NationStates Jolt Archive

Aendinia has submitted the following proposal to the U.N. for consideration

Repeal "Abortion Legality Convention"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #147
Proposed by: Aendinia

Description: UN Resolution #147: Abortion Legality Convention (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: ACKNOWLEDGING that Resolution 147 is not business of the United Nations.

AFFIRMING that the issue of abortion and contraception are matters for individual nations to explore and legislate without the interference of the United Nations.

REGRETTING that Resolution 147 establishes the definition of a Third Tri-mester Fetus to require "special protection" which is also in direct contervention of applicable laws (and possible "issues") in a myriad of United Nations Member Nations.

SEEKING to Establish the individual rights of government of U.N. Member Nations:

1. REMINDS member nations that Resolution 147 delcares that nations still retain the right to expand or contract the provisions of abortion in the respective nation and thus renders little value as legisation;

2. URGES member nations to remember that Resolution 147 requires you nations to provide abortion serivces in cases of rape or incest, which may be against the will of your own people;

3. DELCARES that it is not the place of the U.N. to act as a medical evaluation organization in the matter of Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

4. CALLS FOR the repeal of Resolution 147 in order to allow U.N. member nations to determine their own future on this matter and not allow the United Nations to speak for them.

Authored by President Duglas Lien
President - The Rogue Nation of Aendinia

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 123 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Mar 11 2006

To all U.N. Delegates who stood in opposition to this Resolution, please give your support to this proposal to repeal.

You may do so at this page (http://www.nationstates.net/09424/page=UN_proposal/start=30) at NS.

Thank You.

Illegal for branding. You should check the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before submitting proposals.

Wow. This basically repeals Abortion Legality for the reason it was put in place, to give nations the choice one way or another.

Why repeal a law that clearly does what you think repealing it would do. All the stuff you disagree with was a bunch of URGES and RECOMMENDATIONS in the resolution.

Really, your just opening the door for a resolution directly banning or supporting abortion, whcih I actually don't want because, although I would rather protect it outright, like I said, it opens the door to have it outright banned.

Doesn't matter; it was deleted.

And it's not even officially passed yet.

(ooc: more importantly, why am I logged in?)

And it's not even officially passed yet.

(ooc: more importantly, why am I logged in?)

Odd considering that I recieved notification from the Compliancy Ministry. Furthermore, there is no listing nor link to rules at the proposal page. It is very unprofessional to ridicule people simply because you expect them to be aware of a resource that is not readily presented as a requirement.

The proposal to repeal will be resubmitted following the guidelines.

The New Draft (only reasons provided, no branding)

REGRETTING that Resolution 147 is not business of the United Nations and serves no purpose other than to provide rights to nations that already existed prior to its passing..

AFFIRMING that the issue of abortion and contraception are matters for individual nations to explore and legislate without the interference of the United Nations.

REGRETTING that Resolution 147 establishes the definition of a Third Tri-mester Fetus to require "special protection" which opens the door to future determinations that could further limit the types of abortions that remain legal.

REMINDING member nations that Resolution 147 delcares that nations still retain the right to expand or contract the provisions of abortion in the respective nation and thus renders little value as legisation;

REGRETTING that the U.N. has acted as a medical evaluation organization in the matter of Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

IN SUMMARY Resolution 147 serves limited purpose and clevery disguises definitions for providing rights to unborn children. Otherwise the Resolution 147 has not enacted any law that was not already previously in effect in any member nation besides prohibiting Partial Birth Abortion and requiring Nations to provide abortion in a case of rape or incest. This proposal to repeal is based on the fact that the law is mostly meaningless.

Odd considering that I recieved notification from the Compliancy Ministry. Furthermore, there is no listing nor link to rules at the proposal page. It is very unprofessional to ridicule people simply because you expect them to be aware of a resource that is not readily presented as a requirement.

The proposal to repeal will be resubmitted following the guidelines.
I wasn't mocking you. And there is a listing at the proposals page; just not at the repeal page.

And now I am going to mock you proposal:

You're repealing ALC because abortion isn't a UN concern? Bahahaha.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PROPOSAL WAS?

Oh yeah...to block any attempts to legalise/ban/rule on abortion.

And now I am going to mock you proposal:

You're repealing ALC because abortion isn't a UN concern? Bahahaha.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PROPOSAL WAS?

Oh yeah...to block any attempts to legalise/ban/rule on abortion.

Again, your professionalism shines through.

I am simply stating that the law serves no purpose other than the slip in a definition for the rights of unborn children which could be further exploited in the future. If the Resoultion were amended to remove that provision, I would never have a problem with it.

I understand your logic, provide a law, that in essence does nothing but say Nations may do what they please .... but define these rights for unborn children, and that is my problem. Besides, how does this resolution prevent another U.N. Nation from submiting a proposal asking to expand on the definitions of rights provided for unborn children as presented in R#147?

Furthermore, perhaps it (the rules or link) should be added to the repeals page so that other people who are attempting to get involved in the process do not gain a strike towards U.N. banishment because they were simply unaware through no fault of their own.

Apparently two more mistakes and I am out of the U.N. even though the first one wasn't an error on my part, although I do appreciate being directed to the proper rules.

Again, your professionalism shines through.
Thank you! :)

I am simply stating that the law serves no purpose other than the slip in a definition for the rights of unborn children which could be further exploited in the future. If the Resoultion were amended to remove that provision, I would never have a problem with it.
'Unborn children' have no international rights under this proposal. The nations determine that for themselves.

I understand your logic, provide a law, that in essence does nothing but say Nations may do what they please .... but define these rights for unborn children, and that is my problem. Besides, how does this resolution prevent another U.N. Nation from submiting a proposal asking to expand on the definitions of rights provided for unborn children as presented in R#147?
The fact that if they did, it would be deleted for contradiction or duplication.

Furthermore, perhaps it (the rules or link) should be added to the repeals page so that other people who are attempting to get involved in the process do not gain a strike towards U.N. banishment because they were simply unaware through no fault of their own.
I agree, but...

Apparently two more mistakes and I am out of the U.N. even though the first one wasn't an error on my part, although I do appreciate being directed to the proper rules.
...yes it was; ignorance is no excuse.

Ignorance....call it what you like. The information is not presented, period. So perhaps I should contact the Aendinian Psychic Advisor Hotline the next time I want to interface with the U.N. just to make sure there is no hidden, unrevealed, unavailable page that I am unaware of just to make sure.

Call it ignorance, I call it a badly designed interface for the system of rules. It would be like The Aendinian Parliament passing a law and sealing it in an envelope that is not directly available to its citizens and then begin charging citizens for violations under said secret law.

Regardless, unborn children are provided rights, in the simple fact that partial birth abortions are banned in the resolution. The resolution states that once a fetus reaches a certain developmental stage, but still unborn, it gains a right to live. This can be exploited.

Furthermore, a proposal that wished to extend the ban on partial birth abortions into the second tri-mester would be deleted... because?

It doesn't duplicate or contradict R#147, it builds on it, while not violating the current law and cuts the window for abortion by 33% more.

Ignorance....call it what you like. The information is not presented, period. So perhaps I should contact the Aendinian Psychic Advisor Hotline the next time I want to interface with the U.N. just to make sure there is no hidden, unrevealed, unavailable page that I am unaware of just to make sure.

Call it ignorance, I call it a badly designed interface for the system of rules. It would be like The Aendinian Parliament passing a law and sealing it in an envelope that is not directly available to its citizens and then begin charging citizens for violations under said secret law.
Funny, I thought the rules, rather being secret, were posted in a thread entitled "Rules For Proposals", which was stickied in the UN forum (linked from the main UN page). My mistake.

Regardless, unborn children are provided rights, in the simple fact that partial birth abortions are banned in the resolution. The resolution states that once a fetus reaches a certain developmental stage, but still unborn, it gains a right to live. This can be exploited.
'Exploited' by who?

First, read the resolution. Partial birth is not banned. States are urged to ban it, but not required to. I know of many that have not. That is fine.

Second, just because we urged a partial birth ban, doesn't mean a foetus has rights. We could have been doing it because we thought the procedure was dangerous to the mother. You, though, may read into it what you want: that's the point of the proposal, that each state gets to choose how to implement it.

Furthermore, a proposal that wished to extend the ban on partial birth abortions into the second tri-mester would be deleted... because?
Because it would contradict clause 1, which explicitly stated that states have full rights to determine the legality of all aspects of abortion.

It doesn't duplicate or contradict R#147, it builds on it, while not violating the current law and cuts the window for abortion by 33% more.
It directly contradicts resolution #147.

Of course, you're welcome to try submitting one. Care to bet how long it lasts?

Regardless, unborn children are provided rights, in the simple fact that partial birth abortions are banned in the resolution. The resolution states that once a fetus reaches a certain developmental stage, but still unborn, it gains a right to live. This can be exploited.

IDX is not banned. It encourages the ban; there is a difference.

Furthermore, a proposal that wished to extend the ban on partial birth abortions into the second tri-mester would be deleted... because?

Because it would contradict the right of nations to decide on abortion, given by the ALC.

I can support a repeal of ALC, but your arguments hinge on a misreading of the non-mandatory clauses.

I can support a repeal of ALC, but your arguments hinge on a misreading of the non-mandatory clauses.
Which - Ambassador Bausch pauses to bang his head on the desk - I should have realized would present a problem. The replacement, should one be needed, will be simpler.

Which - Ambassador Bausch pauses to bang his head on the desk - I should have realized would present a problem. The replacement, should one be needed, will be simpler.

Bah. Although we have some sympathy for Mr Bausch's forehead, we will refuse to support any replacement that allows the execution of Gruenbergian women who accidentally fall down the stairs, or medically remove dead fetuses from their womb.

OOC: No, I don't want to restart the debate. I wonder if a dedicated forum should be created for the bloody abortion issue, so that we can move on to more constructive stuff...

Bah. Although we have some sympathy for Mr Bausch's forehead, we will refuse to support any replacement that allows the execution of Gruenbergian women who accidentally fall down the stairs, or medically remove dead fetuses from their womb.
Actually, admit high controversy, Gruenberg has not carried out its more extreme promises, with the Sultan bringing peaceful resolution to the violent backlash that had been afflicting the nation. Although abortion will remain illegal in all cases, exceptions will be made where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, and the crime will be a capital offence only for the doctor. The woman, and any other facilitators, will simply recerive 25 lashes and a jail sentence.

Amen to that! I think all of these baby killin liberals can go get tried for capitol murder!

Call it ignorance, I call it a badly designed interface for the system of rules.

Ignorance....call it what you like. The information is not presented, period.
Before you slap anyone else for pointing out what you should have already seen, have a look at http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_new_proposal

Inappropriate proposals will be removed. This includes proposals that:
suggest changing how the game works (use the Forum instead)
contain descriptions that do not match the category and effect
are not worthy of the UN's considerationThe UN takes proposals seriously and nations that repeatedly submit inappropriate proposals will be ejected.

For more detail on what constitutes an inappropriate proposal, see here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?topic=420465).
I see a link to the rules right there on the page. Are you still having trouble?

Amen to that! I think all of these baby killin liberals can go get tried for capitol murder!

here here

I wasn't mocking you. And there is a listing at the proposals page; just not at the repeal page.
Ah. Point taken. I see you posted in Tech to have that addressed. We'll look into that.

Before you slap anyone else for pointing out what you should have already seen, have a look at http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_new_proposal


I see a link to the rules right there on the page. Are you still having trouble?

Yea, because you are on the wrong page if you had taken the time to read. It does appear on the PROPOSALS page, but not on the REPEAL page.

It is indeed a strange day when a person hijacks the very thread he has created. Perhaps it might be because you can't admit to having lost your own argument? ALC does not define rights. In fact repealing it could in theory pave the way for some other reslution to come along with solidly defined rights that would have to be enforced by every UN member.

Try another argument.
And don't hijack your own thread.

Yea, because you are on the wrong page if you had taken the time to read. It does appear on the PROPOSALS page, but not on the REPEAL page.

If you cool down and read all the posts, you'd realize that this had already been made aware to Fris.

It is indeed a strange day when a person hijacks the very thread he has created. Perhaps it might be because you can't admit to having lost your own argument? ALC does not define rights. In fact repealing it could in theory pave the way for some other reslution to come along with solidly defined rights that would have to be enforced by every UN member.

Try another argument.
And don't hijack your own thread.

No argument has been lost, and an alternate proposal has been provided to those who truly expressed professional interest in purely and simply doing what the ALC was intended to do without the unecessary verbage.

I was also taking the opportunity to make the point that in the processs I feel I was unjustly handed a black mark by the admins.

However my original argument is valid, too bad no one else sees it. I am not atempting to re-open the abortion debate, but give it a proper end with a resolution to does not provide any loopholes.

This goes against our religion and our hearts.
It may go against your religion, but it does not go against the Flame. And that is why religion gets in the way in politics. We recognise that, despite being what many would term a theocracy.

Johannes and Acolyte Gaeblyn