NationStates Jolt Archive

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?


A dog's DNA is different from human DNA. At conception all human chromosomes are present distinguishing the unborn child at this stage as uniquely human as opposed to a dog, guppie, or oak tree for that matter.

I'm relatively certain my dog is more self-aware than a new fetus.


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?


Stop belittling my dog, it's smarter than the subject of the argument.

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

Oh, you mean this part?



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



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.


My apologies. I read his post as translating that he was opposed to the government choosing whether or not they were allowed to have the abortion, rendering it a position of individual sovereignty. I now understand that I misunderstood. Once again accept my respectful surrender to this point.

On the point of civility, however. If one does not wish insults to be thrown at them, they should not throw insults around themselves. To mildly paraphrase, "these stupid mind-games" or something to that effect.

But I digress. I can respect Reformentia's position in support of making Abortion a universal right. Even here in Kivisto, where civil rights of any kind are few and far between (and growing fewer by the day) abortions are commonly accepted by the general public. Not everyone agrees, but such is life.

I will endeavor to more carefully analyze what I am responding to before I respond in the future.

Oskar Feldstein

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.

I'm sorry but I cannot let you argue that a toenail is a separate human. Your toenail contains all the genetic information that is you. An unborn child inside a mother contains DIFFERENT genetic information from the mother. And in the entirety of human history I'm not aware of a woman getting pregnant and having an in utero dog, oak tree, or guppie. We know that when a woman is pregnant she has a human baby.

Your argument fails because an unborn child is a completely separate individual from the mother. No other toenail, kidney, or other organ in the body is a separate individual from the mother or you - but a part of you.

To all of you who insist on turning this into a debate on what life is, whether a fetus is a human being, and whether abortion is right or wrong:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares2.jpg

It is a separate ORGANISM, not a separate INDIVIDUAL, because it is not an individual at all, as explained in my previous argument.

I'm not enormously concerned. I'm fairly certain either this or the next resolution will pass(I'd actually prefer the latter; so much more affirmative), and if neither does, I'll discuss with my region the possibility of proposing one ourselves.

But one or another WILL happen, I assure you. Schartlefritzen will NOT remain in a UN that condones forcing women to have unwanted children.

Better no life than a life lived in neglect.

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

ooc: And with that, I shall leave for the day.

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.


Cut and paste above apology.

OOC: limited time and not enough to write new sorry note.

I'm sorry but I cannot let you argue that a toenail is a separate human. Your toenail contains all the genetic information that is you. An unborn child inside a mother contains DIFFERENT genetic information from the mother. And in the entirety of human history I'm not aware of a woman getting pregnant and having an in utero dog, oak tree, or guppie. We know that when a woman is pregnant she has a human baby.

Your argument fails because an unborn child is a completely separate individual from the mother. No other toenail, kidney, or other organ in the body is a separate individual from the mother or you - but a part of you.

Exactly. Totally agreed. I assume the people of Dorksonia are against abortions in all cases? We are with you then. ;)

To all of you who insist on turning this into a debate on what life is, whether a fetus is a human being, and whether abortion is right or wrong:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares2.jpg

I believe we have gotten on a bit of a tangent here.

It's obvious we disagree about human life. The purpose of the discussion was a disagreement over rights of an unborn child vs. rights of a mother to kill her unborn child. I admit I knew full well there would never be agreement on this. That is, of course, one of the reasons to support the current proposal.

I'm gone for the day as well. Happy Friday everyone!

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?

I would be careful with the genetic argument. You might be surprised at where the argument might wind up in the end. From the moment of implantation, the mother has taken the first step on the road of the chimmera, a being with multiple sets of DNA codes. (Let's forget for a moment that the RNDA of fetus and mother is identical.) Fetal cells will pass from the fetus to the mother and remain in the mother for decades. In cases of damage, infection or in cases of cancer, these fetal tissue function as stem cells forming and repairing damaged tissue in the mother.

Chimmeral effects of fetal absorption are also more common than previously thought. Two feti can merge forming a single fetus with two sets of compatible DNA code systems.

The difference between the fetal cells that cross the membrane and those that don't is that the former will remain with the mother and forever assist the mother. The latter form an independant and thinking being that eventally goes off on its own - hopefully remembering to send a card on mother's day.

I'm sorry but I cannot let you argue that a toenail is a separate human.

<Deep breath... count to 10... 1... 2...>

...

I specifically said that the toenail, much like the just-conceived fetus, is NOT a human. It is human (it sure as hell isn't feline, or reptile), it is not A human. Neither of them is.

Your toenail contains all the genetic information that is you. An unborn child inside a mother contains DIFFERENT genetic information from the mother.

Grass contains different genetic information than you or I do as well. Possessing unique DNA does not make something A human. A person. Try again.

And in the entirety of human history I'm not aware of a woman getting pregnant and having an in utero dog, oak tree, or guppie. We know that when a woman is pregnant she has a human baby.

When she (assuming she does) successfully gives birth, yes. She will have a human baby. You are invoking time travel however, by the time we are talking about a situation involving a birth we are WAY past the time when we are talking about a just conceived embryo or a newly formed fetus, and they have significantly different characteristics. I am not, nor have I ever, denied that a baby is a person.

Your argument fails because an unborn child is a completely separate individual from the mother.

1. There is no such thing as an unborn child. That's like referring to an unmarried husband. You can do it if you want, but it makes no logical sense.

2. The fetus is NOT an individual until it develops an individual identity. Self awareness is an absolute requirement for this to occur.

Let's try this. Consider a hypothetical 30 year old patient. This patient has suffered such severe head trauma that their brain has completely shut down. Total brain death. But the rest of the body is being kept alive by some extensive life support apparatus.

Is the body a person? It possesses it's own unique human DNA. It's alive. It is FAR more fully developped than any just conceived fetus. But in what possible meaningful manner could you refer to it as being a person?

Quite frankly, you can't. The person no longer exists. Only the body it was inhabitting remains. And that body has no rights. At all. It doesn't have a right to vote. It doesn't have a right to free expression. It doesn't have a right to have it's life support indefinitely maintained. Because there's NO PERSON there to confer those rights upon.

Posessing it's own unique human DNA is irrelevent. It being alive is irrelevent. Without the thought processes that establish personhood there is no person to consider and thus nothing to confer the rights of a person upon.

Regardless of the abortion morality fight, there is something that needs to be adressed and it hasn't been. The UN resolution "Repeal Abortion Rights" ALREADY makes the abortion issue a nation issue instead of a UN issue. Therefore, this legislation is REDUNDANT and USELESS And you should vote against it because even if it passes it WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

Chadwellgrad

*snip*Look, just knock it off. The humanity of the fetus is not at issue here.

Debates on what is or isn't a human is not the point of this thread.

Please don't make it the first Official Topic to be locked because of terminal topic hijacking.

This isn't General, you're supposed to be discussing law, not rhetorical philosophy. If you can't separate your personal views of this issue from the in character nature of this debate, then stop posting.

I repeat: this is not the real world; this is an in character issue.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Look, just knock it off. The humanity of the fetus is not at issue here.

I have a terrible urge to say, "Oh the humanity of it all!" right now.

Regardless of the abortion morality fight, there is something that needs to be adressed and it hasn't been. The UN resolution "Repeal Abortion Rights" ALREADY makes the abortion issue a nation issue instead of a UN issue. Therefore, this legislation is REDUNDANT and USELESS And you should vote against it because even if it passes it WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

ChadwellgradRepeals are not laws. They only strike out previous laws.

Debates on what is or isn't a human is not the point of this thread.

Establishing whether or not something is a person qualifying for human rights would appear to be not just relevent, but central to a human rights debate.

Please don't make it the first Official Topic to be locked because of terminal topic hijacking.

This isn't General, you're supposed to be discussing law, not rhetorical philosophy.

The last time I checked the determination of personhood and the conferal of rights upon such was very much a legal issue, not just a philosophical one. I'm a little confused how we're supposed to debate the legal merits of abortion being legalized or not if we're not allowed to address points central to that debate. Could you elaborate on how we are supposed to address the issue?

Yammering about toenails and dog's brains is certainly how not to discuss it.

Yammering about toenails and dog's brains is certainly how not to discuss it.

Those examples were being used to illustrate valid (and very much NOT valid) legal criteria for conferring personhood, and thus the rights associated with it, upon something. If we're not allowed to do that then I repeat my question. How are we supposed to debate the legal merits of a human rights issue without being permitted to address whether those legal rights are or are not justifiably conferred upon the object of the abortion?

Hack:

Since the core of the debate is (predictably) between whether abortion should be decided by nations or a position should be mandated by the UN (and, obviously, it would be the pro-choice position in the NSUN....), I fail to see how the morality of abortion is irrelevant to the debate. If you are using that as your argument of why it should be mandated or if you're trying to use it to prove the diversity of the situation and claim that as justification of leaving it at the national level, then the morality of the matter is a sub-debate of the real issue.

Arguments about whether a fetus is more or less human than a toenail might hold some relevance in the debate for the next proposal, because there the UN is taking an issue on abortion. Here it isn't. We are not telling member nations whether they should legalize, restrict or outlaw abortions; we are telling them the decision is theirs. Now, does discussing the DNA patterns in pubic hair help any when debating whether the UN should delegate abortion authority to member states? I would say not.

Of course, no one cares about what I might think is relevant to a discussion about this resolution; I only submitted the damn thing. :rolleyes:

Arguments about whether a fetus is more or less human than a toenail might hold some relevance in the debate for the next proposal, because there the UN is taking an issue on abortion. Here it isn't.

Yes it is. It is taking the position that it is NOT a human right deserving of international protection, and thus should not be afforded that protection against being illegalized by member nations. It is in fact protecting the rights of nations to make it illegal.

That's a position. And the debate over whether right to life can be justifiably legally conferred on a fetus is very much germane to the validity of that position, since that is the SINGLE overriding argument in favor of it being made illegal rather than being a fundamental human right in the first place.

Arguments about whether a fetus is more or less human than a toenail might hold some relevance in the debate for the next proposal, because there the UN is taking an issue on abortion. Here it isn't. We are not telling member nations whether they should legalize, restrict or outlaw abortions; we are telling them the decision is theirs. Now, does discussing the DNA patterns in pubic hair help any when debating whether the UN should delegate abortion authority to member states? I would say not.

Of course, no one cares about what I might think is relevant to a discussion about this resolution; I only submitted the damn thing. :rolleyes:

Just because you think it's irrelevant doesn't mean that others don't use it as their reason for voting, nor that this reasoning won't convince other members to change their vote (even if I can't convince person A, person B who's reading it might see the logic of my argument and change his vote based upon that).

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.

I agree a woman should if she needs an abortion be able to get one some place without fear for her life. Also that banning it will not stop them from going some place getting one. In real life I had a gal knew went to live with her aunt one day. Years later learned she died from an abortion and the family used that "Aunt" story to cover this up.

While we debate the issue we just bring it to the spotlight and the radicals get fired up and will start causing trouble for those who don't agree with their stand on the issue. Thus leave it at the national level as that is closer to the individual or family level than the full UN would be. Many nations here already have abortion clinics in place as well as an education system that procudes the courses needed to prevent the need for abortions as well as courses that teach doctors how to do them properly. Thus more lives are saved this way than to take it back to a 'coat hanger' in some back room.. by some wanta be quack only in it for the fast bucks..

I've voted to support this one as fully believe each nation having right to decide what they want to do about abortion is taking it closer to what the individuals might want than what the UN wants.. or will impose on all individuals.

As how many citizens of any nation have a vote to say how their nation will vote on an issue in the UN. Even in the real world have you ever had an issue on your election ballot that lets you vote on something before the UN?

Yes it is. It is taking the position that it is NOT a human right deserving of international protection, and thus should not be afforded that protection against being illegalized by member nations. It is in fact protecting the rights of nations to make it illegal.Arguments as to whether nations should have the sole authority over abortion law are relevant; however, arguments as to whether nations should legalize abortion are an entirely different matter. If Dorksonia wants to outlaw abortions, it matters not. If Reformentia wants to keep them legal, it matters not. If FL wants to abort only blonde babies and leave the brunettes untouched, it matters not. None of you would be in violation of this resolution. So how is it relevant?

The issue here is national rights vs. the rights of the UN (or, as many of you insist, the rights of the individual), not women's rights vs. the rights of the fetus. Please, just leave it be.

Arguments as to whether nations should have the sole authority over abortion law are relevant; however, arguments as to whether nations should legalize abortion are an entirely different matter. If Dorksonia wants to outlaw abortions, it matters not. If Reformentia wants to keep them legal, it matters not.

If Reformentia considers them fundamental human rights deserving of universal international protection, it matters quite a bit as the passage of this resolution would undermine that position. If Reformentia considers the arguments against that position to be logically baseless, that matters quite a bit too.

Which is what is being argued.

SHAZBOTDOM OFFICIAL STAMP OF APPROVAL

Since the core of the debate is (predictably) between whether abortion should be decided by nations or a position should be mandated by the UN (and, obviously, it would be the pro-choice position in the NSUN....), I fail to see how the morality of abortion is irrelevant to the debate.Questions of jurisdiction have nothing to do with morality of abortion. Things were going fine for quite awhile until some posters lost track of what this thread is about.

Personhood is irrelevent. DNA is irrelevent. Toenails are certainly irrelevent.

Sovereignty is relevent. Jurisdiction is relevent. Oddly enough, the possible falsification of a CDC study is somewhat relevent.

Read your own statement again. You start talking about jurisdiction and switch to morality, and claim that you don't understand the difference between the two? Come on now, this isn't that complicated.

You don't think the morality of the issue is going to decide some people's votes? There are people out there who could be reminded that if they believe fully in a right, they aren't going to just stop at a surrender and say "fine, do what you want, at least I'll have it right here". If Darksonia keeps going on about the rights of the fetus, there are going to be members who go "oh wait, I don't want to give him the right to outlaw abortions". If Reformentia keeps going on about how a cluster of cells is not a human being, there are going to be people that go "That murderer needs to be stopped!" Or we could have the complete reverse where people are going "I don't want to have this guy deciding my laws" and vote for the proposal. There is a logical path of the arguments deciding a nation's vote and I think that makes those arguments relevant.

Repeals are not laws. They only strike out previous laws.

Ok, ok. Fair enough. The "Repeal Abortion Rights" legislation doesn't "Mandate" or "declare" that abortion be a matter of national sovereignty. But it "recognizes" and "acknowledges" that by repealing the law abortion becomes a matter of national sovereignty. SO if there are no UN laws left that require UN nations to allow or disallow abortion rights, doesn't it HAVE to be a matter of national sovereignty? YES. This legislation is useless!

USELESS! :headbang:

Nations already get to choose whether or not they want abortion rights.

There are two rights at play here. The right to take a ward's life. And the right to decide what you carry in your womb. The first one is not a right that civil society can give - it is not in the best interest of the child to take its life and guardians are supposed to act in the best interest of the child.

The second however is a legitimate right. Separating these two rights would make things simple - now it is just a question of giving up guardianship and letting someone transfer the child out of the womb. If that is not medically possible, then, those who care can compensate the mother for lost income so she may continue to keep the child until its born.

If no one cares to compensate the mother, then it is not a problem anyway. Of course, typically, this would result in organizations forming up, like the Missionaries of Charity, to care for unwanted children.

A non-coercive solution, thus exists.

The Kingdom of Greater Valmiera votes against this bill

The Kingdom of Greater Valmiera votes against this bill

Ok. We don't.

Ok, ok. Fair enough. The "Repeal Abortion Rights" legislation doesn't "Mandate" or "declare" that abortion be a matter of national sovereignty. But it "recognizes" and "acknowledges" that by repealing the law abortion becomes a matter of national sovereignty. SO if there are no UN laws left that require UN nations to allow or disallow abortion rights, doesn't it HAVE to be a matter of national sovereignty? YES. This legislation is useless!

USELESS! :headbang:

Nations already get to choose whether or not they want abortion rights.If this resolution doesn't pass, this (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=clinical) one might, and national sovereignty on abortion rights will be finished. This proposal is not useless; the whole point of it is to prevent the pro-choicers from forcing their will on this body. Get it now?

There is a logical path of the arguments deciding a nation's vote and I think that makes those arguments relevant.What you call a "logical path of arguments" I call an "extraneous tangent." Just like I would call the continuing discussion as to whether the irrelevancy or the irrelevancy is irrelevant. Neither tangent is contributing anything to this debate. And the thread-starter is kindly asking that you knock it off. So knock it off.

Abortion has already been dealt with. Defeat this proposal because it's useless.

Yes, he did, so my statement stands:

Give me the post number where he actually said that, because in the line you quoted he clearly did not say it.

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

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.

Here's what I don't get. When we say "how can nations be better suited to make this decision than the people", you guys say "the nations are closer to the people to make this decision". How can a nation be closer to the person to make the decision for that person then that person herself?

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

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.

Why is it that the majority can enforce a position on minorities from a governmental position to an individual position, but you all go "THOUGH MUST PAY FOR THY EVIL DEEDS" when the UN allows those minorities to have their rights because they infringe upon a "minority" of individuals?

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

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

I will not stand idly by while a group of people legislate the right of nations to do whatever horrors they wish to their citizens. I will not stand idly by while the right of abortion is tromped upon. I will not vote for this proposal. I do not like NatSov and ham, I do not like it, Sam I am.

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

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 don't give a hoot whether a consensus exists or not. There isn't a bloody consensus on the laws of physics either. Nor (more relevant) is there a consensus on free trade, whether to push for better economy or not, whether nuclear weapons are bad or good, whether there is a such thing as "necessary for defense", whether chemical weapons are WMDs, whether heroine makes you happy, whether gambling makes you rich, whether dolphins are protected, whether they should be protected, whether whales should be protected, whether "Promote Solar Panels" was the worst resolution of all time, or whether Gruenberg is insane. Remember DLE? She was the one that kept saying the only right a person had was the right to die. So obviously we can't get consensus on the right to life. If you're waiting for a consensus on any issue before you legislate, you're going to have to start brainwashing every member of the UN before you can pass ANY legislation.

That is one heck of a bullshit excuse

PS: we couldn't even get more than 40% of the membership to agree that hippos are big.

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


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.

No, it's called "Civil Rights". Anarchy is the extreme form of individual sovereignty. It's like calling a liberal a commie because he authorized a 1% tax increase to cover inflation

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.

I stopped believing that human referred to "humans" when I realized that we have a couple hundred billion sentient non-humans amongst our membership that sure as heck deserve rights. So in that case, I do indeed consider it to be "person rights", but it just doesn't have the same ring as "human rights". So there we go, when I speak of human rights, I'm talking of person rights and I don't give a damn whether it's human or not, it's whether it's a person or not that matters.

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.

OOC: You're confusing gameplay and roleplay issues. The text of the resolution is 100% roleplay. The daily issues are 100% gameplay. Why? Because we can't enforce the "you must follow UN resolutions" in the gameplay realm thanks to those bloody issues.

IC: Congratulations, you have proven your bountiful ignorance. Yesterday I was legislating on whether the squirrel should be placed on the local endangered animal listing thus stopping the night time snack favorites of Forgottenlandians everywhere. I'm also having to address a rampant problem with Zerg eating farmer's crops from neighboring Angel Fire - despite the fact that the Prime Minister of Angel Fire and the Angel Fire Zerg Master have assured me multiple times that Zerg do not eat crops. I have 20 terrorist cells from the Nolak Clans moving through my region with nerve gas bombs attached to their backs. And you're telling me that bringing the matter of abortion, prostitution and euthanasia to the UN level means I might as well hand the reigns of my nation over to the UN? You are clearly delusional over the complexity of your job.

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.

You know what, if this resolution passes, I wouldn't be able to help the troubled mothers in non-UN member nations AND I wouldn't be helping the mothers in member nations. So......your point?

All of a sudden, my beliefs seem to be the lesser of two evils.

Oh wait, that was just deja vu.

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

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.

I await gleefully

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.

Do you not believe in the UN Gnomes, or is this an extension of the point Gruen brought up on UNOG?

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

his 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.

I PROUDLY make that gamble. I will not surrender until this right is enshrined in the UN. If I go through a period where abortion is illegal in my nation, so be it. I will still fight for it and I will not have given up on my beliefs. I will not surrender.

You cannot be a true activist until you fight while being beaten down into the mud and clinging onto your beliefs.

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

I'm getting tired, so last post to address.

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.

I'd suggest distancing yourself from the destructive incarnations of the belief and show the positive version that you bring forth. It might be a bit more productive to your movement - and might polarize them so that they actually start making good arguments rather than easy to kill ones

Yet again, looking to increase the quality of the UN.....

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.

Where did I say anything beyond I would fight for this right (with obvious meaning that I will fight for this to be a right in the cases where it isn't)? And don't try to throw that back in my face. They aren't saying they're fighting for the right. They're saying it is one. And yes, I know, some of my colleagues are equally guilty of saying it is already a right.

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

*adds to to-do list

You know it's going to be a bad day when you wake up bitching about your alarm clock being set on a saturday and then realize it's actually friday. I'm just in no condition to backtrack right now.

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.

I know we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one just due to the very nature of our beliefs, but personhood I think is absolutely something that should be handled at the International level - not because of abortion, but actually issues of things like....slavery, racism, etc. Shit, sitting back thinking through this argument made me cry.

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.

Your claim that most nations don't want to have their sovereignty infringed upon or whatever (I can't remember the exact wording....)

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

Why?

The rest I've already hit.

Time to collapse for a nap.

Abortion has already been dealt with. Defeat this proposal because it's useless.

What? Where? Are you talking about the repeal of "Abortion Rights" that..you know...can't initiate any new laws...only remove the old one? So, technically, abortion is as un-dealt with as possible.

Abortion has already been dealt with. Defeat this proposal because it's useless.
The repeal of the resolution that gave a woman the right to an abortion opened the door for anyone to come along and submit a new proposal. This one simply says let it rest as it a matter for individual nations to decide not the NSUN.

Without it any group with the support can push their own agenda on abortion through the UN and all will have to follow it once it becomes a resolution. Thus depending on who is first with the most; we can either get
1) total ban on abortion or
2) all nations be required to do them or
3) might even get one middle of road..

Either way here it is giving members a chance to say we want to deal with this on our own terms.. not let others decide the issue for us.

The repeal of the resolution that gave a woman the right to an abortion opened the door for anyone to come along and submit a new proposal. This one simply says let it rest as it a matter for individual nations to decide not the NSUN.

Without it any group with the support can push their own agenda on abortion through the UN and all will have to follow it once it becomes a resolution. Thus depending on who is first with the most; we can either get
1) total ban on abortion or
2) all nations be required to do them or
3) might even get one middle of road..

Either way here it is giving members a chance to say we want to deal with this on our own terms.. not let others decide the issue for us.

Note that "us" is not the women who have to decide whether they want to have an abortion or not. "Us" means the national leaders who desire the right to prosecute and punish women for doing something which is not established to be wrong, does not harm the society in any way, and should never be within the power of national governments. I do not wish to be in the middle of that particular road.

The whole basis for this resolution is that the abortion issue does not belong in the international stage. Ironically, the best argument against the resolution is that the abortion issue does not belong at the government level either. It is a personal decision, based on personal moral values, and should not be restricted by any political entity.

Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on individuals who do not share them! Defeat the Unfair Despotism!

does not harm the society in any way

Except for...you know...the murder of innocent unborn children through completely barbaric practices and never even giving them the slightest chance at their right to life. But who cares!! Women's rights to choose baby!

Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on individuals who do not share them! Defeat the Unfair Despotism!

Thus rendering every single resolution to be just as unfair.

What? Where? Are you talking about the repeal of "Abortion Rights" that..you know...can't initiate any new laws...only remove the old one? So, technically, abortion is as un-dealt with as possible.


WE KNOW THAT. But just because this law passes will mean NOTHING. It ALSO won't keep the other resolutions from the floor. It WILL REMAIN THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL NATIONS TO DECIDE ON ABORTION REGARDLESS OF IF THIS PASSES:headbang: . Instead of looking at it like it is protecting sovereignty, look at it as something meaningless that just creates a tedious hurdle to jump once someone does have the backing to pass the law. And if someone does have the backing to pass an anti-abortion or pro-abortion laws they will just repeal this one. If you are against pro choice or pro life laws being pushed on you, then you can VOTE AGAINST THOSE LAWS WHEN THEY APPEAR. And in the end this law will continue to be useless.

USELESS :headbang:

It ALSO won't keep the other resolutions from the floor.

Yes it will. If this passes, Clinical Abortion Rights will be removed. As you said, this is protecting soverignty, which is a good thing if a consensus can't really be reached.

Except for...you know...the murder of innocent unborn children through completely barbaric practices and never even giving them the slightest chance at their right to life. But who cares!! Women's rights to choose baby!

1. If you think abortion is murder, then you should have some spine and vote against this text. It is, in your view, a blatant infringement of human rights to allow the barbaric practice to continue. You have been known to defend the view that human rights trump sovereignty in the past.

2. If you think that your opinion is just your opinion, and that others should be allowed to hold the opposite view, then every nation should allow every citizen the freedom to make their choices according to their own moral values, rather than those imposed by a national government. The only logical consequence of freedom of opinion is freedom of choice.

In either case, the only option consistent with your views is voting against. Your position in this debate is not logical, unless you are so scared of the next proposal in line that you stopped giving a damn about the "poor unborn babies who feel unbearable pain when savagely slaughtered by the wicked," also known as fetuses for those who prefer to avoid cheap appeals to emotion. Enough for you to throw your concept of human rights out of the window.

Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on individuals who do not share them! Defeat the Unfair Despotism!

1. If you think abortion is murder, then you should have some spine and vote against this text. It is, in your view, a blatant infringement of human rights to allow the barbaric practice to continue.

We do think its a form of murder. BUT since we're not the UN, we dont have the power to impose this value on others. So we'll vote for the proposal that allows us the ability to defend our own values in our own borders.

You have been known to defend the view that human rights trump sovereignty in the past.

True, but we draw the line at....murder.

We do think its a form of murder. BUT since we're not the UN, we dont have the power to impose this value on others. So we'll vote for the proposal that allows us the ability to defend our own values in our own borders.

True, but we draw the line at....murder.

And yet again you demonstrate the glaring lack of coherence of your stance. You believe that abortion is murder. You believe that murder violates the basic human right to life. You believe that the UN should legislate to protect basic human rights. And yet, you defend a resolution that allows nations to legalise the "murder" of innocent fetuses without consequence.

And better yet, you defend your position by saying that you are not the UN, so you cannot impose your values on others. You have imposed your values on others time and again, in protection of what you believe to be fundamental human rights, even though you have never been the UN. You have more than once cast your vote, offered your support, and even authored human rights resolutions.

I repeat: your position is spineless. You vote out of fear. You are willing to sacrifice what you believe are fundamental human rights for the sake of petty circumstancial tactics. As such, you bring shame on noble goals this assembly should represent.

Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on individuals who do not share them! Defeat the Unfair Despotism!

100% for guys and gals. this safeguards a nations right to allow a medical procedure, not just disallow. pro-choice, if not on a personal level then on a national level.

Torokara, Krioval - After several days of lengthy debate, the Senate of Krioval, by a 174-126 margin, strongly encouraged the city-state of Neo Tyros to immediately oppose "Abortion Legality Convention" on grounds that it would allow many nations to begin oppressing impoverished women. Especially vocal on the issue were Senators Kara Tyvok, who compared the measure to "punishing women for their basic biology" and Christine Barro, who insinuated that many of the conservative male-dominated governments were trying to turn the clock on women's rights, "to get them back in the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, and forced to become a baby mill for the state". Opposed were staunch sovereigntists David Andros and Anthony Selekar, both of whom indicated that it was an individual government's right to police its citizenry.

Debate temporarily flared up when Chief Paladin Serph, who holds an honorary senatorship but lacks a vote, indicated that many of the sovereigntists were "conveniently opposed to abortion". At one point, the sergeant-at-arms was called in to physically separate the Chief Paladin from Senator Selekar, the latter of whom called Serph a "baby killer and purveyor of smut" due to his "sinful lifestyle". Serph was not without biting commentary of his own, accusing the Catholic Selekar of "obstructing the natural order", "impeding science", and "attempting to legislate morality in direct opposition to the mandate of the Senate".

It remains to be seen how Krioval's position will affect the larger debate on this issue, and to what degree.

~ Johan Kelos, Krioval News Tonight

This resolution doesn't say anything. why do you people keep putting us through this garbage.....

The resolution says many things to me.

Firstly: I hate hAtE HaTe HATE, with a passon this resolution. The situation reminds me too much of the debate on slavery in the United States before the start of the Civil War. States were left with the decision to allow or disallow enslavement of such persons, yet the issue was still not decided. The Civil War had more casualties than any war in US history. The only positive happenings of the Civil War were the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution (Banning of slavery, Equal Protection, and Black Men vote).

THE POINT IS: We should strike down the ALC and make a proposal that is an end-all to completely decide on the issue. By allowing Nations to decide is not solving a problem, it is just ignoring it.

And my last thing to say is that considering most of the nations in the world are not under UN control, it is important that we stand as a whole in support or in definace of abortions in order to remain a strong influence and THATS IT lol

I maintain that this legislation is useless. The abortion legislation next in line has some 300+ delegates approval for queue, which probably says alot for its strength when it comes to be voted on.

In the end, if one side or the other of this argument manages to gain enough leverage on their side of the argument, they will only have to spend a week tearing through this useless peice of legislation before they go ahead and vote on the legislation to legalize/illegalize.

This resolution isn't really doing anything. As long as we continue to defeat bills that choose for us one way or the other, the nations will have sovereignty over the issue... We are just setting ourselves up to repeal this stupid legislation later. Mark my words, its just gonna be taken back in the future and replaced with something else. Its a waste of time. All our time.

This is the absolutely worst resolution i have read so far. There are already issues that go around saying people should be allowed, people shouldn't be allowed. If this passing, it does nothing, as governments "have the choice", though all that will happen is that we all get a telegram SAYING we have the choice, leaving the issue going around unhindered. If this fails, then the issue is STILL there and governments will have the choice. There is no point in voting, as nothing will happen.

On these grounds i am NOT voting, and i think it would be good if EVERYONE withdrew their votes, for or against. Besides, it would be funny:)

The resolution says many things to me.

Firstly: I hate hAtE HaTe HATE, with a passon this resolution. The situation reminds me too much of the debate on slavery in the United States before the start of the Civil War. States were left with the decision to allow or disallow enslavement of such persons, yet the issue was still not decided. The Civil War had more casualties than any war in US history. The only positive happenings of the Civil War were the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution (Banning of slavery, Equal Protection, and Black Men vote).

THE POINT IS: We should strike down the ALC and make a proposal that is an end-all to completely decide on the issue. By allowing Nations to decide is not solving a problem, it is just ignoring it.

THANK YOU!

You put it in a way I hadn't even thought of. Thank you so much!

Firstly: I hate hAtE HaTe HATE, with a passon this resolution. The situation reminds me too much of the debate on slavery in the United States before the start of the Civil War. States were left with the decision to allow or disallow enslavement of such persons, yet the issue was still not decided. The Civil War had more casualties than any war in US history. The only positive happenings of the Civil War were the passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution (Banning of slavery, Equal Protection, and Black Men vote).An astute observation, and an eerily pertinent parallel, except for a few small things: The NS United Nations is not the RL United States; member states are sovereign (barring UN limitations on said sovereignty) and not bound together by a federal covenant; this is 2006 (depending on which nation you live in), not 1854; UN member states are not on the verge of war over the fate of a stupid abortion resolution; a common medical procedure does not in the slightest compare with the institutional enslavement of an entire race of human beings; and opponents of abortion are not akin to defenders of slavery.

Barring those minor insignificant flaws, your logic is perfectly sound. [OOC: Though I am mildly impressed at your ability to stay awake during Freshman History class.]

And rest assured, though slavery did trigger the most damaging and costly war in RL U.S. history, we will not go to war over abortion (assuming our orders do not change). In any case, we certainly would not cause a monumental global catastrophe by attacking a mighty empire that could retaliate with full force; we only invade insolent little pissants like yourselves whom we can use as scapegoats to distract the public from the real problems at home their own negligent government has caused by not doing its fucking job and consigning its citizenry to pseudo-anarchy.

Wait. Did I just say that out loud? ... Oh, fuck all. Commander?

[The sultry, paramilitary vixens seated behind Ambassador Riley instantly stand to attention in their tight-fitting uniforms, poised to seize the Marvolo-Riddlian envoy.]

Rest assured, Ambassador, the fact that your nation is the namesake of a fictitious magical Dark Lord does not scare us in the least. ...

What say you now?

And rest assured, though slavery did trigger the most damaging and costly war in RL U.S. history, we will not go to war over abortion (assuming our orders do not change). In any case, we certainly would not cause a monumental global catastrophe by attacking a mighty empire that could retaliate with full force; we only invade insolent little pissants like yourselves whom we can use as scapegoats to distract the public from the real problems at home their own negligent government has caused by not doing its fucking job and consigning its citizenry to a testy pseudo-anarchy.

Is it not the height of irony that those nations worried so greatly about the state of fetuses are those most willing to commit atrocities on the field of battle? Are individual lives suddenly of less importance once they have been born? Any such belief is uncivilized.

The government of Krioval finds that this resolution is little more than a cover for barbarians to pretend to be part of enlightened society. I happen to concur with that assessment.

Yoshi Takahara
Director of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Krioval

Is it not the height of irony that those nations worried so greatly about the state of fetuses are those most willing to commit atrocities on the field of battle?Erm, when did we ever voice our concern over the "state of fetuses"? Denying nations their natural authority to rule their own societies, free of UN interference, has been our only issue here [EDIT: in fact, we have criticized nations who would transform this discussion into a homily on the humanity of the fetus]; that pretty much negates the remainder of your argument, unless we are very much mistaken.

An astute observation, and an eerily pertinent parallel, except for a few small things: The NS United Nations is not the RL United States; member states are sovereign (barring UN limitations on said sovereignty) and not bound together by a federal covenant; this is 2006 (depending on which nation you live in), not 1854; UN member states are not on the verge of war over the fate of a stupid abortion resolution; a common medical procedure does not in the slightest compare with the institutional enslavement of an entire race of human beings; and opponents of abortion are not akin to defenders of slavery.

Barring those minor insignificant flaws, your logic is perfectly sound. [OOC: Though I am mildly impressed at your ability to stay awake during Freshman History class.]

And rest assured, though slavery did trigger the most damaging and costly war in RL U.S. history, we will not go to war over abortion (assuming our orders do not change). In any case, we certainly would not cause a monumental global catastrophe by attacking a mighty empire that could retaliate with full force; we only invade insolent little pissants like yourselves whom we can use as scapegoats to distract the public from the real problems at home their own negligent government has caused by not doing its fucking job and consigning its citizenry to pseudo-anarchy.

Wait. Did I just say that out loud? ... Oh, fuck all. Commander?

[The sultry, paramilitary vixens seated behind Ambassador Riley instantly stand to attention in their tight-fitting uniforms, poised to seize the Marvolo-Riddlian envoy.]

Rest assured, Ambassador, the fact that your nation is the namesake of a fictitious magical Dark Lord does not scare us in the least. ...

What say you now?


Thank you for your compliment about me staying awake in history! I am a Political Science major and I sort of *have to*. Back to the topic at hand...

My somewhat extensive sojourn into the Civil War was just for illustrative purposes. All rambling about RL US aside, I do think I made my points clear.

Does anybody actually talk about the moral issues, or just the point there is in voting?

My arguments against are:
If it is just as bad to kill a baby than an old man, then why is it not so bad to kill a zygote [stage before feotus] than a baby.

If you don't want a baby there are plenty of other, simpler ways to prevent it.

Women who have abortions will sometimes suffer years of guilt afterwards.

Well, I'm staunchly anti-abortion, and frankly, I think that this ammendment would simply shed more light on the issue, which I have nothing against.

UN member states are not on the verge of war over the fate of a stupid abortion resolution; a common medical procedure does not in the slightest compare with the institutional enslavement of an entire race of human beings; and opponents of abortion are not akin to defenders of slavery.


Once again, I call your attention to the recent bombings at abortion clinics. There is a serrious threat and loss of life in the real world, and in this game, the only thing from keeping us from being at war is the game mechanics.

Propones of this bill have not supplied any real reasons to why this should be passed - they've shown harms, but not haow this bill will fix anything. This bill just pushes aside the Issue for a time, and is a total waste of an UN member's time. It doesn't matter If it is passed or not, only that people writting future abortion bills will have to repeal it eventually.

I had a great big tirade all prepared and then realized that almost all of it was covered by other posts, so I'll be brief.

Reason to vote AGAINST this..

No, I guess it doesn't really do too much other than grant National Sovereignty on the issue of abortion (that is the point of this resolution, though).

Reason to vote FOR this...

It grants National Sovereignty on an issue so obviously divisive that any Resolution directed towards it declaring a stance is very likely to have repeals targetting it within the week. Those that are pro-choice (Human Rights backers, downtrodden husbands, etc) are going to support abortion as a universal right and oppose any restictions on it. Those that are pro life (Religious zealots, etc.) will staunchly oppose any legislation granting the right to abortion and support any blanket bans thereof.

Morally speaking, we in Kivisto do not believe ourselves so morally superior over anyone else that we are comfortable enforcing our views on an issue so rife with ethical implications on other nations. My personal views on the issue is completely irrelevant. This resolution grants ME and ALL OF US the right to have those views. Understand that devout Judeo-Christians cannot support abortion, and staunch defenders of a woman's rights to her body will abhor any restrictions on it.

I appreciate that we will never reach full consensus on any issue, but this particular battle seems to be more of a moral and ethical issue than a political one.

My mind is made up and so is yours. Is there need for us to argue over it. Probably not. The desire, yes. But actual need. Not so much. There are some who won't even to agree to disagree. What are the odds that any resolution will ever appease all the parties? ZERO. All the more reason to pass this Resolution. The only way any decisive victory could be permanently won by one side or the other would be for either the Pro-Lifers or the Pro-Choicers to mount a massive Blitz-Krieg on the rest of the UN. As that is fairly unlikely to occur and even less likely to accomplish anything productive...

I would like the right to grant you and your nation the right to choose for yourselves on this issue. Won't you do the same for me and mine?

Oskar Feldstein
Representing Kivisto
In The Glory of The Master's Glow

Well said, Mr. Feldstein.

Morally speaking, we in Kivisto do not believe ourselves so morally superior over anyone else that we are comfortable enforcing our views on an issue so rife with ethical implications on other nations. My personal views on the issue is completely irrelevant. This resolution grants ME and ALL OF US the right to have those views. Understand that devout Judeo-Christians cannot support abortion, and staunch defenders of a woman's rights to her body will abhor any restrictions on it.

That is a blatant lie. As long as abortion is forbidden and criminalised in ONE member nation, this resolution does the exact opposite. It enshrines as a right of governments the power to impose its morality on a minority (or even a majority) that does not share the same views. It ensures that, throughout the UN, there will be people sentenced to death for having different views. It ensures that the right to have a different moral view from the religious zealots you mention is trampled upon, and that the UN has no option but to wash its hands of the whole issue. Like Pilatus.

Of course, you don't give a damn about the individual people who will suffer this oppression. They don't have rights, nations do. They don't have beliefs, nations do. They don't make decisions, nations do.

Do not defend this resolution with false and misleading arguments. The opponents of this resolution are not arguing from a stance of moral superiority. They simply want to prevent national leaders from taking the exact position you are condemning. This is a divisive issue, as you say. There is no sort of consensus on the issue, as OMGTKK was kind enough to point out from the begining. This is the reason why the UN has no business deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not. And the reason why national governments have no business deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not. No "superior entity" has the right to impose debatable and divisive morality on individuals, and to give that right to governments is to legitimise oppression.

Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on individuals who do not share them! Defeat the Unfair Despotism!

Once again, I call your attention to the recent bombings at abortion clinics. There is a serrious threat and loss of life in the real world,[OOC: Sorry; abortion-clinic violence has declined sharply over the past eight years or so. I ain't seeing the threat, and I fail to see how it's relevant. This is NS, not real life.

and in this game, the only thing from keeping us from being at war is the game mechanics.[And not even that. Check the II (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1230) forum.]

Propones of this bill have not supplied any real reasons to why this should be passed - they've shown harms, but not haow this bill will fix anything. This bill just pushes aside the Issue for a time, and is a total waste of an UN member's time. It doesn't matter If it is passed or not, only that people writting future abortion bills will have to repeal it eventually.By that measure, we shouldn't pass anything, because it may be repealed eventually. :rolleyes:

That is a blatant lie. As long as abortion is forbidden and criminalised in ONE member nation, this resolution does the exact opposite. It enshrines as a right of governments the power to impose its morality on a minority (or even a majority) that does not share the same views. It ensures that, throughout the UN, there will be people sentenced to death for having different views. It ensures that the right to have a different moral view from the religious zealots you mention is trampled upon, and that the UN has no option but to wash its hands of the whole issue. Like Pilatus.

Of course, you don't give a damn about the individual people who will suffer this oppression. They don't have rights, nations do. They don't have beliefs, nations do. They don't make decisions, nations do.

Do not defend this resolution with false and misleading arguments. The opponents of this resolution are not arguing from a stance of moral superiority. They simply want to prevent national leaders from taking the exact position you are condemning. This is a divisive issue, as you say. There is no sort of consensus on the issue, as OMGTKK was kind enough to point out from the begining. This is the reason why the UN has no business deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not. And the reason why national governments have no business deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not. No "superior entity" has the right to impose debatable and divisive morality on individuals, and to give that right to governments is to legitimise oppression.Look, both supporters and opponents of abortion base their stance on moral grounds; how do we know whose morals are correct? Well, you can speak in highly emotional, hyperbolic terms and liken the proponents of this bill to Pontius Pilate, so they must be yours. :rolleyes:

A little more about imposing a certain morality on unwilling people:

Don’t try and hide this as something promoting choice, because it is blatantly taking the choice away from whom the choice directly impacts.You mean the culture and the society at large? Are cultural and societal values of any import to this discussion? Or is your opinion that the woman's conscience is the only one that matters the automatic default position? What about the collective conscience of the community which has decided that it would rather not allow its members to slaughter unborn children? The problem here is, we are not addressing a simple human rights issue here, but a vast cultural chasm that threatens to envelop the international community if the UN decides again that abortion, right or wrong, is the province not of the individual, not of the nation, not of society, and not of the unborn child -- but subject to the erratic whim of an arrogant international majority that assumes its values are superior over all others, and forces all member states to bend to its will. And it may not take the form of a happy fluffy pro-choice majority, either; those whose values you abhor may win this one out -- and consequently you won't even be able to protect the individual choice of the women in your nation. At the very least this proposal gives you that right.Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on people who do not share them! Support the Fair Compromise!Corrected for accuracy.

Many nations here already have abortion clinics in place as well as an education system that procudes the courses needed to prevent the need for abortions as well as courses that teach doctors how to do them properly. Thus more lives are saved this way than to take it back to a 'coat hanger' in some back room.. by some wanta be quack only in it for the fast bucks..

There are also nations within the UN that exist at pre-"modern" levels of technology, or that simply don't have the money to fund such services adequately, where legal abortions would be no safer than those 'coathanger' ones...

As how many citizens of any nation have a vote to say how their nation will vote on an issue in the UN. Even in the real world have you ever had an issue on your election ballot that lets you vote on something before the UN?

OOC: In the real world, how many UN resolutions actually have any binding effects on our nations?

Ok, ok. Fair enough. The "Repeal Abortion Rights" legislation doesn't "Mandate" or "declare" that abortion be a matter of national sovereignty. But it "recognizes" and "acknowledges" that by repealing the law abortion becomes a matter of national sovereignty. SO if there are no UN laws left that require UN nations to allow or disallow abortion rights, doesn't it HAVE to be a matter of national sovereignty? YES. This legislation is useless!

USELESS! :headbang:

Nations already get to choose whether or not they want abortion rights.

But if this proposal fails then the very next one that's already in the queue is aimed at taking that right away from nations again...

whether heroine makes you happy

OOC: Which heroine are we talking about? ;)

This resolution doesn't say anything. why do you people keep putting us through this garbage.....

OOC: So why aren't you just ignoring it?

Is it not the height of irony that those nations worried so greatly about the state of fetuses are those most willing to commit atrocities on the field of battle? Are individual lives suddenly of less importance once they have been born? Any such belief is uncivilized.Speaking of "committing atrocities on the field of battle," how is Cmdr. Raijin doing these days? :p

An astute observation, and an eerily pertinent parallel, except for a few small things: The NS United Nations is not the RL United States; member states are sovereign (barring UN limitations on said sovereignty) and not bound together by a federal covenant;

I fail to see how that is relevant

this is 2006 (depending on which nation you live in), not 1854;

That is definately not relevant

UN member states are not on the verge of war over the fate of a stupid abortion resolution;

Oh look - back in 1854 - they DID go to war over.....what was it called....."states rights"

Oh yeah - I believe today we would call it "National Sovereignty"

a common medical procedure does not in the slightest compare with the institutional enslavement of an entire race of human beings; and opponents of abortion are not akin to defenders of slavery.

Bull shit. Just because today slavery is seen as abhorent by the vast majority doesn't mean that 150 years ago it was the case. In fact, it quite clearly wasn't since they still had slave owners - and a lot of them. 150 years ago, the slavery issue was a divisive issue and they were willing to fight for that right. Today abortion is an equally divisive issue so it is actually a PERFECT parallel.

Barring those minor insignificant flaws, your logic is perfectly sound. [OOC: Though I am mildly impressed at your ability to stay awake during Freshman History class.]

And rest assured, though slavery did trigger the most damaging and costly war in RL U.S. history, we will not go to war over abortion (assuming our orders do not change). In any case, we certainly would not cause a monumental global catastrophe by attacking a mighty empire that could retaliate with full force; we only invade insolent little pissants like yourselves whom we can use as scapegoats to distract the public from the real problems at home their own negligent government has caused by not doing its fucking job and consigning its citizenry to pseudo-anarchy.

Wait. Did I just say that out loud? ... Oh, fuck all. Commander?

[The sultry, paramilitary vixens seated behind Ambassador Riley instantly stand to attention in their tight-fitting uniforms, poised to seize the Marvolo-Riddlian envoy.]

Rest assured, Ambassador, the fact that your nation is the namesake of a fictitious magical Dark Lord does not scare us in the least. ...

What say you now?

*Sends Night Sisters to ensure the envoy reaches home safely.

That is a blatant lie.

Which part? Where I said I do not wish to enforce my morality on other nations? How is that a lie?

As long as abortion is forbidden and criminalised in ONE member nation, this resolution does the exact opposite.

How exactly?

It enshrines as a right of governments the power to impose its morality on a minority (or even a majority) that does not share the same views.

Of its' own populace. We are there to govern them after all.

It ensures that, throughout the UN, there will be people sentenced to death for having different views.

How does this proposal achieve that?

It ensures that the right to have a different moral view from the religious zealots you mention is trampled upon, and that the UN has no option but to wash its hands of the whole issue. Like Pilatus.

Are we reading the same post? The only thing I said about religious zealots is that they would oppose any legislation allowing abortion to be an option, the same as prochoicers would oppose restrictions to abortion. As such, there will be no peace on the issue. Please, if you wish to assail my words, attack my whole argument and not half-sentences.

Of course, you don't give a damn about the individual people who will suffer this oppression.

False.

They don't have rights, nations do.

They have the rights the nations grant them. And in Kivisto, Our Benevolent Master grants precious few.

They don't have beliefs, nations do.

I don't even know where you're getting that.

They don't make decisions, nations do.

On maters of national legislature, you are completely correct in that statement.

Do not defend this resolution with false and misleading arguments.

Which ones would those be?

The opponents of this resolution are not arguing from a stance of moral superiority.

I didn't say they were. I said that I wasn't and would prefer if nobody did at me.

They simply want to prevent national leaders from taking the exact position you are condemning.

If national leaders do not like other national leaders, perhaps they should take that up with said leader. Perhaps declare war. We've already discussed how useless that would be. Convince their people that a change of leadership would be of benefit to them. Open your borders to immigrants from that nation and show them how the added rights you offer will improve their lot. All of these are viable options. Punishing the rest of us by restricting our morals and how we act on them is not such an option.

This is a divisive issue, as you say. There is no sort of consensus on the issue, as OMGTKK was kind enough to point out from the begining. This is the reason why the UN has no business deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not.

Accepted.

And the reason why national governments have no business deciding whether a woman should have an abortion or not.

This goes to you pushing your morality on other nations as well as the individual sovereignty issues again.

No "superior entity" has the right to impose debatable and divisive morality on individuals, and to give that right to governments is to legitimise oppression.

And yet you suggest that the UN has such a right to impose such morality on all of us?

Do not let the self-righteous tyrants impose their morals on individuals who do not share them! Defeat the Unfair Despotism!

Do not let the self-righteous Over-powers impose their morals on NATIONS who do not share them! Accept the Chance to Choose!

Oskar Feldstein
Representative of the Kivisto Public
Annointed By HR Master In Repose

Well, the proposal is up now by a couple thousand votes. I don't see how any more words here are going to change it around (although I'm certain there will probably be at least another 20 pages of discussion here before this one's over).

Since this proposal has been fought on the platform of National Sovereignty - it looks like National Sovereignty wins in the ballot box. I am confident there will be some that are not happy about this. But I am also certain that this bill has caused more unity than if a pro-life or a pro-choice bill were to pass through. We continue to believe that issues like these should remain daily issues only and not decided upon by an international body. At the end of the day we are confident this proposal will do more to unify than to divide the halls of the United Nations (although there will most likely always be those who will continue to attempt to push through their point of view binding on all nations on this matter). We will heal through this and look forward to discussing other issues in the future. Have a great weekend everyone!

Gravelbourg will be voting AGAINST :mad: the Abortion Legality Convention.

This resolution comes on the heels of a recent repeal of the NS UN's "Abortion Rights" resolution. Our nation voted against that repeal. But the repeal went ahead, and currently there are no abortion freedoms legislated anywhere in the NS UN.

But this proposal does very little to improve abortion rights in the United Nations. The author of this proposal states that nations will be allowed to declare abortion legal or illegal. This in and of itself is a fair part of the proposal.

However, the proposal then goes on to make value judgments that put limits on abortion procedures. Basically, it contradicts the openness and flexibility promoted in the first part of the proposal.

The fourth part of this proposal -- which apparently promotes research -- clearly has a political rather than a scientific agenda (exploring the "ramifications of abortion"). If this proposal goes ahead, we are worried that the majority of research permitted in this regard will deal with shaming women and stigmatizing abortion procedures.

There are aspects of this resolution that works, but parts of this resolution would further restrict abortions, a woman's right to choose and limit other reproductive and self-autonomy freedoms.

So we are voting AGAINST this resolution.

*snip*
However, the proposal then goes on to make value judgments that put limits on abortion procedures. Basically, it contradicts the openness and flexibility promoted in the first part of the proposal.

Um...no, it doesn't put any limits on abortion procedures whatsoever. The clauses to which you refer are not mandates.

In the interest of all parties that represent this issue, we must keep in mind not only that we must obey the wills of all, but the basic moral inroads that have been made.

I can not fully support any notion that would imply total control of all ventures stated, and must intervene on behalf of those not wholly obligated to the matter.

Even having said that, the fact of a possible comprimise must not be ignored and will be fully sought after be members of all legislative branches.

With exception to my debate with TH, I'm done. Focus to TG campaigning and repeal drafting.

Do you not believe in the UN Gnomes, or is this an extension of the point Gruen brought up on UNOG?

I don't aknowledge the Gnomes ICly. I think they're godmoding. (I don't recall what Gruen brought up on UNOG, so no idea there.)

Of course even if I did aknowledge the Gnomes, it wouldn't make a difference. The Gnomes rewrite national laws, not enforce them. That's what they do, because they're a roleplayed extension of the United Nations, which is a law-making body, not a law-enforcement body.

I'd suggest distancing yourself from the destructive incarnations of the belief and show the positive version that you bring forth. It might be a bit more productive to your movement - and might polarize them so that they actually start making good arguments rather than easy to kill ones

Yet again, looking to increase the quality of the UN.....

How does distancing myself from other people improve the UN? If I do that I'm just ensuring that my positive impact will be more limited.

Where did I say anything beyond I would fight for this right (with obvious meaning that I will fight for this to be a right in the cases where it isn't)? And don't try to throw that back in my face. They aren't saying they're fighting for the right. They're saying it is one. And yes, I know, some of my colleagues are equally guilty of saying it is already a right.

Well then we're in the same boat, aren't we? Let's not rock that particular boat and worry about other parts of the argument, hmm?

I know we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one just due to the very nature of our beliefs, but personhood I think is absolutely something that should be handled at the International level - not because of abortion, but actually issues of things like....slavery, racism, etc. Shit, sitting back thinking through this argument made me cry.

Ah. I'm sorry to hear that. Get some sleep, man.

Your claim that most nations don't want to have their sovereignty infringed upon or whatever (I can't remember the exact wording....)

Oh. I don't recall that one. I'll have to go back to it and try to figure out the context again.

Why?

It's just the nature of the thing. 1. Persons should make personal choices. 2. Nations should make national choices. 3. International bodies should make international choices. And because this is an international context, I'm going to be addressing the third statement and the second statement rather than the second and the first. It's bloody simple, really. You may disagree with it, but the reasoning is sort of obvious, I think. You've never had trouble understanding this before. You must really be tired.

Time to collapse for a nap.

Do that, Scott. You shouldn't be working yourself too hard over this. We have plenty of time.

I don't aknowledge the Gnomes ICly. I think they're godmoding.Of course they're godmoding. That's rather the point ;)

Of course they're godmoding. That's rather the point ;)

Of course that's the point. It's why I don't go around bitching about it. ;)

Vote against. "Civil Rights" more of the conservative agenda being pushed on left wing nations through the U.N. :upyours:

I will vote for this resolution as soon as its on the docket.
Right to form Labour Unions.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466268

this will make abortion legal evertwhere. yay!:fluffle:

With exception to my debate with TH, I'm done. Focus to TG campaigning and repeal drafting.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Vote against. "Civil Rights" more of the conservative agenda being pushed on left wing nations through the U.N. :upyours:

I will vote for this resolution as soon as its on the docket.
Right to form Labour Unions.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466268

You fail at reading comprehension. This proposal forces nothing on anyone. "Right to Form Labour Unions," on the other hand...

Yeah, you fail at reading comprehension.

I don't have any input into this debate, I said everything I needed to about this oh so important issue of abortion in the earlier Repeal of the Resolution regarding abortion.

I just wanted to say that the choices offered in the poll are so giggle-worthy. It makes me feel like a good wasteful American that I understood the references.

Three cheers for polls that make me giggle!

Hip-hip huzzah! And all that.

I votes in favor of this Resolution, because I'm tired of hearing about abortion, and this Resolution ought to put an end to that. Everyone is gonna be up in arms about a definitive ruling on abortion that it's just a circle that will not end.

Avast.

I find it funny in a :D sort of way that people insist that this is some kind of conserative ploy. Clearly a "conserative ploy" would be to outlaw abortion everywhere and for all times. A "liberal ploy" would be to force abortion institutions everywhere and for any reason whatsoever. This resolution, neither forcing all nations to ban abortions, nor forcing all nations to support abortions everywhere and for all occasions, is clearly a middle of the road resolution.

Yes folks, you read that right, a middle of the road proposition! Under this resolution a majority of Yahoos can't sneak in a resolution that prohibits abortions in every UN member state for any reason whatsoever. (This resolution must be repealed first.) Likewise the insane population control people can't force a resolution in the UN that forces a one child mandatory abortion policy upon every member of the UN. It's a WIN WIN situation!

There is a happy medium to this issue. There is no way we can or ever will discuss such a happy medium. This resolution allows us as invidiual nation states to determine our own happy medium on our own. We can agree to disagree on an individual basis.

So come on, let's vote YES and do a group hug! :fluffle:

I rather agree with Tzorsland. I personally am a conservative liberal :headbang: with difficulty deciding whether abortion is a morally right thing. This resolution allows everyone to determine their own position on that issue while discouraging use of techniques that almost everyone agrees are inhumane.
Any resolution on abortion that can satisfy someone as politically conflicted as myself is surely right for everyone! ;)

Agreed. The proposal forces no regulations on anyone, and suggests what is to my mind a very fair and cautious framework. There's really nothing to disagree with, here, unless you consider partial-birth abortion necessary.

This bill kind of reminds me of the Internatinal Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise in that it accomplishes quite little, yet satifies both sides, in theory.

This bill essentially states that anybody can do whatever they wish, and that the un will not impose bans upon abortion, while attempting to satisfy those who feel abortion is a form of murder.

I would vote for aproval on this bill if an amendment was added that would state that: "This bill will be repealed at any such time as it can be irrifutably proven that abortion is or is not in violation of any given human rights." or something along those lines. As you stated, this is an attempt to satify both sides, however, if it is ever really proven, and that is a big if, whether or not abortion is actually killing a person, which is concievable, or that it is in no way harmful or in violation of natural rights, which is also concievable, then this bill should not be allowed to keep affect, as it would secure the rights of nations that may be in violation of human rights at that point, if it ever occures, and if, another big if, radicles gain majority voting power in the UN, then this bill should be made to remove itself even if we would not.

In addition, why is insest specificlly mentioned? Insesest, in and of itself, is not in any violation of any rights that I am aware of, and does not necessarily incur any reason to have an exception unless in the case of the already mentioned rape or abnormalities.

I would vote for aproval on this bill if an amendment was added that would state that: "This bill will be repealed at any such time as it can be irrifutably proven that abortion is or is not in violation of any given human rights." or something along those lines.

OOC: It should be noted that while your proposal sounds good for Mr. Roberts it is impossible under NS UN rules. Bills once submitted cannot be ammended. Bills that have been passed can be repealed by a repeal motion at any time and for any reason whatsoever, and it is impossible to change mechanics through resolution.

Really OOC: Actually a Robert's Rules of Order system would be cooler. You could lay proposals on the table. Send the system into recursion with amendments and amendments on amendments. And repeals would be harder to implement if done strictly through the rules. But that is not our current system and never will be.

To the fellow UN Nations,

Unified Narnia is a land that will not tolerate any type of abortion. Abortion is murder. Murder in my nation is charged with death. My policy for crimes punishable for execution are: Murder, Abortion, Rape, Treason, and Manslaughter.

So therefore, Unified Narnia will never support the idea of abortion. You can agree with me or not. It is your choice, but you better not take your anger out on my nation or me.

Sincerely,
King Scott the Benevolent

We are unclear on what exactly this proposal is proposing to do.
It does not keep people from legalizing abortion.
It does not keep people from outlawing abortion.
It does not seem to do anything at all.

Indeed...

This bill, in my opinion, should be voted against, and not because I think it is some sort of evil plot or anything.

This bill does nothing. At all. Why do we need a useless bill? It essentially states: Nations may do what they please on this matter. Is that not what they would do if the bill did not exist?

Indeed...

This bill, in my opinion, should be voted against, and not because I think it is some sort of evil plot or anything.

This bill does nothing. At all. Why do we need a useless bill? It essentially states: Nations may do what they please on this matter. Is that not what they would do if the bill did not exist?
Under normal circumstances we would agree, but in this case the passage of the Abortion Legality Convention is essential to blocking the passage of Clinical Abortion Rights. For that cause, we happily vote in favor of the ALC.

-Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

I agree with this one. It give each nation the power to Choose! If you do not agree with abortion (i don't) you can make it illegal. However, you can have an abortion if you have been raped, have serious problems with the child, or are at risk. I agree with it 100%

I don't aknowledge the Gnomes ICly. I think they're godmoding. (I don't recall what Gruen brought up on UNOG, so no idea there.)

Not going to get into Gruen's point 'cause I don't want it sitting out here in the open.

Anyways... your comment about the gnomes struck a big "WTF" in me. The problem is that I've seen you say that you consider outright non-compliance (as opposed to loophole abuse) to be godmodding. But if there are no gnomes, what's your explaination for that godmodding. Godmodding assumes that you are doing things that are theoretically impossible. But how is it impossible to completely ignore a resolution if there isn't even a low level form of enforcement? Max told us compliance was necessary so we had to figure out an explaination - and quite frankly, the Gnomes - godmodding or not godmodding - were the answer. Unfortunately, Max handed us one helluva frustrating FAQ on the UN - bringing it to the point where quite frankly, we HAD to seperate gameplay from roleplay and we HAD to create at least something that would be godmodding compliance. It's just how the game ended up functioning at the end of the day.

So yes, they are godmodding, but I think they were a form of godmodding that we had to accept just because of the nature of the game. Anything else would be to say that Max's words were meaningless - not misleading (as you suggested with the "double edged sword"), but meaningless.

Of course even if I did aknowledge the Gnomes, it wouldn't make a difference. The Gnomes rewrite national laws, not enforce them. That's what they do, because they're a roleplayed extension of the United Nations, which is a law-making body, not a law-enforcement body.

That was the base of Gruen's point.

How does distancing myself from other people improve the UN? If I do that I'm just ensuring that my positive impact will be more limited.

...No.....you remaining a sovereigntist but not always rushing to defend the guys sitting their boasting about it as a default status strengthens your position as it shows that not all sovereigntists are making false assumptions. You got hit several times for that on this thread already.

Well then we're in the same boat, aren't we? Let's not rock that particular boat and worry about other parts of the argument, hmm?

Actually, no. I didn't rush out to protect them when their argument fails - and you'll see that Golgothastan actually shot at Groot when his arguments didn't make any sense. I've done that to LAE (whom I consider equally my closest and most dangerous ally outside of the Old Guard - dangerous because he's good a self-destructing), I've done that to many others - and I do believe it strengthens the argument and can even set them back on the right track from time to time.

Ah. I'm sorry to hear that. Get some sleep, man.

Heh, tried, failed miserably/

Oh. I don't recall that one. I'll have to go back to it and try to figure out the context again.

It's just the nature of the thing. 1. Persons should make personal choices. 2. Nations should make national choices. 3. International bodies should make international choices. And because this is an international context, I'm going to be addressing the third statement and the second statement rather than the second and the first. It's bloody simple, really. You may disagree with it, but the reasoning is sort of obvious, I think. You've never had trouble understanding this before. You must really be tired.

The NatSovs are going "Stop pushing 3 on 2." The IntFeds are going "We're protecting 1 from 2". Obviously, 3 is linked to 1 and yet your argument doesn't even look at that link - it focuses on the link between 2 and 3. Why?

Also - before now, our NatSov/IntFed arguments haven't necessarily been about Individual rights. I don't think we've actually ever debated about Human Rights before. When that comes into play, I (amongst many others) feel the entire field changes, and I actually see my position as an easier position to argue from when that happens.

Do that, *****. You shouldn't be working yourself too hard over this. We have plenty of time.

It is so wierd seeing my name.

Yeah, if we don't finish before this is over, we can always drag it back to the Old Guard anyway.

Oh - and don't forget my numbers post that was on I think page 18 (where I responded to your shrinking of the numbers argument).

The only person I agree with is myself! Why, if it wasn't for me, women would be working! By God, man, just imagine it! We would be full of Norwegians by now if it wasn't for me! There woul be no pot noodles! No Cufflinks! No hankies to put in top pockets! Why shoul I agree with anyone else when I am clearly so utterly fantastic!


Field Marshal Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock, KOG CRC CGO

I agree with this one. It give each nation the power to Choose! If you do not agree with abortion (i don't) you can make it illegal. However, you can have an abortion if you have been raped, have serious problems with the child, or are at risk. I agree with it 100%
However, you could NOT have an abortion if your nation decide an abortion at any stage *is equal* to murder. The proposed resolution does NOT require any state to allow for an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy.
If you make an abortion illegal, it will be illegal for any cause, in every case.

Congratulations, you've just made all your women 2nd class citicens, slaves to their reproductive posibilities. Women are now valued less than z/e/f's and born men.
You're really a bastion of reproductive rights when you vote "yes" to this proposal... NOT

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.

You are, because you are presuming I pretend to know what's best for the people in the UN. I have said before (but I'll repeat it, as your NatSov blindness seems to make you immune to arguments for anything else) that nor I, nor the UN needs to know what's best for the people. People know that for themselves. So all we need to do is give them the choice to make that decision. This resolution prohibits people to make the decision that's best for them by focussing on governments.

Now you're just being an ass.

From an expert like you I'll accept this as a compliment.

From an expert like you I'll accept this as a compliment.

Never said you were doing it well, though.

Oh - and don't forget my numbers post that was on I think page 18 (where I responded to your shrinking of the numbers argument).

I haven't forgotten about that or any of the other posts I need to do for this debate. Unfortunately, it looks like UNOG business is going to be sapping my NS time for the next few days at least.

I fail to see how that is relevantThat the entire parallel was irrelevant was my central point.

Oh look - back in 1854 - they DID go to war over.....what was it called....."states rights"

Oh yeah - I believe today we would call it "National Sovereignty" I thought the "federal covenant" thing wasn't relevant? No one's going to war now; this is just a stupid UN legislative session -- though your comparison of sovereigntists to RL U.S. Confederates is pretty funny.

Bull shit. Just because today slavery is seen as abhorent by the vast majority doesn't mean that 150 years ago it was the case. In fact, it quite clearly wasn't since they still had slave owners - and a lot of them.Your relativity line sounds an awful lot like the (to use your eloquent phrasing) "bullshit" that RL U.S. leftists use to justify comparing Bush to Hitler. "Sure: No one knew Hitler was evil in the 1930s, either ..." :rolleyes:

150 years ago, the slavery issue was a divisive issue and they were willing to fight for that right. Today abortion is an equally divisive issue so it is actually a PERFECT parallel.OK, let's see: Denying women a medical procedure vs. reducing an entire race of people to chattel. A bitterly divided nation exploding in sectarian violence and eventually war over one of mankind's greatest sins vs. an international organization debating a sovereignty resolution. Nope, sorry. Still not seein' it.

THe palentine wishes to officially announce its support of this proposal, and to Its authors and to those who were willing to help it have its chance to be voted on by this august*cough* body. I keep hearing about we need the right to choose, well this gives y'all that right...oh I'm sorry I guess some of you love big brother ,rather than your own nations. I have always felt that Abortion shouldn't be an issue some extra-governmental body rules on, and forces us to march, lockstep, over the cliff. I believe that each individual nation has a fundamental right to decide for itself, what is best for it, and its people. Abortion should have been kept as a daily issue. Besides lets be honest, how many of you nations ,in the UN, make up you own decision to that issue when it comes up? Furthermore, how many of you keep a policy that was different from the repealed resolution? I certainly did. I was in violation of the resolution every time I was given it to legislate, daily. That is the beauty of this resolution. There will be no conflict between, your beliefs and the UN. Its a lasting solution to the issue. *sarcasm starting*Of course, I am overlooking the fact that some of my colleagues here believe, that most of us are too stupid to run our own affairs, and need to be told what to do by the All Powerful, All Knowing UN. Let us all bow down at the Altar of the Omnipotent UN.*sarcasm ending*
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

TH - take your time

Kenny - I'd respond, but I think one of us would need to pop the other's head off before we could even get within spitting distance of understanding one another on this one.

I'd say that's about right. ;)

[Side-note:] Hurrah for The Palentine and its notorious scribes! Ten one-way tickets to Cleveland are on their way; the next round of exiles is on me, Emperor. ~Manuelo. :p

The parellel forgottenlord was drawing was not that slavery and denying abortion where equal as civil rights offenses, but that at the time slavery was a divisive issue. And nowadays abortion is a divisive issue, but slavery is seen as evil by everyone except those idiot rednecks dressed as ghosts.

The point is, in another 150 years denying woman abortion will probably also be universally seen as a civil rights offense. I just think that abortions are something that should be protected by the UN. Nations can have laws restricting them, e.g. no abortions in the third trimester, must seek counseling, no more than 5 abortions (so that you don't have popel going in every other week because their too lazy to get a contraceptive) etc...

At least this proposal gives a choice, so it prevents an all out banning of abortion in the UN. However, I would prefer it protected, so I vote against it in favour of the alternate bill.

THe palentine wishes to officially announce its support of this proposal, and to Its authors and to those who were willing to help it have its chance to be voted on by this august*cough* body. I keep hearing about we need the right ot choose, well this gives y'all that right...oh I'm sorry I guess some of you love big brother ,rather than your own nations.

This resolution takes the right to choose away from people and gives it to their government. The only way the right to choose is safeguarded throughout the UN is through legalization.

You're arguing againt the resolution you just declared your support for, oh perceptive one.

I have always felt that Abortion shouldn't be an issue some extra-governmental body rules on, and forces us to march, lockstep, over the cliff. I believe that each individual nation has a fundamental right to deside for itself, what is best for it, and its people.

...and what they do with their own bodies. Clearly people shouldn't be given that choice themselves, in the hands of the government is where that particular decision rightly belongs! Nobody could possibly be more qualified to tell you what is best for you to do with your own body than a government official after all.

Careful, don't choke on the sarcasm.

OOC: As for the daily issues, don't confuse the mechanics of gameplay with the content of roleplay. The reason the daily issues allow you to select choices in opposition to UN resolutions is just because it's too hard to code them to do otherwise.

I'd say that's about right. ;)

[Side-note:] Hurrah for The Palentine and its notorious scribes! Ten one-way tickets to Cleveland are on their way; the next round of exiles is on me, Emperor. ~Manuelo. :p


My Emperor thanks you. Fuel costs are a bitch.:p

This resolution takes the right to choose away from people and gives it to their government. The only way the right to choose is safeguarded throughout the UN is through legalization.

You're arguing againt the resolution you just declared your support for, oh perceptive, one


OOC: And just who is the government, Einstein?:p I can get just as pissy, but I don't think that will help, so I shall snub you insted.

OOC: And just who is the government, Einstein?

OOC: Did you need an encyclopedia entry, or just a definition of the word? Exactly what part of the concept has you confused?

Since you posted that OOC I assume you know the difference between it and IC, and that the government does not equal "me the player" in the IC context of these debates, but the actual government of the nation you are posting in representation of. As opposed to the citizens of the nations you are removing the right to choose from with the passage of this legislation.

In this case, in this instance, the government is the nation's founder, NOT the people in the nation.

So, you guys want to pass this legislation that does nothing so that instead of having to defeat legislation that would force the issue one way or the other next week we have to put up with defeating legislation to repeal this one.

Its a waste of time, people. ISSUES NOT EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN THE UN LISTS OF LEGISLATION ARE BY DEFAULT ISSUES THAT NATIONS GET TO DECIDE ON FOR THEMSELVES. If you want this issue to remain a national sovereignty issue, then vote against this and then just vote against all the abortion bills that don't fit your particular view point.

This legislation doesn't provide an "answer" to the issue. Its simply a new way people have to fight over their viewpoint on abortion later to get a different resolution passed that is either anti/pro abortion.:headbang:

The point is, in another 150 years denying woman abortion will probably also be universally seen as a civil rights offense.
Or on the other hand in another 150 years the notion that feti are property would be considered as ludicrus as the notion that people are property today and the rights of the individual cannot be ignored because of that individual's current status within another individual.

Nations may be forced to admit shame and teach how they participated in the genderal genocide of women in a number of countries because of national or curtural pressures to have boys over girls.

Ultrasound techniques will become so advanced that people will have to suffer from having their parents show everyone their fetal pictures at parties. (The way some show baby pictures today.)

Just voted yes. :) (That's 6 more votes.)



Or on the other hand in another 150 years the notion that feti are property would be considered as ludicrus as the notion that people are property today and the rights of the individual cannot be ignored because of that individual's current status within another individual.

Nations may be forced to admit shame and teach how they participated in the genderal genocide of women in a number of countries because of national or curtural pressures to have boys over girls.

Ultrasound techniques will become so advanced that people will have to suffer from having their parents show everyone their fetal pictures at parties. (The way some show baby pictures today.)
Quoted for truth! (On all points.) ^

Or on the other hand in another 150 years the notion that feti are property would be considered as ludicrus as the notion that people are property today and the rights of the individual cannot be ignored because of that individual's current status within another individual.

They're not being ignored now. The problem is that there IS NO individual to speak of until mental faculties have developed to the point where personhood can be at least plausibly assumed.

Ultrasound techniques will become so advanced that people will have to suffer from having their parents show everyone their fetal pictures at parties. (The way some show baby pictures today.)

Which would be relevent how?

They're not being ignored now. The problem is that there IS NO individual to speak of until mental faculties have developed to the point where personhood can be at least plausibly assumed.
Yes but in your opinion only. And not everyone has the same opinion as you.

On a little bit of a side note. I know this isn't the best sounding argument but it is true.

They are called "Human Rights" for a reason. Not "personal rights" or "persons rights."

When I hear people start to spew out crap about personhood, I can't help but hear the echos of the excuses used to defend things like slavery, the Holocaust and other such human tragedies of our past, crying out the complete fallacy of said notions.

OOC: Did you need an encyclopedia entry, or just a definition of the word? Exactly what part of the concept has you confused?

Since you posted that OOC I assume you know the difference between it and IC, and that the government does not equal "me the player" in the IC context of these debates, but the actual government of the nation you are posting in representation of. As opposed to the citizens of the nations you are removing the right to choose from with the passage of this legislation.He was teasing you. Take special note of the smiley and the "OOC" tag next to his remark. And again, I have kindly asked that all of you refrain from discussing whether a fetus is human. It doesn't matter to this resolution, and bickering about it contributes nothing.

Yes but in your opinion only.

It's an application of the definition of a person. If you're unfamiliar with the concept that isn't exactly my fault.

And if you think the debate over personhood isn't relevent you have no clue what legal rights are based upon. I'm talking to the delegation from OMGTKK as well. I still haven't had my question answered as to how in the hell we're supposed to debate this issue if we aren't permitted to address the underlying legal principles which it involves.

It's an application of the definition of a person. If you're unfamiliar with the concept that isn't exactly my fault.
Ok listen kid, I've been actively involved in debates over this issue for more then a few years now. I know what your opinion is, I just disagree with it.


And if you think the debate over personhood isn't relevent you have no clue what legal rights are based upon.
I can see that there's no point in debating with you over this any further. If you can't even look past your own opinion or biases but instead resort to basically calling the other person stupid.


I'm talking to the delegation from OMGTKK as well. I still haven't had my question answered as to how in the hell we're supposed to debate this issue if we aren't permitted to address the underlying legal principles which it involves.What universal legal principles are we not talking about? Because it would have to at least be universally excepted to have any bearing on this debate.

Oh com on! How can it be a person without a brain, if you do it that way than a sperm is a person, than using a condom is killing a baby.

The tragedy of taking a human life comes from cutting life short. A person devlops dreams and goals, has emotions, loves, and friends, and it is taking this away that is the tragedy.

A fetus has no emotions, no goals or dreams. It is not cutting life short, but stopping it before it starts, no different from a contraceptive.


Seriously, its just that simple. Perhaps in the third trimester when a baby has a brain, the grey area can come in whether or not it is alive, but before that, it is little more than a pile of flesh, like a vegetative person, like a running car with no driver. It functions, but does not think, does not exist.

I've been actively involved in debates over this issue for more then a few years now.

What a coincidence, so have I.

I know what your opinion is, I just disagree with it.

You disagree that to be a person there has to be an actual... well... person present? Disagree away. I've had all kinds of people disagree with obvious facts during my exchanges on this issue.

I can see that there's no point in debating with you over this any further. If you can't even look past your own opinion or biases but instead resort to basically calling the other person stupid.

I wasn't calling you stupid, I was making a simple observation.

What universal legal principles are we not talking about?

The recognition that it is the possession of personhood, not humanity, which determines whether human rights are conferred.

Because it would have to at least be universally excepted to have any bearing on this debate.

I'm unaware of a single legal system anywhere that grants human rights to completely brain dead human bodies just for example... even if we were to hook them up to support systems to keep their organs alive. They ARE rather obviously human, and they are alive... but they aren't people so they don't have rights. A basic reality recognized by every single legal system I am familiar with, as well as every single rational individual who has ever given it any serious consideration that I've encountered... and which denies them any claim to possessing human rights

Feel free to buck the trend and argue that the fact that they're alive and human legally entitles them to those rights though. It'll be good for a laugh.

This ammendment is doing nothing but securing rights that nations already posess! For instance, we already can choose weather or not to have abortion, correct? This ammenmdment changes nothing. And if you feel that your views on abortion are so sacred, and that nations millions of miles away doing things that do not affect you are dangerous to your particular right to choose, then you are paranoied, naïeveve, and need to view the world on a global perspective.

Now, I don't care if a country bans public nudity or anything like that. Those aren't super-important civil rights.

Abortions on the other hand, I rank them right up their with free speech and the right to wear orange hats.

And my apologies for the off topic rant, I just wanted to draw some points together and appearently failed.

Anyway, the point is when its a civil right so fundemental as this, I will try as hard as I can to protect it, and just because its not my country, does it mean I shouldn't care?

What if nobody cared about the tidal wave in the South Pacific? What if nobody cared about Hitler?

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

The fact that UN resolutions are only recommendations. Serious ... see old posts from Sophista and Frisbeeteria concerning the Law of the Sea resolutions. The UN Secretariat (moderators) did not intervene with non-compliance.

Though we've been here before, I'll point out that "sovereignty" is the international concept that a government has the right to self-determination and self-rule. The similar idea applied to an individual might be described as "liberty".

On the subject of the resolution, my government actually finds the wisdom of the fifth clause understated. While we would have liked stronger language promoting that clause, it is a well written resolution and will have my government's vote.

OOC: If you're an American, pull the change out of your pocket and look at it. In addition to the "In God We Trust" (which was added to US currency in the late 19th century), you'll find the following word: "Liberty" on the penny, nickle, dime, quarter, and half-dollar.

Exactly, Liberty, the right to choose. The right to be able to choose what happens to your body, and not have a government choose for you.


Thank you for proving my point.

The fact that UN resolutions are only recommendations. Serious ... see old posts from Sophista and Frisbeeteria concerning the Law of the Sea resolutions. The UN Secretariat (moderators) did not intervene with non-compliance.
You're misinterpreting our old posts, Mik. We were in fact in complete compliance. Sophista wanted to keep privateers, but couldn't unless they were in a state of war. Frisbeeteria obliged them by providing a declaration of war, which has never been adequately resolved. Their absence from the world stage may yet be ... transitory ... though our withdrawal from the UN makes the point moot on our side. Nonetheless, even though we fought a war over it, we considered UN resolutions sacrosanct.

UN resolutions are binding. Enforcement is automatic, so there is no need for Secretariat involvement. A handful of old men and women shouting in a drafty Assembly Hall won't change that.

You're misinterpreting our old posts, Mik. We were in fact in complete compliance. Sophista wanted to keep privateers, but couldn't unless they were in a state of war. Frisbeeteria obliged them by providing a declaration of war, which has never been adequately resolved. Their absence from the world stage may yet be ... transitory ... though our withdrawal from the UN makes the point moot on our side. Nonetheless, even though we fought a war over it, we considered UN resolutions sacrosanct.

UN resolutions are binding. Enforcement is automatic, so there is no need for Secretariat involvement. A handful of old men and women shouting in a drafty Assembly Hall won't change that.

I stand corrected on the first point then. However, UN resolutions are not binding ... case in point Euthanasia. In the UN it is legal, and yet the *game* engine itself gives all nations, irrespective of UN membership, the chance to make it illegal. There are likely other daily issues which support this fact.

That said, in RL UN resolutions are *also* recommendations such as the game. While it is true that UN member's "game stats" change to reflect the overall tone of a UN resolution, the resolution's finer details aren't the cause of those changes, but instead the UN resolution category and strength. I still maintain that since the moderators have never once issued a warning for roleplayed non-compliance that UN and since UN resolution flavour text doesn't make it into our national descriptions, that the sovereign right of nations is reflected in the game engine and moderation decisions themselves.

Exactly, Liberty, the right to choose. The right to be able to choose what happens to your body, and not have a government choose for you.


Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't prove anybody's point. Liberty is used to describe *personal* freedoms. However, the UN as it exists can either take away or give national freedoms.

Think of it this way, you can not give the right to "vote" to some of the cells that you are made of. As a thinking organism, that right to vote is granted to the collection of cells.

Nations are a collection of individuals. When the UN passes a law, say restricting or promoting abortion, in both cases, those laws (though intended to make some types of cells happy) are directed at the collection. It still is up to the collection to worry about the finer details in implementing the idea the UN is promoting ...

The word used to describe rights reserved by the state or collection of individuals has been and will remain "sovereignty".

The term is often misunderstood and misused, but the basic idea we are discussing here "should nations have the right to determine if abortion should or should not be illegal, or should we start taking over their governments for them" is fairly well understood.

This resolution isn't about promoting abortion or restricting it. It isn't about the individual at all, but rather the right to decide that since the repeal was passed, as legally resided with the state ... the collection. Nations opposed to this resolution seem largely to believe that the right of the state should be restricted *and* that the right of the individual should be protected by the state whos own legal right would be removed by the UN.

While I understand that opponents to this resolution point to liberty as the justification of this, I question as to the practically of proposing a gross restriction on sovereignty as an effective means to liberating personal freedoms.

Look at how Frisbeeteria said (if I'm reading Frisbeeterias reply in this thread correctly) their government and the people of Sophista dealt with not really following the spirit of the Law of the Sea ... they both declared war in order to justify piracy in the sea lanes ... neither really seems to have ever truely agreed with the resolution in question and both appear to really have gone out of their way to avoid following the spirit of the resolution.

There are plenty of other examples, where nations that have felt that their power was taken away from them have simply chosen to find alternative ways to implement resolutions.

I think that the 5th clause of this resolution was purposefully made weak sounding, as to not offend nations that might choose to make abortion illegal, but when you really look at that clause the resolution is really a weak acknowledgement that governments shouldn't outright ban it and that there is some degree of choice that should be allowed.

That is why I've voted for this resolution.

The abortion issue has ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH.

Why do we need another resolution telling each nation to make its own decisions about abortion when the resolution passed a couple weeks ago said EXACTLY THAT.

If anyone had a memory you'd have noticed.

The fact that UN resolutions are only recommendations. Serious ... see old posts from Sophista and Frisbeeteria concerning the Law of the Sea resolutions. The UN Secretariat (moderators) did not intervene with non-compliance.

Though we've been here before, I'll point out that "sovereignty" is the international concept that a government has the right to self-determination and self-rule. The similar idea applied to an individual might be described as "liberty".

Mik - seriously. You're responding to the second post in the thread. I've hit this ground several times already and gotten even the #1 sovereigntist in the UN (TH) to admit it is a false premise. I don't know how many times that mods and regulars have reiterated the difference between gameplay and roleplay and where the line is drawn on resolutions and compliance.

Now, let's start off:

1) Resolutions are both gameplay and roleplay aspects. The text of this resolution is ROLEPLAY. The category and strength are GAMEPLAY.
2) The daily issues are gameplay.

Why? Because we can't enforce gameplay issues short of stat changes - which are looked at only be the category, not by the text of the resolution. Therefore, everything else, by the necessity of what Max decreed in the FAQ, MUST be roleplay. We've treaded this ground so many times in the past week that I've lost count and I'm shocked a long standing member such as yourself hasn't figured out this distinction yet - nor realized that the logic of the FAQ vs the logic you just stated are COMPLETELY at odds with one another - not to mention what Fris just reiterated.

3) National Sovereignty isn't a default position. Congratulations if you're one of the many who wants it to be a position the UN takes - I have no problem with that (I will fight it, but I have no problem with that). I draw the line when you start claiming it is a bloody right given to you. Hence that post. Pure sovereignty YOU gave up when you joined the UN. Your default rights are only those granted by resolution 49 and the resign button. You leave, you're sovereign. In the meantime, don't tell me it's a default position - it's not.
4) I do not abide by the term "Individual Sovereignty". IF you had read the thread, you'd have seen the appearance of the term "Individual Liberty" thrown in occasionally. However, alas, you didn't hence why we're having the battle here.

Now - I have some suggestions. I don't expect you to be able to read 330 posts. However, going after post 2 when post 3, 5, 6 and quite a few others shot right back at it while you're doing post #374 is a bit off. My suggestion to you is read the last 15 or so posts that were on the thread - those are posts where the argument hasn't necessarily been rebuttled. Going after a 3-day old post is just frustrating because then I'm going back to square one countering it.

OOC: If you're an American, pull the change out of your pocket and look at it. In addition to the "In God We Trust" (which was added to US currency in the late 19th century), you'll find the following word: "Liberty" on the penny, nickle, dime, quarter, and half-dollar.

While I'm not, so? I fail to see how this has ANY relevance to the debate.

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

I'm re-reading it - I know it's a bit heated, but I'm hoping it isn't flaming. Apologies if it is seen as being so.

The abortion issue has ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH.

Why do we need another resolution telling each nation to make its own decisions about abortion when the resolution passed a couple weeks ago said EXACTLY THAT.

If anyone had a memory you'd have noticed.All right, buddy. You're not the first hit-and-runner to barge into this thread to make that (uninformed) argument. This concern has been addressed, several times, and I'm too tired and belligerent right now to rehash it for your benefit. My advice: read the stupid thread.

Meh. I'll add something about this to the FAQ tomorrow. Not that it'll do any good.

However, you could NOT have an abortion if your nation decide an abortion at any stage *is equal* to murder. The proposed resolution does NOT require any state to allow for an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy.
If you make an abortion illegal, it will be illegal for any cause, in every case.

Congratulations, you've just made all your women 2nd class citicens, slaves to their reproductive posibilities. Women are now valued less than z/e/f's and born men.
You're really a bastion of reproductive rights when you vote "yes" to this proposal... NOT


Well said.

I stand corrected on the first point then. However, UN resolutions are not binding ... case in point Euthanasia. In the UN it is legal, and yet the *game* engine itself gives all nations, irrespective of UN membership, the chance to make it illegal. There are likely other daily issues which support this fact.

That said, in RL UN resolutions are *also* recommendations such as the game. While it is true that UN member's "game stats" change to reflect the overall tone of a UN resolution, the resolution's finer details aren't the cause of those changes, but instead the UN resolution category and strength. I still maintain that since the moderators have never once issued a warning for roleplayed non-compliance that UN and since UN resolution flavour text doesn't make it into our national descriptions, that the sovereign right of nations is reflected in the game engine and moderation decisions themselves.

This is balderdash. A few game glitches and the fact moderators don't police UN roleoplaying for non-compliance does not mean that UN resultions are not binding. You find no support for your "sovereign right of nations" merely in the absence of some game measures that might obliterate such right.

That so many in hte UN seem to serioiusly think it is OK to gameplay noncompliance with the UN in violation of the express UN rules themselves is deplorable.

Or on the other hand in another 150 years the notion that feti are property would be considered as ludicrus as the notion that people are property today and the rights of the individual cannot be ignored because of that individual's current status within another individual.

Nations may be forced to admit shame and teach how they participated in the genderal genocide of women in a number of countries because of national or curtural pressures to have boys over girls.

Ultrasound techniques will become so advanced that people will have to suffer from having their parents show everyone their fetal pictures at parties. (The way some show baby pictures today.)

Whether a fetus is property is a different question than whether a fetus has a superior claim to the use of a woman's body over that of the woman. The idea that a woman is a slave to her womb is only going to get more abominable over time.

Sex-selection abortion is a separate topic and can be dealt with differently. Just because abuse the right to abotion is not a reason to deny it to all women.

Hopefully medical science will advance to where we can remove z/e/f from the mother safely early in the pregnancy. This pregnancy termination procedure would end the conflict of rights. The woman maintains control of her body and the z/e/f remains alive.

4) I do not abide by the term "Individual Sovereignty". IF you had read the thread, you'd have seen the appearance of the term "Individual Liberty" thrown in occasionally. However, alas, you didn't hence why we're having the battle here.I really wish I never said Individual Soverignty now. Mind you, a quick define search on google suggests the difference between Sov and Lib is merely a matter of scale.Meh. I'll add something about this to the FAQ tomorrow. Not that it'll do any good.I wouldn't bother, it's pretty clear this will pass.

This resolution takes the right to choose away from people and gives it to their government.

Assuming the government hasn't already co-opted that right away from the citizens as they are within their rights to do.

The only way the right to choose is safeguarded throughout the UN is through legalization.

Correct. Legislation at the UN level can safeguard a NATION's right to choose.

You're arguing againt the resolution you just declared your support for, oh perceptive one.

How, exactly?


...and what they do with their own bodies. Clearly people shouldn't be given that choice themselves, in the hands of the government is where that particular decision rightly belongs! Nobody could possibly be more qualified to tell you what is best for you to do with your own body than a government official after all.

Doctors within my nation are representatives of the government, and I do think that they are the most qualified to tell us what is best for our bodies.

Careful, don't choke on the sarcasm.

Worry not, we have all had to swallow larger pies than that.

This resolution comes on the heels of a recent repeal of the NS UN's "Abortion Rights" resolution. Our nation voted against that repeal. But the repeal went ahead, and currently there are no abortion freedoms legislated anywhere in the NS UN.

Except in those nations whose own governments have chosen to pass laws guaranteeing these freedoms within their own territories...

What if nobody cared about the tidal wave in the South Pacific? What if nobody cared about Hitler?


There's no rational parallel here. A tidal wave in the S. Pacific is not a divisive moral issue in any way shape or form. Those who WISH to help would and those who didn't care to assist would not.

As for Hitler... He committed deeds on an international level, thereby making it an international issue. Further than that even, mass genocide of an already existing population of a number of nations and the decimation of a religion are somewhat different subject matters than the issue at hand.

Pure sovereignty YOU gave up when you joined the UN. Your default rights are only those granted by resolution 49 and the resign button.

And, at least supposedly, the right not to have your ideology banned...

Exactly, Liberty, the right to choose. The right to be able to choose what happens to your body, and not have a government choose for you.


Thank you for proving my point.


That statement, in reference to the US, is misguided. One of the other founding priniciples of The United States Of America is Manifest Destiny. The right of the nation to choose its own path through history, to simplify it a bit.

And, at least supposedly, the right not to have your ideology banned...


Excellently said.

The abortion issue has ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH.

Why do we need another resolution telling each nation to make its own decisions about abortion when the resolution passed a couple weeks ago said EXACTLY THAT.

If anyone had a memory you'd have noticed.

Might I direct you to what I said the last time you made this uninformed argument:

What? Where? Are you talking about the repeal of "Abortion Rights" that..you know...can't initiate any new laws...only remove the old one? So, technically, abortion is as un-dealt with as possible.

They're not being ignored now. The problem is that there IS NO individual to speak of until mental faculties have developed to the point where personhood can be at least plausibly assumed.
If we go by that assumption - that is so say that personhood cannot be granted to those with limited or no mental facilities - then we must apply the same standard everywhere and at all times, or else be forced to admit that our standard is arbitrary and is no standard at all. What about comotose people? What about people with severe mental retardation? Are we free to kill them as well if it is in any way "inconvient" for us?

What we find is that there is no magic moment. No convient point at which the constitutional fairy comes and taps our foreheads with the magic sparkling star tipped wand of personhood. Personhood is instead a long and yes real process (dare I say irrational) that builds up over time. Awareness, real awareness, and even (oh my god was I that niave back then) awareness is a slow process of all sentient beings.

Upon this backdrop is the logical battle of the ideal and the real. All rights are to some extent a form of compromise; a right to free speech is tempered by the concession that one does not have the right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded place. It's easy to simply frame things in absolutes, and both sides do this quite well. But often we are faced not between right and wrong, but between one lesser wrong and another lesser wrong. Until that is understood compromise is impossible.

I've babbled on for long enough, it's almost impossible to remember my original point. Compromise cannot be forced upon people from above. People talk about the slavery issue and the civil war from that popular fairy tale called the "real world." But they forget that in that epic story things realy started to fall to pieces when the so called "supreme court" (apparently they didn't have a body like the UN back then) declared that a person was properpty not only in slave states but in free states as well and even persons who were not property (try proving you are not property when they tear up your papers) were forced back to the slave states. And just like our situaion today, they too had their equivalent of non UN nation states ... and they called it "Canada."

By the way, I included the ultrasound because there was a comon theme to my three points ... shame. Who isn't brought to shame and embarrasment by their baby pictures? :p

Doctors within my nation are representatives of the government, and I do think that they are the most qualified to tell us what is best for our bodies.Be careful to Godmod. Sure some doctors are probably in your government, but not all of them (especially when defence is your primary concern).And, at least supposedly, the right not to have your ideology banned...Banned being the wrong word. Nothing said anything about having it legislated against (I understand what you are saying, but it's at moderators discretion, not yours or mine, and we should not be trying to make judgements on it).

If we could not legislate on anything that would infringe at all on anyones ideology, then most of the resolutions written or to be written will infringe, and we might as well get rid of the whole damned UN right now.

Whether a fetus is property is a different question than whether a fetus has a superior claim to the use of a woman's body over that of the woman. The idea that a woman is a slave to her womb is only going to get more abominable over time.
Bah humbug! Slavery is forever! Nine months are indentured servitude. If a nation state can own your sorry body for one or two years of required military service, then why can't the little fetus rent a uterus for nine months?

And this is the real ironic rub! Abortions become morally objectional to more people as fetal development occurs. The viability argument only places a few months (perhaps as much as five) to the indentitured servitude angle. Granted they are the worst ones but the point is that while we use the term nine months, this is rarely the case.

Yes there are those who would go as far back as before implantation, but they should be treated no less and no more as those who inisist that viable ready to undergo brith feti can still be killed until the moment their heads pop out of the mother. VOTE FOR THE HAPPY MEDIUM! :fluffle: LET THE NATIONS DECIDE! (Just like we do for mandatory military service.)

And, at least supposedly, the right not to have your ideology banned...

:rolleyes:

Are you able to go a day without bringing that up?

The record is broken, stop playing it.

The record is broken, stop playing it.

I don't think he'll manage to break Cato's record, but he's trying!

Ceterum censeo ideologicam non delendam esse

Blessed Popcorn is officially against the abortion legality convention because it officially condemns the use of medical procedures such as IDX. Maybe we should just urge states to not treat prostrate cancer also.

That so many in hte [sic] UN seem to serioiusly think it is OK to gameplay noncompliance with the UN in violation of the express UN rules themselves is deplorable."In violation of the express UN rules"? Are there rules regarding roleplay (aside from the II stickies)?! Seems to me any roleplay (within reason) is valid if it's acknowledged by other players. :rolleyes:

Be careful to Godmod. Sure some doctors are probably in your government, but not all of them (especially when defence is your primary concern).

Point well taken. Thank you.

This is balderdash. A few game glitches and the fact moderators don't police UN roleoplaying for non-compliance does not mean that UN resultions are not binding. You find no support for your "sovereign right of nations" merely in the absence of some game measures that might obliterate such right.

That so many in hte UN seem to serioiusly think it is OK to gameplay noncompliance with the UN in violation of the express UN rules themselves is deplorable.

You are right, there are a minority of vocal players who come here and post every day that believe they are smarter than the rest of us and *need* to have non-compliance illegal in order to have their views enforced upon the other 30,000 UN member states.

But Frisbeeteria himself and countless others have already *demonstrated* that sovereignty (i.e. non-compliance) exists ... they simply reinterpet resolutions to the point that they are meaningless.

Here I would point you all to the Creative Solutions Agency on NSwiki. It was a fun component of my nation when I was a UN member, but not so fun, and rather pointless, now that I've withdrawn. Mental note: Be sure to rejoin the UN at some point ...

And just like our situaion today, they too had their equivalent of non UN nation states ... and they called it "Canada."

i mayhave read this wrong, but your saying Canada is a Non UN nation state?
Canada is a member of the UN. It was one of the first 51 nations to join the UN in October 1945.

You are right, there are a minority of vocal players who come here and post every day that believe they are smarter than the rest of us and *need* to have non-compliance illegal in order to have their views enforced upon the other 30,000 UN member states.

But Frisbeeteria himself and countless others have already *demonstrated* that sovereignty (i.e. non-compliance) exists ... they simply reinterpet resolutions to the point that they are meaningless.
Agreed

Blessed Popcorn]Blessed Popcorn is officially against the abortion legality convention because it officially condemns the use of medical procedures such as IDX. Maybe we should just urge states to not treat prostrate cancer also.
Greater Valmiera stands with you

i mayhave read this wrong, but your saying Canada is a Non UN nation state?
Canada is a member of the UN. It was one of the first 51 nations to join the UN in October 1945.Their "equivalent" of "non UN nation states." He's talking about fleeing laws applicable in all U.S. "member states" at the time. Canada wasn't a "member state," so to speak, so that's where many of them went. So too now, if individuals want to flee UN oppression, they can just hitch a ride to one of the many non-UN states in the NS world.

VOTE FOR THE HAPPY MEDIUM! :fluffle: LET THE NATIONS DECIDE! (Just like we do for mandatory military service.)

I Still think it fails as a happy medium.:rolleyes:

OOC: I've no comment on the resolution debate, I'm sick of the subject. However, in response to the sovereignty comments, I agree with Mik. Non-compliance in RP is acceptable to me, so long as the participants are open to the possibility of UN 'sanctions'. And what are they? Well, depends on how you RP them.

This area needs some flexibility, I think. If someone just shouts 'no, I don't comply', then that's cack, but creative compliance (e.g. Kenny) or reasonable RP'd non-compliance with an awareness of consequences should be OK. It's hard to assess, admittedly. However, taking a sensible approach (i.e. not automatically slapping it down) based on the nature of non-compliance is possible.

EDIT: I should clarify that I think the RP in question should be specifically based on the non-compliance itself.

OOC: I've no comment on the resolution debate, I'm sick of the subject. However, in response to the sovereignty comments, I agree with Mik. Non-compliance in RP is acceptable to me, so long as the participants are open to the possibility of UN 'sanctions'. And what are they? Well, depends on how you RP them.

This area needs some flexibility, I think. If someone just shouts 'no, I don't comply', then that's cack, but creative compliance (e.g. Kenny) or reasonable RP'd non-compliance with an awareness of consequences should be OK. It's hard to assess, admittedly. However, taking a sensible approach (i.e. not automatically slapping it down) based on the nature of non-compliance is possible.

EDIT: I should clarify that I think the RP in question should be specifically based on the non-compliance itself.

OOC:
Agreed on both counts! I personally avoid most of the abortion debate itself for *personal* reasons, however, in advocating that the possibility of non-compliance is a right players have in relation to their own roleplay, doesn't justify being too in your face about it nor should it be taken as an endorsement to go over the top. For example, how many actual examples of me protesting a resolution I've not liked can you think of? And I'll certainly be happy to open any Mikitivity non-compliance issue up to realistical RPing and sanctions. :)


To tie the non-compliance issue into the classic "pro-choice" argument, just because somebody might be pro-choice, doesn't mean that she would choose to have an abortion, but rather just believes that the decision to abort lies with her and not somebody else. Non-compliance to imaginary NS UN resolutions is the same basic right -- player self-determination.

That said, I'll not hijack this debate any further! Though I do feel that the idea of non-compliance is important to this debate, because belief in player self-determination and player freedom justifies weak languaged resolutions.

Hey, when we're down with this, lets regulate the penis!



What's good for the Goose....





And why stop at the Uterus? I say lets through in the legs for good measure.

Hey, when we're down with this, lets regulate the penis!
What's good for the Goose....
And why stop at the Uterus? I say lets through in the legs for good measure.
Ok. Write a proposal about penises, geese and legs, and I'll support it.

Ok. Write a proposal about penises, geese and legs, and I'll support it.

You know I'd be all over that if it weren't for the fact that I'd get myself DEATed. :p

Protection of Geese Act
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Cluichstan

Description: The United Nations,

RECONGNIZING that geese are extremely intelligent, man-loving and friendly birds, that symbolize to millions around the Christmas is coming when they get fat,

ALARMED by the killing of geese, especially those with meaty legs and large penises around the world, whether intentional of accidental,

OBSERVING that the prevention of goose killings will not in any way hurt any of the states' economies,

RECALLING UN resolution #70 (Banning Whaling), and acknowledging that it accidentally omitted geese,

1. Condemns in the strongest terms the intentional killing of geese around the world.

2. Declares that the hunting or intentional killing of geese in extra-territorial waters is a crime according to the International Law, unless when done in circumstances where it is absolutely necessary for the saving of human lives or the prevention of an ecological disaster.

3. Urges all states to legislate a provision similar to that of article #2 above.

4. Calls upon all its members to find ways to minimize the accidental killing of geese.

5. Calls upon all states to prevent goose abuse, in any way that they see fit, provided that no goose, even one with meaty legs and a large penis, shall ever be preferred over human lives.

One thing I don't understand is why a proposision, which has no realistic purpose OR effect, is even proposed?
What can this resulution do? Urge states to conduct some miniature research? Let states in the world rule as they please even if their politics are wrong? Heck, why do we have a NSUN in the first place, if it's role is not to promote and (with force?) defend civil rights? :(

However, you could NOT have an abortion if your nation decide an abortion at any stage *is equal* to murder. The proposed resolution does NOT require any state to allow for an abortion at any stage of a pregnancy.
If you make an abortion illegal, it will be illegal for any cause, in every case.
Yes and if your nation wants to allow abortion for any reason at any time, it can as well... Your point?


Congratulations, you've just made all your women 2nd class citicens, slaves to their reproductive posibilities. Women are now valued less than z/e/f's and born men.
You're really a bastion of reproductive rights when you vote "yes" to this proposal... NOT
:rolleyes: x 100

Wow.. I really "love" this argument the best. The radical and quite retarded idea that the sanctity of preborn human life is part of some dark patriarchal plot to suppress and control women as reproductive slaves... Please stop dreaming/RPing. :|

Whether a fetus is property is a different question than whether a fetus has a superior claim to the use of a woman's body over that of the woman. The idea that a woman is a slave to her womb is only going to get more abominable over time.

Hopefully medical science will advance to where we can remove z/e/f from the mother safely early in the pregnancy. This pregnancy termination procedure would end the conflict of rights. The woman maintains control of her body and the z/e/f remains alive.
Yes but then the fans of child killing will just use that other right that nobody ever heard of before abortion... The "right to choose to be a mother or not" or some shit like that. A lot of idiots use that already even now. So don't think it will really end there.

As for the first part of your post, well keep dreaming.

*snip*

Could you create a seperate thread for it so we can joke around without hijack?

Hey, when we're down with this, lets regulate the penis!
*cough*



<_<



>_>

Omigodtheykilledkenny2 is right. It is impossible for everyone to agree on abortion rights. But that doesn't mean we should let the government choose for everyone else! Since almost no two people can agree on this, it has to be up to the woman in question.

Omigodtheykilledkenny2 is right. It is impossible for everyone to agree on abortion rights. But that doesn't mean we should let the government choose for everyone else! Since almost no two people can agree on this, it has to be up to the woman in question.

And of course the only way that happens is if this resolution is defeated, or repealed after passage.

Could you create a seperate thread for it so we can joke around without hijack?

Done (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10536990#post10536990). :D

Omigodtheykilledkenny2 is right. It is impossible for everyone to agree on abortion rights. But that doesn't mean we should let the government choose for everyone else! Since almost no two people can agree on this, it has to be up to the woman in question.Agreed.Let states in the world rule as they please even if their politics are wrong? Heck, why do we have a NSUN in the first place, if it's role is not to promote and (with force?) defend civil rights?I wonder the same thing sometimes. Of course we should not go to far and override national soverignty when it is clearly a question of national soverignty. But national soverignty is wheeled out too quickly nowadays.

And of course the only way that happens is if this resolution is defeated, or repealed after passage.


Or if perchance the governments allow the woman to choose on therir own, which they may well do as this resolution grants them that right.

As it stands right now, there is no guarantee that individual governments are allowing abortions to take place. This proposal stands a much better chance of passing and having a long existence than any proposal that supports either side whole hog.

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;
Thracia cannot stand by this agreement. Indeed, it is in general perfectly in line with our nation's interests: our nation does not allow abortion in most cases due to curiously low fertility rates and fairly notable infant mortality rates without abortion; each new child is needed in this nation, and this view is held almost unamiously. The mere potential for life is too expensive to give resources to eliminate. Such an agreement, allowing us control while letting other nations keep their own values of freedom guarded, is surely in our own interests.

That being said, the idea that abortion would not be required, as an option for the mother, in all countries in the case of the mother being in danger is wrong. Allowing such a birth, which would result in a dead mother and a half-orphaned child, if not a dead one (making the sacrifice meaningless) would have no value. Unless the mother's life can be guaranteed to a normal rate, abortion must be allowed by any moral nation.

Rest assured, our nation would take action on its own to enforce this on its own regardless of the UN leadership, but, knowing our place, I will only seek to do my best to have it amended or changed. I, as King, realize our opinions will almost certainly go unheard, and most of those fully against abortion would likely be staunchly against this...but allowing a woman to die, when technology could save her life, is something I feel we must to our best to prevent, even if it means stepping in on an individual nations rights. Until the bill is amended, we shall speak against it, even if new agreements would be bent in one way or another.

I, as King, guarantee that, even if they should bend to require abortions (although a large majority of us seem to be for general choice), Thracia shall fight any agreement which restricts a nation's right in any way, except in this particular disagreement.

Obviously there are issues where there can be no compromise even among groups of nations; to me, and almost certainly to my people, whom I hold most dear, this is one of them. As leader of an almost entirely pro-abortion nation (of necessity), I feel that the right should be guaranteed in this tiny clause which barely represents the importance of the issue.
~Trabant

One interesting question we have to deal with is: what is the difference between an embryo, a cloned embryo, and Pluripotent stem cells and others stem cells.

Fire salamanders can generate lost limbs, and some sea stars species may generate entirely from few left cells; even the human liver can regenerate itself.
All of these work because some normal cells revert into stem cells.

Identical twins are 2 persons coming from the same cell.

The probable for next decade human clones will not come from any gametes fertilization.

Furthermore the automatic/non-conscious/chemical interaction between an embryo and the mother are significant:
- The embryo gets everything it needs with the umbilical cord
- Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the mother's menstrual cycle

This is why it’s impossible to define exactly when human life begins.


Abortion didn’t appeared with it legalization, it happened for centuries.
Its interdiction only leads to more child abandonment and more difficult conditions for women.

The human birth process is badly designed; it’s difficult for many people, those who try without success to have a baby, those having one without ever desire. Why does some want to make it even more difficult for people?

One interesting question we have to deal with is: what is the difference between an embryo, a cloned embryo, and Pluripotent stem cells and others stem cells.

Fire salamanders can generate lost limbs, and some sea stars species may generate entirely from few left cells; even the human liver can regenerate itself.
All of these work because some normal cells revert into stem cells.

Identical twins are 2 persons coming from the same cell.

The probable for next decade human clones will not come from any gametes fertilization.

Furthermore the automatic/non-conscious/chemical interaction between an embryo and the mother are significant:
- The embryo gets everything it needs with the umbilical cord
- Chemicals produced by the embryo stop the mother's menstrual cycle

This is why it’s impossible to define exactly when human life begins.


Abortion didn’t appeared with it legalization, it happened for centuries.
Its interdiction only leads to more child abandonment and more difficult conditions for women.

The human birth process is badly designed; it’s difficult for many people, those who try without success to have a baby, those having one without ever desire. Why does some want to make it even more difficult for people?
That's all well and good but what does it have to do with abortion or this debate?

That's all well and good but what does it have to do with abortion or this debate?

This is to show how life, and in particular human life doesn't become human life in 1 second but become human life by a very long progressive process.

And it's why embryo don't have to be granted more or even same rights as women.

Furthermore, as many abortions take place even when it's illegal, banning it in some nations (or granting nations rights to ban it, don't be fooled it's the same thing) don't solve any problem but add new ones: child abandonment/death, health complications for the mothers and/or the baby

Just twelve more hours ... just twelve more hours ... just twelve more hours ... just twelve more hours ...

One thing I don't understand is why a proposision, which has no realistic purpose OR effect, is even proposed?
What can this resulution do? Urge states to conduct some miniature research? Let states in the world rule as they please even if their politics are wrong? Heck, why do we have a NSUN in the first place, if it's role is not to promote and (with force?) defend civil rights? :(


The reason Kenny and Gruenberg both drafted and proposed this is that the resolution is really a vote not on if women have the right to choose abortion, but if nations should have the right to decide if the women of their country and their country alone should have the right.

It would be obviously silly for us to have a resolution saying, "All automobiles in UN nations must have the steering wheel on the left-hand side of the vehicle ... in the interest of standardization". However, it should be clear based on 29+ pages of discussion that the right of nations to make their own abortion laws *is* not something we all agree with. The idea that the UN should promote and force nations to protect their own citizens is an interesting one, and I think many of us have different ideas how that can best be achieved.

This is to show how life, and in particular human life doesn't become human life in 1 second but become human life by a very long progressive process.

And it's why embryo don't have to be granted more or even same rights as women.

Furthermore, as many abortions take place even when it's illegal, banning it in some nations (or granting nations rights to ban it, don't be fooled it's the same thing) don't solve any problem but add new ones: child abandonment/death, health complications for the mothers and/or the baby
Life requires:
metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
Thus, if you're going to argue on when things are/aren't alive, it's whenever the organism evolves these traits. I believe there might be more. Anyway, one scientific argument would be that since the baby doesn't have its own metabolism until its born (it gets nutrients envitro from the mom, correct?) than it is not living until the cord is detached. So by the current accepted definition of life, I think it seems evident that an 8-month baby is in fact not alive. Also, is it capable of development before being birthed?

That being said, does it really count when exactly it becomes alive? All embryos become living unless they undergo a miscarraige, so the argument that a developing embryo can be killed would, for me, include that a small infant can be killed/aborted. After all, it still has no personality, hasn't done anything of significance, and has only potential to do good. The potential of a baby is very, very slightly more than a just-concieved human embryo; it's just chances of survival that limit what the embryo will become. The idea that it only has value once its born makes little sense.

Still, I'm going to agree that countries have the right to decide on abortions for themselves, though as I have stated already, abortions when the woman's life is in danger should be forced into being legalized by all UN nations.
~Trabant

The reason Kenny and Gruenberg both drafted and proposed this is that the resolution is really a vote not on if women have the right to choose abortion, but if nations should have the right to decide if the women of their country and their country alone should have the right.

Pazu-Lenny Nero would like to answer Howie Katzman that:

The reason Kenny and Gruenberg both drafted and proposed this is that the resolution is really a vote on if women have the right to choose abortion.

Because if nations have the right to choose instead of women themselves
It means that women don't have the right to decide, but may only have a say if their governement, even dictatorships one, is concerned with their conditions.

First of all i agree that no where in this proposal does it state that the UN delegates are voting for or against the subject of abortion. This proposal makes clear that the decision at hand is between a nation having the right or not to decide for itself whether to legalize it or not. By the way i totally support this proposal and hopes that it will eventually be passed.:p

I support this one for 2 reasons. The first being It gives nations the right to choose rather to keep abortion Legal or Illegal in their own nations. 2ndly Since this one looks like and will proably be passed it will make the Clinical Abortion Rights Proposal Illegal cuse it says no nation shall interfear which is opposite of what this one states. Oh and I'm super! Thanks for asking!

This is to show how life, and in particular human life doesn't become human life in 1 second but become human life by a very long progressive process.

And it's why embryo don't have to be granted more or even same rights as women.

Furthermore, as many abortions take place even when it's illegal, banning it in some nations (or granting nations rights to ban it, don't be fooled it's the same thing) don't solve any problem but add new ones: child abandonment/death, health complications for the mothers and/or the baby

Did you take an English course? Your grammer is like 20X better from the last debate I saw you in!

Freedomstaki condems this resloution as sections 3 & 4 are forcing states which might not agree with those sections to accept it. I urge everyone to vote no, on this resolution. But you won't listen, I'm not a regional delegate, I was in Janurary though, before I jumped ship to another reigon.

You disagree that to be a person there has to be an actual... well... person present? Disagree away. I've had all kinds of people disagree with obvious facts during my exchanges on this issue.

You miss my point.

1. Human being=person, person=Human being


The recognition that it is the possession of personhood, not humanity, which determines whether human rights are conferred.
Again, 100% your opinion and I'm sorry to say that logic is not on your side.

And anyway... It's H U M A N Rights, not persons rights! All humans, not just some, or the ones you want... That's the whole point of calling them HUMAN Rights and not rights of a person or something like that... So please try again.


I'm unaware of a single legal system anywhere that grants human rights to completely brain dead human bodies just for example... even if we were to hook them up to support systems to keep their organs alive. They ARE rather obviously human, and they are alive... but they aren't people so they don't have rights. A basic reality recognized by every single legal system I am familiar with, as well as every single rational individual who has ever given it any serious consideration that I've encountered... and which denies them any claim to possessing human rights
We're not talking about "brain dead human bodies" now are we? We're talking about living Human beings.


Feel free to buck the trend and argue that the fact that they're alive and human legally entitles them to those rights though. It'll be good for a laugh.
Wha...!

per·son (pûrsn)
n.

1. A living human.

2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

3. The living body of a human.

4. Physique and general appearance.
So again; Human being=person, person=Human being.

You are right about one thing though. I did get a good laugh out of schooling you over this seemingly obvious fact.

hu·man Audio pronunciation of "Human" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hymn)
n.

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.


adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
4. Having the form of a human.
5. Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.


Define member. Can a clump of fetal tissue be a member? How? It doesn't say anything that has the DNA of a human being on it - and the reason is that my foreskin sure as heck hasn't been human since the day it got chopped off. So when does it become a member? At conception? Why? Because it'll become a human? Oh look - see that slab of steel there down at the steel works? That's going to be turned into a wrench tomorrow. It's got the composition of the wrench it'll become. So is it a wrench now since it's fate is so certain? Is it a wrench when they start molding it tomorrow? When does it become a wrench? Why do I have this feeling you're going to try and brush away this entire argument as irrelevant?

well personally im not for abortion, but im for giving nations the right to choose there own laws as long as they dont expect others to follow :sniper:

The reason Kenny and Gruenberg both drafted and proposed this is that the resolution is really a vote not on if women have the right to choose abortion, but if nations should have the right to decide if the women of their country and their country alone should have the right.

It would be obviously silly for us to have a resolution saying, "All automobiles in UN nations must have the steering wheel on the left-hand side of the vehicle ... in the interest of standardization". However, it should be clear based on 29+ pages of discussion that the right of nations to make their own abortion laws *is* not something we all agree with. The idea that the UN should promote and force nations to protect their own citizens is an interesting one, and I think many of us have different ideas how that can best be achieved.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

The reason Kenny and Gruenberg both drafted and proposed this is that the resolution is really a vote not on if women have the right to choose abortion, but if nations should have the right to decide if the women of their country and their country alone should have the right.

It would be obviously silly for us to have a resolution saying, "All automobiles in UN nations must have the steering wheel on the left-hand side of the vehicle ... in the interest of standardization". However, it should be clear based on 29+ pages of discussion that the right of nations to make their own abortion laws *is* not something we all agree with. The idea that the UN should promote and force nations to protect their own citizens is an interesting one, and I think many of us have different ideas how that can best be achieved.

It would also be obviously silly to have a resolution granting nations powers and rights that they already have.
Yet this proposal was written.

Perhaps you are right that people do not all agree that each nation has the right to make their own abortion laws.
Is disagreement about an issue sufficient cause to write up resolutions about it?
What exactly is this bill supposed to accomplish?
It will not stop people from disagreeing, especially about abortion.
It will not stop people from trying to force their views on other nations.
All that it will accomplish is to give nations something that they already have, only with more paperwork.
That, and it will add yet another needless resolution to the growing number that are cluttering up the list.

The proposal passed a couple weeks ago stated:

ACKNOWLEDGES this repeal will not prohibit any abortions, but permit it to be a daily issue in which a nation may decide this issue for themselves.

Obviously the point is moot. We get this issue daily, anyway, why on earth are we voting in the UN about it? It doesn't make sense to make meaningless proposals that have no effect on anything. It's a waste of everybody's time.

It would also be obviously silly to have a resolution granting nations powers and rights that they already have.
Yet this proposal was written.

Perhaps you are right that people do not all agree that each nation has the right to make their own abortion laws.
Is disagreement about an issue sufficient cause to write up resolutions about it?
What exactly is this bill supposed to accomplish?
It will not stop people from disagreeing, especially about abortion.
It will not stop people from trying to force their views on other nations.
All that it will accomplish is to give nations something that they already have, only with more paperwork.
That, and it will add yet another needless resolution to the growing number that are cluttering up the list.

THE MAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH!

It would also be obviously silly to have a resolution granting nations powers and rights that they already have.
Yet this proposal was written.The reasoning behind this kind of resolution is to make it more difficult for the UN to legislate on this in the future. In order to pass a resolution on this matter to either ban or permit abortion, a repeal of this one would need to pass.

I understand the reasoning, but I do think it is very negative to go about getting these particular kind of resolutions passed when the UN should be more constructive.

Heh, I've just discovered the RL UN's (offical) stance on abortion:
What is the (RL of course - H) United Nations stand on the issue of abortion?
The United Nations does not promote abortion as a method of family planning. The legal status of abortion is the sovereign right of each nation.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is the United Nations main organization for population and reproductive health issues. Most of its assistance to countries is provided in the area of reproductive health services, including family planning and information. These services are unquestionably the most effective means of preventing abortions. And to eliminate the need for abortions is UNFPA's goal.
Most abortions can be prevented through quality family planning, but unfortunately contraceptive failure sometimes occurs resulting in unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, women will continue to seek abortion services -- this is a social reality. Whether or not abortion is legal in a country should not determine whether a woman receives health assistance for abortion related complications.
Facts about maternal health and abortion:
Some 99 per cent of the estimated 585,000 maternal deaths worldwide annually occur in poorer countries. Of these deaths, 13 per cent are a result of complications from unsafe abortions.
More women resort to abortion where family planning services and sex education are poor.
Restrictive abortion laws do not prevent abortion but force women to seek illegal and usually unsafe abortions. In Latin America, where abortion is almost completely illegal, the rate is between 30 to 60 per 1,000. In the Netherlands, with Europe's most liberal abortion law, only five out of 1,000 women opt for abortion. The average of Western Europe is 14 abortions per 1,000 women.
Of the estimated 45 million abortions worldwide annually, only 25 million are legal. At least 70,000 women die each year as a consequence of unsafe abortion, and millions more suffer severe health problems.
Unsafe abortions account for some 25 - 50 per cent of maternal deaths in refugee situations.
In an effort to fight these meaningless deaths, UNFPA, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Federation of the Red Cross in 1996 looked at the reproductive health needs of refugees from Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire in the Great Lakes regions of Central Africa. As a result, about 220,000 displaced women of child-bearing age received a package of reproductive health care services together with other emergency supplies.
The package addressed women's needs in family planning, including contraception; assisted childbirth; complications connected with unsafe abortions; sexual violence, including rape; and sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS.
The reproductive health care package does not include abortion. The United Nations does not provide support for abortion or abortion related activities anywhere in the world. But the package contains information about health assistance to women experiencing abortion related complications.
The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo, Egypt, stated the following about the issue of abortion:
The status of a country's population policy, including the legal status of abortions, is the sovereign right of each nation.
Unsafe abortion is a serious public health concern. Prevention of abortion and management of complications from abortions should be part of reproductive health, including family planning and sexual health programmes.
Prevention of unwanted pregnancies must always be given the highest priority and every attempt should be made to eliminate the need for abortion.
http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS6.HTM
Let's just bear in mind that abortions still happen regardless of their legal status or not in RL(and it is arrogant for a NS nation to start Godmodding and presume abortions will not happen at all if their government says so - that means diddly squat in my opinion. We look at real life and have to expect that a similar trend will follow in NS to some degree).

It's gonna pass. Hooray for reasonable legislation.

It's gonna pass. Hooray for reasonable legislation.Hmph, reasonable my arse!http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/i/royale-family.jpg

A question is reaised by many as to why we need a law that seemingly does nothing. Actually the ALC does not do "nothing" it does a significant amount of something. It prevents until such time as it is repealed any attempts by UN members - both radically conserative and radically liberal - from trying to get an Abortion bill on the floor of the UN for debate.

This prevents a resolution requiring all UN members to support abortions at any time and for any reason. It also equally prevents a resolution requiring all UN members to outlaw (with criminal penalties for doctors who perform the illegal operations) all abortions everywhere for any reason. The clear passage of this bill by a clear majority will send a clear signal to both sides that the UN is a body of moderation not of extreems.

Perhaps I might have eggagerated a little. I'm sure we will soon find another extreeme to debate ad nauseum. It's the nature of the beast.

The clear passage of this bill by a clear majority will send a clear signal to both sides that the UN is a body of moderation not of extreems.It certainly does not send that message in this direction. It send the message to me that the UN is a body which cares about it's own governments rather than it's population.
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/new8ey.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/tpcard1kr.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/toothless5kd.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bowel.jpg

Yes, I am ranting.

I've pointed this out before, but it seems I have to do it again. The UN does not have a population. It has members, and those members are national governments. The Cluichstani government is represented at the UN, not Jimmy-Joe-Bob-Frank, owner of a mule dealership on the outskirts of Cluichabad.

The reasoning behind this kind of resolution is to make it more difficult for the UN to legislate on this in the future. In order to pass a resolution on this matter to either ban or permit abortion, a repeal of this one would need to pass.

From the little time Earathia have spent in the NSUN, the people have quickly realised that something like 9 out of 10 propositions, weither they are meant to repeal an existing resolitions or not, is legislated.
Sometimes I wonder if the majority of the NSUN member nations bother to read the whole proposition, and in the case where the proposition is meant to repeal an existing resolution, the resulution in question for comparison.

Not wanting to go on whining, since the resolution in question already has passed, I wish to thank you for your answers to my question earlier.

From the little time Earathia have spent in the NSUN, the people have quickly realised that something like 9 out of 10 propositions, weither they are meant to repeal an existing resolitions or not, is legislated.
Sometimes I wonder if the majority of the NSUN member nations bother to read the whole proposition, and in the case where the proposition is meant to repeal an existing resolution, the resulution in question for comparison.No need to wonder - I'm pretty certain most of them don't. It's a shame really, but we do have a vast silent majority of the UN. I don't know how many of them actually read the proposal, or even how many of them read these boards. Not many is my guess.Not wanting to go on whining, since the resolution in question already has passed, I wish to thank you for your answers to my question earlier.We like you, I hope you stick around :)The Cluichstani government is represented at the UN, not Jimmy-Joe-Bob-Frank, owner of a mule dealership on the outskirts of Cluichabad.Even more reason we should be sticking up for the masses with no voice on here.
And Jimmy-Joe-Bob sounds like the pragmatic kind of person we need on here. Plus Hirota needs to buy Mules :D

I've pointed this out before, but it seems I have to do it again. The UN does not have a population. It has members, and those members are national governments. The Cluichstani government is represented at the UN, not Jimmy-Joe-Bob-Frank, owner of a mule dealership on the outskirts of Cluichabad.

The UN does have a population. And they are represented (or should be, at least) by the governments of the UN member nations. A government never represents itself, it represents their population.

(we had people first, then governments. Not the other way round)

Why do we debate this when we could be debating whether to enforce/prohibit abortion? I think that would be a far more constructive debate. I voted against for the simple fact that this accomplishes nothing and restricts future, possibly more constructive proposals.

Why do we debate this when we could be debating whether to enforce/prohibit abortion? I think that would be a far more constructive debate. I voted against for the simple fact that this accomplishes nothing and restricts future, possibly more constructive proposals.It's the fact it stops future proposals which is what it was intended to accomplish.

As for criticism regarding it's negativity, I agree. But it does what it set's out to do.

This legislation doesn't change anything. And no legislation regarding abortion for any direction changes anything. The abortion issue should be dropped because it doesn't change anything to debate it.

It would also be obviously silly to have a resolution granting nations powers and rights that they already have.
Yet this proposal was written.

Perhaps you are right that people do not all agree that each nation has the right to make their own abortion laws.

Is disagreement about an issue sufficient cause to write up resolutions about it?


The US Constitution also is a document that grants *states* powers and rights they already have. By putting something in writing, you actually prevent future resolutions / constitutions / etc. from changing those rights.

It isn't *disagreement* over the issue that is the justification for any resolution, but rather the belief that like deciding numerous other things, that this issue is best left in the hands of national governments.

Cluichstan is 100% correct to point out that the UN does not have a population, it has member nations. UN resolutions are nothing but recommendations to those members ... and about half of our UN resolutions have some sort of international focus.

The FACT that many opponents to this resolution are ignoring is that many pro-choice nations, such as mine own, actually support this resolution for several reasons, but the most important is in the resolution's fifth clause. That clause basically suggests that abortion be legal (even if regulated) because it is likely to happen anyways.

When another nation claims that the people of Mikitivity must do what they say "or else", the traditional response of my government has been to power up the Miervatian Luftwaffe, launch the airships and pursuit fighters, and then send them a message telling them were they can stick their imperialism.

In contrast to the strong arming approach, another way to convince people to do something is to treat them as equals. So when a nation might say, "We think if you would agree to do this, that we'd both be better off." The vast majority of the time, my nation's leaders will pause and consider the proposal.

UN resolutions are no different. When you force governments to do things without giving treating them as equals, all you do is build up resentment and undermine the very goal you are seeking.

UN resolutions that point to a problem that crosses borders often spell out the benefit of unilateral action. However, in the case of many civil rights or moral decency resolutions (both of which change civil freedoms), resolution authors base this benefit on their own society's value of liberty and a series of domestic benefits (which is not the same thing as unilateral benefits).

Let's say I were to provide hard scientifitic data proving that McDonald's was unhealthy, therefore, in the interest of public health the UN should make fast food resteraunts like McDonald's completely illegal in all UN member states, for the collective good of members. There is no real unilateral reason for this, but passage of the resolution will increase the collective health of the people in UN member states.

The truth is, this resolution does take a stand on abortion. It promotes the idea that women should have the legal right to do so, but it does so in a way that doesn't force its will on sovereign states and in a way that doesn't come across as one society trying to assert their value system over others.

Frankly, my government did not support many of the other sovereign rights resolutions dealing with international security, because those issues *do* cross international borders. This one doesn't directly do so, and thus my government's support for this resolution has only increased over the course of this debate. I honestly can say this is one of the better resolutions I've read. While I understand that there are nations that seek to use the UN to tell my government what to do and how to think, the people of Mikitivity are thankful that the people of Ohmytheykilledkenny and Gruenberg took the time to write this resolution.

Howie T. Katzman

I've pointed this out before, but it seems I have to do it again. The UN does not have a population. It has members, and those members are national governments. The Cluichstani government is represented at the UN, not Jimmy-Joe-Bob-Frank, owner of a mule dealership on the outskirts of Cluichabad.

That's a ludicrous argument.

The Forgotten Territories is a conglamoration of 3 National Governments with a combined population of about 5.5 billion. Forgottenlands, one of those national governments, has a population about 2.1 billion distributed amongst 7 Provincial Governments. It is a government layered over 7 smaller governments. One of these Provinces, Forgotten City (population 600 million) has gone from being 13 rural districts, 75 towns and 3 cities (each with their own populations and being yet another layer of government) to now being a single city. Forgotten City is divided up into 15 different Regions, each region is divided further into 50 Divisions, each division has anywhere from 25 to 60 communities. Each of these has a population.

If you tally up the total populations from each level within this heirarchy of governments, you see that they surmount to the population of the government they are under. Considering that one province broke away and later became Forgottenlands UN, I'd say it would be quite safe to assume that the ability to resign from this nation still exists. Thus, I find your premise to be, quite frankly, false.

The UN has members, and the total population of all its members is the population of the UN. If you don't want to use that term, that's fine. But the term is quite simple to understand and it is technically correct.

Pazu-Lenny Nero would like to answer Howie Katzman that:

The reason Kenny and Gruenberg both drafted and proposed this is that the resolution is really a vote on if women have the right to choose abortion.

Because if nations have the right to choose instead of women themselves
It means that women don't have the right to decide, but may only have a say if their governement, even dictatorships one, is concerned with their conditions.

With respect Ambassador Nero, if this resolution were to fail and another resolution FORCING nations to be pro-choice were to pass, that resolution wouldn't be granting women the right to choice either. It would be yet another example of a UN resolution telling nations how to handle their domestic affairs.

Your nation was not a member in the United Nations when the King of Joccia took two UN resolutions: Legalization of Prostitutation and Euthanasia and justified a nation wide genocide campaign on ethnic, political, and economic minority groups based on the actual text of those two UN resolutions. The J 2004 Joccian Crisis resulted in a complete collapse of that nation, as a number of non-UN members engaged in an armed conflict in Joccia.

My point is, resolutions that are too forceful and that do not containt loopholes only ruin the credibility of this organization and end up alienating the governments and people that well meaning resolutions are trying to help.

You can't fix something if it isn't broke, but you also can't help somebody who doesn't want help ... at least not with a well meaning piece of paper.

My nation has been active in the UN far longer than most that are participating in these debates, and my government was horrified by what happened in Joccia. It is in reference to the millions of Joccian lives that were lost that the people of Mikitivity see the wisdom in this resolution and the FACT that all resolutions focus on the rights of nations.

As a member of the International Democratic Union, the concept of democracy and self rule are goals that my government seeks to promote in other nations. And this resolution's last clause does just that.

Howie T. Katzman

The UN does have a population. And they are represented (or should be, at least) by the governments of the UN member nations. A government never represents itself, it represents their population.

(we had people first, then governments. Not the other way round)

That view works well if we're all representative democracies, but we're not.

That's a ludicrous argument.


OOC: Far from it. If you ever take an international relations or political science class, it is actually the very system we use in RL international law. :)

OOC: Far from it. If you ever take an international relations or political science class, it is actually the very system we use in RL international law. :)

OOC: Indeed. I knew I'd be able to put my bloody Political Science degree to use one day (hasn't been useful for much else, though).

Considering RLUN != NSUN, and the closest thing to an equivelent to the UN would be the EU and the regions of NS already have a such thing as "Regional Population" sitting on a variety of locations plus I've heard of "Combined EU population" being used in statistics gathering before......I'm sorry. I still don't buy the argument.

You can choose not to buy the argument that the earth orbits the sun. That won't make it stop doing so.

(Reposted....now that I'm sure I'm talking about what I meant to talk about)

OOC: Far from it. If you ever take an international relations or political science class, it is actually the very system we use in RL international law. :)

Considering RLUN != NSUN, and the closest thing to an equivelent to the UN would be the EU and the regions of NS already have a such thing as "Regional Population" sitting on a variety of locations plus I've heard of "Combined EU population" being used in statistics gathering before......I'm sorry. I still don't buy the argument.

You can choose not to buy the argument that the earth orbits the sun. That won't make it stop doing so.

Ok - explain to me the logic of why counting up all the people of all member nations and saying it is the population would be a false statement.

Ok - explain to me the logic of why counting up all the people of all member nations and saying it is the population would be a false statement.

Because it's not the population of the UN. Those are the populations of the individual member states. You're making a logic leap based on the false premise that every citizen of every member nation is somehow a member of the UN. That's simply not the case.

Population equates to membership?

Population equates to membership?

Um...no.

Why do we debate this when we could be debating whether to enforce/prohibit abortion?

We've already debated that, not long ago, when we repealed an earlier resolution that tried to force all nations to allow it (but which had loopholes that some of the antis used to evade this)... and, for that matter, a lot of this thread has effectively been spent on that topic too...

OOC: Far from it. If you ever take an international relations or political science class, it is actually the very system we use in RL international law. :)

Bah, practicality > theory.

(OOC: yup, it's a throwaway comment, sorry. If I could I'd explain further, but my dinner is ready)

Considering RLUN != NSUN, and the closest thing to an equivelent to the UN would be the EU and the regions of NS already have a such thing as "Regional Population" sitting on a variety of locations plus I've heard of "Combined EU population" being used in statistics gathering before......I'm sorry. I still don't buy the argument.

Though the NSUN isn't the RLUN, the basic concepts being international law and sovereignty remain the same (that is why we are active in the international political arena of a political based game), just as basic theories of government are still the same. A democracy in NationStates is not that much different from a democracy in RL, and a dictatorship in NationStates is not that much different from a dictatorship in RL. We are talking about international political theory ... not specific historical events.

However, I see that many players have ignored my posts about historical NationStates events, particularly the Joccian Crisis of 2004. If not for the bloody move to Jolt, I'd have added the event to NSWiki, as it was and remains one of the more interesting roleplaying events in my 2+ years here. The Joccian Crisis is a perfect example of where well intentioned, strong languaged resolutions ended up hurting the people they sought to protect.


But getting back to the resolution itself, it is talking about state rights and can be summerized via the following question:

Should states have the right to choose if women should be legally allowed to have abortion or should we take away their freedom to choose?

The keyword here remains: states.

The irony here is if we believe in pro-choice, since NationStates is a game about *states* (Max didn't call the game "Global People Simulation" or "Jennifer Government the Game") in which each state is equal to the others, the same rights we might support in RL for RL people, should be applied to the NationStates equivalent: the state.

Bah, practicality > theory.

(OOC: yup, it's a throwaway comment, sorry. If I could I'd explain further, but my dinner is ready)

OOC: No worries, often with me it is -- "My bus is about to come by!" :) Though as somebody who was here when Joccia was murdering millions, I wouldn't mind if you might give your thoughts on what we could have done to avoid that RPed event.

Um...no.

Then explain how I'm making this logic jump?

You're making a logic leap based on the false premise that every citizen of every member nation is somehow a member of the UN.

I'm not at all trying to claim that a citizen of a member state is a member of the UN. However, do I think they are a citizen of the UN? I'd classify them as that. I'm not going to be handing out UN passports necessarily or anything like that, but it is still a term I'd put to use. Therefore, population = number of citizens of the UN. I fail to see how that premise would be false.

Then explain how I'm making this logic jump?

That is the logic leap.

Well, it passed. Though a repeal was promised by opponents, and could easily be well supported, I would like to thank everybody involved in what I felt was a respectiful UN debate.

OOC: When we add this resolution to NSWiki, let's try to keep things polite and balanced. :) Remember, in time, I'm sure that this subject might be debated again. If Jey hasn't beaten me to the NSWiki article, I may get to it tonight ... that is if my pile of LEGOs don't steal my attention.

While the resolution is closed, I assume some OOC comment is allowed.

Define member. Can a clump of fetal tissue be a member? How? It doesn't say anything that has the DNA of a human being on it - and the reason is that my foreskin sure as heck hasn't been human since the day it got chopped off. So when does it become a member? At conception? Why? Because it'll become a human? Oh look - see that slab of steel there down at the steel works? That's going to be turned into a wrench tomorrow. It's got the composition of the wrench it'll become. So is it a wrench now since it's fate is so certain? Is it a wrench when they start molding it tomorrow? When does it become a wrench? Why do I have this feeling you're going to try and brush away this entire argument as irrelevant?
It is in fact irrelevant. Poor analogies which seem true don't win arguments. For one, we don't protect the rights of wrenches or to-be wrenches. Second, energy would have to be actively put in to make steel--->wrench . You'd likely only be put in jail for a short time or pay a small fine or something anyway, but steeling a raw material =/= a finished product. Meanwhile, a human embryo will, except in the case of abortion or miscarraige (AKA "Theft", that is outside interference), become a baby on its own. I don't really remember petty theft/larceny laws since I never learned them in the first place, though I guess there are countries now and in the past that killed for petty theft.

Foreskin and such, you'd need to step in to create any sort of life from those using DNA code and stuff like that. By having an abortion, you are eliminating something that will be a baby. What's more expensive, an abortion or having the baby born? If the former, we should just have women have the babies and then kill the babies when they come out. Or do a C-section or w/e they're called, that's pretty easy to due and the woman doesn't have to go into labor. Ya. Lets just kill babies, since they're basically just an embryo with a bit of extra time added on. How many babies remember the first week, let alone the first day of their life, when they're born? Just kill them off then and you're not destroying anything important.

While it's as much a stretch as your argument, let me ask you this. Would it be ok for me to go in the past, convince Ghandi's mother to get an abortion, and abort him? Would you mind if I did that? Would you consider it any sort of crime? I mean, without my direct interference, a tiny embryo would become a great peacemaker. What's the difference between killing Ghandi's embryo and killing him when he's a day old? But I bet you don't want to kill day old babies. Or...do you....?

I am in fact for abortion, but with arguments "OMG EMBRO IS TO BABY AS STEEL IS TO WRENCH" for it, I'd probably sway the other way if I stood in the middle ground.

Because it's not the population of the UN. Those are the populations of the individual member states. You're making a logic leap based on the false premise that every citizen of every member nation is somehow a member of the UN. That's simply not the case.
Little confused here. I understand that a monarchy or oppressive dictatorship might not be representing its people, but since there are at least a few rep. democracies, the UN has a population. Right? just because Cluichstan citizens aren't represented doesn't mean no citizens of any country are not represented.....I think?

We congratulate Omigodtheykilledkenny and all else involved on the passage of this well thought out (could have been a little better though) and quite reasonable legislation. Good work people. :)

This is a great victory for true choice and the rights of nations/people to govern themselves through the freedom to do so.

In my opinion... I like to say that a woman has the right to either get rid of the fetus or substain it..... either up to her decision... Killing a child?

For fuck sakes ask yourself this.... would you have a baby waiting in 9 months be born into the world... then later on called a bastard.. and mistreated... or in worst case scenerio mother dies, or leave the kid.... My point exactly...

Thus.... why I agree to the term of accepting this purposal...
and I can care less what other has to say... Keep your ESL insult to yourself.

Little confused here. I understand that a monarchy or oppressive dictatorship might not be representing its people, but since there are at least a few rep. democracies, the UN has a population. Right? just because Cluichstan citizens aren't represented doesn't mean no citizens of any country are not represented.....I think?

The whole debate stems from different ideas of what a nation is. For many of us, 'nation' can be used to mean an organised group of people. Even if the leader of Southern Thracia was an oppressive tyrant, I would accept the use of 'nation of Southern Thracia' to mean 'the people of Southern Thracia'. And I would accept the statement 'Southern Thracia is a UN member' to mean 'the people of Southern Thracia are UN members'.

Others disagree, and take 'nation' to mean only the political entity that holds power in a certain place. In that sense, the 'nation' is essentially the monarch, or government, or dictator, or great priest.

For reference, both meanings are valid. There is a third, strictly geographical meaning, but that one is irrelevant here.

nation n.

1.
a. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
b. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
2. The government of a sovereign state.
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).
4.
a. A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
b. The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

Now, you might very well wonder as to the reasons (and political significance) for proclaiming one meaning and completely denying the other. And to why some might find convenient to restrict the concept of nation, as encompassing leaders but not citizens. I would rather not walk down that road.

*snip*

Actually, the difference hinges on how one defines a UN member. A UN member is a government, not the nation (however you define it) itself.

Actually, the difference hinges on how one defines a UN member. A UN member is a government, not the nation (however you define it) itself.

No. The government acts on behalf of the nation.

No. The government acts on behalf of the nation.

Maybe in your nation...

The UN could be argued as having a population comprising the citizenry of each member state, but I would regard this as an 'indirect' population, if you see what I mean. In addition, this cannot be measured as many players (myself included) ignore the population counter on the grounds that it's utterly ludicrous (several billion? er, no).

This is all a tangential but anyone who still wants to debate abortion even now is in need of a lobotomy. Or has already had one.

anyone who still wants to debate abortion even now is in need of a lobotomy. Or has already had one.
Great post :D

This is all a tangential but anyone who still wants to debate abortion even now is in need of a lobotomy. Or has already had one.

As a great philosopher once said, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

Yeah...I've been drinking...again. :p

Yeah...I've been drinking...again.It only counts for "again" if you actually stop...

It only counts for "again" if you actually stop...

This is true, I suppose, which means I've been on a 17-year drinking binge. :D

This is true, I suppose, which means I've been on a 17-year drinking binge. :D


Keep it up youngster, and you'll almost catch up to me.http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/merv/beerfunnel.gif

Keep it up youngster, and you'll almost catch up to me.http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/merv/beerfunnel.gif

I find your abuse of smileys...disturbing.

/Vader

This is true, I suppose, which means I've been on a 17-year drinking binge. :DAs an old friend of mine used to say: "You only get a hangover if you stop drinking."

He flunked out of college. I wonder if that's related...

As a great philosopher once said, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."
Tom Waits* quotes on the UN forum - I'll drink to that!

*at least, I think it's Tom Waits

The UN does have a population. And they are represented (or should be, at least) by the governments of the UN member nations. A government never represents itself, it represents their population.

(we had people first, then governments. Not the other way round)That view works well if we're all representative democracies, but we're not.

Even then you're representing your people. You may not like it, but you still do.

But getting back to the resolution itself, it is talking about state rights and can be summerized via the following question:

Should states have the right to choose if women should be legally allowed to have abortion or should we take away their freedom to choose?

On personal issues, a state should either not legislate or legislate that it's not a state matter. So no, on this issue states should not have the right to choose.

On personal issues, a state should either not legislate or legislate that it's not a state matter. So no, on this issue states should not have the right to choose.
I assume you're opposed to income tax, then?

Even then you're representing your people. You may not like it, but you still do.
Depends on your definition of 'representing'. We have no obligation to do what is best for common Gruenberger peasants in the UN; for example, we lobbied passionately for the Global Food Distribution Act, and have seen over ten thousand jobs in the meat industry lost in the last month. I'm not sure low Gruenbergers particularly care that their canned pork is a tenth of an opst cheaper, but they probably care that they have no job in a nation with no social welfare system. So, were we 'representing' them then? I think what you actually mean is: when you interact with us, you assume we are representing 'our' people. Have fun thinking that.

Tom Waits* quotes on the UN forum - I'll drink to that!

*at least, I think it's Tom Waits

Greatest genius of all times.

Even then you're representing your people. You may not like it, but you still do.

You can think we do all you like. Doesn't make it so.

Tom Waits* quotes on the UN forum - I'll drink to that!Just remember... it's the bottle that's been drinking...

Greatest genius of all times.
I've often toyed with the idea of having an Ecopoeian character based on him.

Just remember... it's the bottle that's been drinking...
It's the piano that's been drinking... not me...

Hellfire and fuck.

Time to listen to Small Change again.

Just remember... it's the bottle that's been drinking...

Nonono, that was the piano:

Our Father who art in Cribari
Hallowed be thy glass
Thy Kindom come, thy will be done
On Earth as it is in the lounges
Give us this day our daily splash
Forgive us our hangovers
As we forgive all those who continue to hang over against us
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil
And someone give us all a ride home

Remember, folks: the large print giveth and the small print taketh away.