NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking over resolutions

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #147
Abortion Legality Convention

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

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

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

REGRETTING that such divisions render global resolution over abortion unlikely,

SEEKING to establish a fair compromise:

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Gruenberg

Votes For: 8,993
Votes Against: 3,673

Implemented: Tue Mar 7 2006

Could anyone explain what in the world this does??? It has no new idea's in it that are going to help UN cooperation. All this does from what I can see is just say that abortion was repealed. Isin't that what the abortion repeal is supposed to do? It says the UN should take no action and that is what the UN is doing anyway.

it declares only that states have the option on what to do but that is by default what happens so UN law would not change if this was gone I don't think.

It was designed to block a resolution one way or another - to put legislation on permitting or banning abortion on an international scale would require this to be repealled first*

*maybe

It does nothing

It aimed at doing nothing and it succeeded.

Ok.....it aimed at blocking any chance on the UN passing a resolution that did something about abortion. Still succeeded.

Yup so I was right it has no purpose and does nothing... good I found something to repeal next time I feel like making one.

Yup so I was right it has no purpose and does nothing... good I found something to repeal next time I feel like making one.

Actually - this is one example of great political maneuvering in the NS-UN.

This resolution protects the few rights of nations to determine their own course on a contentious and divisive issue. It says that except in exceptional circumstances, a nation should create its own laws regarding abortion....that the NS-UN has no role to play.

I supported this resolution when it was first introduced, and I'll defend it with all the influence I can muster should a proposal seek to repeal it.

W.

Actually - this is one example of great political maneuvering in the NS-UN.

I guess It is a ok way of trying to slow down any possible attempt to stop abortion. You know perfectly well that's all it does.

This resolution protects the few rights of nations to determine their own course on a contentious and divisive issue. It says that except in exceptional circumstances, a nation should create its own laws regarding abortion....that the NS-UN has no role to play.


This dosen't even make it much harder to get an abortion resolution through because alot more people would be against this then abortion resolution so if you have any hope of passing an abortion resoultion you can pass a repeal of this. It does slow it down though.

I don't particularly want to go back into the abortion debate. I just think this is a waste of a reolution. Can you imagine if every repeal people made a resolution for saying that the repeal should have happened. That would be just silly things like this make people think well if they can do it I can do it. This in effect would clutter up the space in the UN and slow down time of making new resolutions.

I supported this resolution when it was first introduced, and I'll defend it with all the influence I can muster should a proposal seek to repeal it.W.

I was just reading this one trying to find something to follow on the issue of euthanasia which is about to be repealed. Then one can expect something to come along as a replacement. I believe that since euthanasia is an issue that is as divisive to members as abortion that this would be a good outline to follow in drafting one on that issue.. unless one wants to mandate how nations deal with this issue one way or other... Then it would not work as it's too neutral..

Some issues the UN has to make a statement on but can not take sides on the issue.. thus this is one of those and this is that statement.. nations can do what they want on the matter.

SEE AS I SAID ONCE ONE PERSON GETS AWAY WITH IT EVERYONE WANTS TOO

actualy Zeldon 6229 Nodlez was better then this but still. We definatly have something like 40 probably more so that would be another 40 resoltions cluttering up the UN I think it is hard engouh to find things as it is we don't need the UN to be cluttered up.

SEE AS I SAID ONCE ONE PERSON GETS AWAY WITH IT EVERYONE WANTS TOO

actualy Zeldon 6229 Nodlez was better then this but still. We definatly have something like 40 probably more so that would be another 40 resoltions cluttering up the UN I think it is hard engouh to find things as it is we don't need the UN to be cluttered up.

Public policy - especially at this level - is messy.

And you're right - Gruenberg's resolution would only slow down an attempt for either a pro or con resolution on abortion. That's what makes it so brilliant. He put in place a road block - or rather a very effective speed bump.

This in effect would clutter up the space in the UN and slow down time of making new resolutions.So if you are worried about slowing down time making new resolutions then why even want to repeal this one.. As you say it does noting and so how is it slowing anything down.. it's just there doing nothing..

Repeal it and we have another repeal R43 on euthanasia... as you can rest assured somebody will toss one in to replace it probably before the ink is dry on the official signatures on the repeal making it so.

Trouble is what will that be to replace R43 or even this one R147 if they appealed. I would hope that something like this replaces R43 and that you leave R147 in place to do nothing but say the UN has looked at and voted on the issue and this is our stand on it.. thus move on to those other issues.

I guess It is a ok way of trying to slow down any possible attempt to stop abortion. You know perfectly well that's all it does.Did you read the resolution or just see it and say lets repeal it? As it in no way bans abortions.. What it does is say that member nations can make their own laws on abortion.. and not all will ban it nor will all allow it... they can do what they believe is right and thus make laws to that effect. Thus the UN will move on to other issues that it needs to...

Look at what is currently going on with the repeal of euthanasia and what you can expect to come once that is done.

I find it humorous.

The RL UN is constantly being flogged for having no spine.

When the NSUN tries to have a spine and look at controversial issues, the world tells it to "stop infringing upon NatSov"

Oh look, I wonder why they have no spine.

The United Nations delegates to nations on one issue, and you call it "spineless"? What, we don't emasculate member states enough already? Just how long are you going to grind this abortion axe, FL?

So if you are worried about slowing down time making new resolutions then why even want to repeal this one.. As you say it does noting and so how is it slowing anything down.. it's just there doing nothing..

Repeal it and we have another repeal R43 on euthanasia... as you can rest assured somebody will toss one in to replace it probably before the ink is dry on the official signatures on the repeal making it so.

Trouble is what will that be to replace R43 or even this one R147 if they appealed. I would hope that something like this replaces R43 and that you leave R147 in place to do nothing but say the UN has looked at and voted on the issue and this is our stand on it.. thus move on to those other issues.

What I meant is slow down time if someone wants to make new resolutions on the thing that was repealed.
"Repeal it and we have another repeal R43 on euthanasia... as you can rest assured somebody will toss one in to replace it probably before the ink is dry on the official signatures on the repeal making it so."

As I said if they have enough to get a repeal on one they can get it on the other. Anyway if the general population of the UN wants it they should get it.

Did you read the resolution or just see it and say lets repeal it? As it in no way bans abortions.. What it does is say that member nations can make their own laws on abortion.. and not all will ban it nor will all allow it... they can do what they believe is right and thus make laws to that effect. Thus the UN will move on to other issues that it needs to...

Look at what is currently going on with the repeal of euthanasia and what you can expect to come once that is done.

I did read it actualy I know it did not that was the point it never did anything. It only slowed down legislation of abortions in the UN and clutters up the UN. You are just picking out statments of what I said out of context to make it sound like I said something else.

So couldn't people also try to pass other stupid resolutions slowing down the removal process of a resolution...

MANDATING: That resolution 58(random number) is not repealed

That is the same thing do you think people should do that?

The United Nations delegates to nations on one issue, and you call it "spineless"? What, we don't emasculate member states enough already? Just how long are you going to grind this abortion axe, FL?

Btw it was me who brought this up and not even so much about the abortion legislation but more about the sillyness of the idea and how I am sure it is going to be done more.

I did read it actualy I know it did not that was the point it never did anything. It only slowed down legislation of abortions in the UN and clutters up the UN.
And why should the UN legislate on abortion either way? Abortion is not an international issue.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yup so I was right it has no purpose and does nothing... good I found something to repeal next time I feel like making one.Sure it does something ... it keeps the gnomes' filthy noses out of our business. You mayn't have been around during the Great Abortion Bruhaha last winter, but I sure was. Ugliness like you've never seen, with longstanding, (mostly) civil players suddenly at each others' throats, and intensely bitter feelings running over what replacement should be introduced after the original Abortion Rights resolution was repealed. The Abortion Rights repeal set off the firestorm; this doused it, at least somewhat. It passed with 71% of the vote, and every single attempt to repeal it has failed. The only people not satisfied are the extremist dead-enders bound and determined to trigger another storm so they may impose their personal beliefs on everybody.

You are just picking out statments of what I said out of context to make it sound like I said something else.No as I quoted what you said and simply as you to clear up what you said so that I could understand it as you meant it not as I may have read it.


So couldn't people also try to pass other stupid resolutions slowing down the removal process of a resolution...

MANDATING: That resolution 58(random number) is not repealed

That is the same thing do you think people should do that?Mandating that one is not repealed or that no action will be taken in the future on an issue is a violation of game rules as you can't do that.


Btw it was me who brought this up and not even so much about the abortion legislation but more about the sillyness of the idea and how I am sure it is going to be done more.This is what keeps us all on our toes trying to muddle through the silly proposals and hope we don't drown in them. Sometimes it best to put in ones like R43 and R147 as buffers to let us know somebody is possibly trying to put one in to one side on the issue..

As regardless of how you or I may feel on an issue I for one feel it's not the duty of the UN to make you believe like me nor me to believe like you on certain issues..

Making something legal simply does that.. as we make owning a gun legal yet we don't make killing people with them legal... thus you don't hang for owning the gun you hang for how you use it.... or abuse it. Thus individual nations should be able to make their own laws on these issues without the UN mandating they do it this way or that. As the UN should be keeping peace between nations not giving cause for division between them over a few issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and even capital punishment.

Just trying to define what each of these are would be near impossible and come up with something all can agree on..

I have to agree that R43 is badly worded and now that it has gone hope it is replaced with one near to form of this one.. otherwise we both may regret what comes up to replace that one.. Thus think that we need to leave R147 alone as it lets individual nations do what they desire on the issue.. and thus should let the UN move on to other issue of more importance to the whole UN..

Just how long are you going to grind this abortion axe, FL?

Hmm....let's see. Someone, not me, nor under my encouragement, came forth and brought up the issue of abortion. Someone else responded about how it should be left to the nations to decide so I make a comment on the argument. Yes, my actions were indeed "grinding the axe"

Mandating that one is not repealed or that no action will be taken in the future on an issue is a violation of game rules as you can't do that.

If you notice I said just before that "So couldn't people also try to pass other stupid resolutions slowing down the removal process of a resolution... " my point was a comparison between the two. They do the same thing.

I belive some resolutions are very good and I don't want anyone repealing them but I don't want a resolution to be made to stop others from repealing it. That is the same thing as If you like a repeal and you don't want a new one.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Anyone noticed how since the day ALC passed, to stop the UN talking about abortion, all we've done is talk about abortion? Repeal the damn thing for all I care...can we just change the subject please?