing age and
3. have been sexually active and
4. have gotten pregnant and
5. have decided that they do not wish to have the child

Suddenly your really low number isn't looking all that low given how many chunks of the population we've just cut out by taking into account the factors of the situation we're actually discussing.

The rest of my points about this argument depend on the argument from ill consequences and UN ineffectiveness, which I'm still working on, and I hope to at least get done by tomorrow for your reading pleasure.

Apparently you missed the part of the FAQ regarding "individual soveriegnty". Please reread and save the insults for your stupid, stupid offspring. We are a gathering of civilized adults and if you are incapable of comporting yourself in such a fashion then please do not speak to me.

Apparently you missed the part of the thread where we directly replied to that portion of the FAQ... obviously indicating that we have in fact read it.

But of course that is irrelevent, as that portion of the FAQ does not in any way somehow provide an answer to the response you are criticising. Please learn to read for comprehension before getting back to us.

I've gotta get back to work here, but I wanted to shoot this off before I go

Let's play with those numbers a bit more, shall we? Take into account that (excluding for the sake of convenience all the alien/magic/etc nations that could cause problems either way) when it comes to abortion, we're dealing with only one part of the population: women, specifically women that are

1. not sterile and
2. are of child-bearing age and
3. have been sexually active and
4. have gotten pregnant and
5. have decided that they do not wish to have the child

Suddenly your really low number isn't looking all that low given how many chunks of the population we've just cut out by taking into account the factors of the situation we're actually discussing.

The rest of my points about this argument depend on the argument from ill consequences and UN ineffectiveness, which I'm still working on, and I hope to at least get done by tomorrow for your reading pleasure.

Your predicate is false. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are irrelevant. Why? Because this law doesn't just act upon the here and now, it acts until it is repealed. Same with any national laws. It acts until ammended or repealed. Therefore, any woman now or in the future who is, can, or will be capable of bearing a child. They don't know today whether they would want to keep the child or not. The right to abortion merely leaves it as an option for them in the future. Suddenly, any non-asexual, non-sterile woman is included. Heck, for your sake, I'll take only 2% of the women in nations that will ban abortion by my old stats that don't consider abortion murder and could conceive the notion of having an abortion.

500 000 000 vs 30 000

You would need to have 1 in 16 000 women who ever get pregnant actually have an abortion for those numbers to match. That's stretching the stats rather tight.

And guess what - I consider all of these numbers to be gross underestimations!

Has anybody pointed out yet that the UN resolution "repeal abortion rights" has already done the same thing this resolution is doing, minus ASKING for a few things. This legislation doesn't need to be passed, because it's already been enacted by precedent.

How convenient for the rest of us that mathmatics does not bow to what you consider to be true, or we'd never be able to do anything but multiply, and then where would we be?

You're arguing an extraneous point. Regardless of how many women are sterile or not, or whether a women knows now whether she'll want to keep a child she'll concieve twenty years from now, it is not the UN's place to decide if abortion is legal or illegal. It is, however, the UN's place to make sure that that decision is able to be decided, rather than in the near future letting some foreign delegate deciding for one's country whether it is allowable.


Lord-Governor Matthieu Tertulien
Ambassador to the UN
Most Serene Republic of Schartlefritzen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
Well, there's alot of people who care about human rights that care.


They just don't have any actual reason to...

Quote: Dorsonia
Could you please explain for the rest of us what is the difference between a live human and a live human person?

There isn't one. By the time something is a human it is a person. An individual. Living human tissue however does not automatically qualify as either.

My kidney is human. My kidney is alive. My kidney however is not a human. And if you can't figure out why it would be a waste of time attempting any further meaningful discourse with you.

The kidney is human. The kidney possesses life. Does the kidney all by itself therefore have a right to live if we were to remove it from the rest of the body? Are we obligated to provide it with life support to prevent its tissue from dying because "life" somehow automatically confers that right?

Of course not, because "life" is not a determining criteria in whether something has a right to live or not. It never has been.

Quote:
Your personhood argument astounds me and I would love more of your perspective on this. What makes one a "person"?


You're not seriously suggesting you don't know what a person is are you?

Quote: Dorksonia
Also, let's look at a hypothetical situation: two women become pregnant on the same day; six and a half months later woman A has a premature, yet healthy, baby; woman B is still pregnant; a week later each decides she doesn't want her baby. Why should woman B be allowed to kill hers and not woman A?


First of all, at six and a half months we are well past the point at which the fetus would have developped self awareness. At that point the fetus is entitled to certain rights, however those rights do not extend to removing the rights of others. Any decision to abort so late in the pregnancy must obviously be given much more serious consideration than a decision to abort earlier but it is still up to the mother to decide whether or not she wishes to continue to allow her body to be utilized in such a manner. Just as it is up to an organ donor to decide if they wish to allow their own kidney to be harvested to keep alive a hypothetical 5 year old child who will die without it. If the fetus requires the mother's body to continue to sustain it's own life it is the mothers decision whether or not to allow her body to be used to do so.

Or are you of the opinion that if someone else requires one of my non essential organs to live I should be forced to allow someone to cut it out of my body for them?

The fetus which has already become independent of the mother is no longer so infringing on the mothers rights to self determination over her own body, thus no such conflict exists to be taken into account.

Any other stumpers?

So your basing your entire argument on the fact that an unborn child is no different than an organ within the body? Your argument is scientifically flawed. If the unborn child is just a part of the mother's body then why does the unborn child have a completely different genetic code? Every cell in the human body contains the genetic code for the entire body. Since the baby's genetic code is ALWAYS different from the mothers, it's obvious that the baby is a completely separate individual. Why does the unborn child have a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it's own immune system. Why is it MALE about half the time. Your kidney is unlike an unborn child in ALL of these areas. I'm glad you have based your argument simply out of being misinformed.

To suggest that the unborn child is not like other individuals because it's dependent on another is still true... after the baby is born.

And don't believe I am unaware of what a person is? You're the one that seems to have the problems there. I know that there is no difference between a human and a person. And I don't go around calling all of my individual organs in my body separate humans. Of course if you would like to actually answer the question and let us know what the difference is between a human and a person I would like to know that. If your answer is simply what you have provided about the unborn being no different than your kidney, then thanks for playing.

So your basing your entire argument on the fact that an unborn child is no different than an organ within the body?

No genius, that was an illustration of why "life" is not the determining criteria in whether or not something has a right to life.

Would you care to address anything I actually said there or just continue your rant?

Your argument is scientifically flawed. If the unborn child is just a part of the mother's body then why does the unborn child have a completely different genetic code?

Are you looking for a birds and the bees talk?

Every cell in the human body contains the genetic code for the entire body.

So?

Since the baby's genetic code is ALWAYS different from the mothers, it's obvious that the baby is a completely separate individual.

It's not an individual until it posesses it's own individual identity, which requires AT LEAST self awareness. The grass on my front lawn has different DNA than I do too, that doesn't make it an individual anymore than it possessing life does.

Why does the unborn child have a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has it's own immune system. Why is it MALE about half the time.

Have you ever taken a biology class?

Your kidney is unlike an unborn child in ALL of these areas. I'm glad you have based your argument simply out of being misinformed.

Don't let the fact that you didn't even remotely understand the argument slow you down...

And don't believe I am unaware of what a person is? You're the one that seems to have the problems there. I know that there is no difference between a human and a person. And I don't go around calling all of my individual organs in my body separate humans.

Good for you. So why are you making arguments that would require you to do so if you were to be logically consistent?

Of course if you would like to actually answer the question and let us know what the difference is between a human and a person I would like to know that.

Can you read? Here, I'll copy and paste it right out of the post you just finished quoting:

There isn't one. By the time something is a human it is a person.

ooc: Dorksonia, by your definitions, my /dog/ is a person. That's hardly accurate.

ooc: Dorksonia, by your definitions, my /dog/ is a person. That's hardly accurate.

Sorry. A dog is not a human.

Um....yeah, because everyone who voted against a resolution that (amongst other things) legalized pot in all member nations were voting that drug trafficking "was not an issue meriting International action"

Please, give our intelligence a little more credit than that.I meant that nations banning recreational drugs "was not an issue meriting international attention." But then again, you already knew that. Tear down that strawman, please; it's obstructing my view of the Thessadorian ambassador's prime assets.

Sorry. A dog is not a human.

Then perhaps you should give at least some thought to your defining criteria.

Reformentia,

I have never made the case in this discussion that just because something is alive it deserves our protection. I was assuming this thread was about human abortion. If one of us misunderstood and this proposal includes abortions of animals and such too, please somebody clarify this for us. I believe that humans have rights. I do not believe that animals have rights. But that is a completely different discussion.

You did state "By the time something is a human it is a person." I'm glad you said that. The unborn child at the time of conception meets the definition of human.

Also, could we just stick to trying to understand each other, asking questions, and responding to arguments instead of you trying to belittle me because of what I say? You have a right to disagree with me. If you want to call me names I won't be so inclined to discuss things with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorksonia
Sorry. A dog is not a human.


Then perhaps you should give at least some thought to your defining criteria.

I only asked A QUESTION. I wasn't the one trying to define the terms. You were and I was asking you to explain the difference. You did above and I addressed that already. I believe you still implied that each of your body organs are separate humans. I disagree with that. Please clarify if you disagree with your own statement or my understanding of it.

I believe I only stated that I believed there was no difference between a human and a person. Could you please explain to me how that could possibly mean a dog could be human?

[OOC] I'd suggest that all abortion supporters here read this link: Link (http://www.christiananswers.net/life/home.html)

[back in character] The unborn entity within the pregnant woman's body is not part of her body. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code. Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her.

To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, and two noses!

The unborn child at the time of conception does NOT mean the definition of human. It meets the definition of "two cells". Human beings are sentient; that is one of the requirements of BEING human. There are 1,100,000,000,000 cells in the brain. The brain is required to think. Thinking is required to be sentient. Sentience is required to be human.

A just-concieved child has two cells in its entire "body". Not just in the brain. Its ENTIRE BODY.

Ergo, it is not human.

Shall we discuss how many cells my dog's brain has?


Lord-Governor Matthieu Tertulien
Ambassador to the UN
Republic of Schartlefritzen



Hannibal, no one is FOR abortion. Don't be sick. People are FOR the right to CHOOSE whether to have an abortion.

Reformentia,

I have never made the case in this discussion that just because something is alive it deserves our protection. I was assuming this thread was about human abortion. If one of us misunderstood and this proposal includes abortions of animals and such too, please somebody clarify this for us. I believe that humans have rights. I do not believe that animals have rights. But that is a completely different discussion.

Not entirely, because you have to establish what it is that differentiates humans from animals in that regard. What is it that sets humans apart from animals in a manner that entitles them to the rights they possess above and beyond those of animals?

As I was trying to point out to you, life does not do so. Humans and animals both possess it so obviously life does not confer right to life. So it doesn't matter when "life begins".

You did state "By the time something is a human it is a person." I'm glad you said that. The unborn child at the time of conception meets the definition of human.

It does indeed meet the definition of human at that time. So does my toenail. It does not meet the definition of a human... an individual person. Self awareness is one absolute minimum requirement for that classification.