NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Tucker Island

Description: This is a proposal to ban the right to have an abortion.
Abortion is a type of murder, which is illegal. Abortion is not a good option for women because not only is it killing a baby it can cause harm to the woman having the abortion. This should be stopped immediately.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 110 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Jun 1 2008

Have you no common sense?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Have you no common sense?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

I'm guessing you don't like it.

I'm guessing by the "zero approvals" not many others do either.

N.T.

I'm guessing by the "zero approvals" not many others do either.

N.M.

Ha you're funny

I know, right?

N.T.

I know, right?

N.T.

I think it's a good idea.

Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of human life. Abortions are legal in some jurisdictions. Therefore, in those jurisdictions, it is an example of lawful taking of human life, and thus not murder.

Carrying an unwanted child to term can also harm the mother. Haven't you heard of breech babies, miscarriages, etc. Why don't you just ban sex and pregnancy altogether?

OOC: Holy sh!t, what if Tucker Island actually takes me up on that last one?

Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of human life. Abortions are legal in some jurisdictions. Therefore, in those jurisdictions, it is an example of lawful taking of human life, and thus not murder.

Carrying an unwanted child to term can also harm the mother. Haven't you heard of breech babies, miscarriages, etc. Why don't you just ban sex and pregnancy altogether?

OOC: Holy sh!t, what if Tucker Island actually takes me up on that last one?

Because in miscarriages some one is not taking the baby out of the womb and throwing it in the garbage!

Because in miscarriages some one is not taking the baby out of the womb and throwing it in the garbage!

You still haven't addressed the fact that abortion is not always murder.

You still haven't addressed the fact that abortion is not always murder.

actually it is. Murder is the killing of any human being.

actually it is. Murder is the killing of any human being.

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of the life of another human. If abortion is legal in a given jurisdiction, it cannot be murder, since murder is, by definition, illegal. The word you're looking for is "homocide". Or do you intend to call soldiers, executioners, and police officers murderers as well?

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of the life of another human. If abortion is legal in a given jurisdiction, it cannot be murder, since murder is, by definition, illegal. The word you're looking for is "homocide". Or do you intend to call soldiers, executioners, and police officers murderers as well?

No, murder is murder. The word you're looking for is homicide, which is a legal distinction. I would absolutely call soldiers, executioners and police officers murderers if they kill another human being for any reason other than self-defense or the defense of others.

The difference in the case of an abortion is that science is unclear on when exactly human conciousness begins, or becomes "life." Abortion very may well be murder; we just aren't sure yet.

N.T.

I'm guessing by the "zero approvals" not many others do either.

N.T.

Just wait, I'm sure in time WZ Forums and the rest of the approve everything crew will get to it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

No, murder is murder. The word you're looking for is homicide, which is a legal distinction. I would absolutely call soldiers, executioners and police officers murderers if they kill another human being for any reason other than self-defense or the defense of others.

The difference in the case of an abortion is that science is unclear on when exactly human conciousness begins, or becomes "life." Abortion very may well be murder; we just aren't sure yet.

N.T.

So by your definition someone who kills the person in the act of self-defense is a murderer? So by your definition all our soldiers defending our country are murderers? Just wondering

So by your definition someone who kills the person in the act of self-defense is a murderer? So by your definition all our soldiers defending our country are murderers? Just wondering

That's not what he (gender assumed because it's easier to type "he" than "she") said at all. He said that soldiers, executioners, and police officers who kill for reasons other than self defense or the defense of others are murderers.

Murder is really just the unlawful killing of another. If the killing of another is condoned by law, then that specific instance is not murder. A soldier who kills enemy soldiers is not a murderer; on the contrary, he is a hero and a paragon. A soldier who kills his wife in a fit of anger is a murderous scumbag whose only just reward is the hangman's noose.

EDIT: Wow. Two pages wasted on a joke resolution. Although I'm partly to blame as well...

I'm going to hell for this, aren't I?

So what about a hypothetical situation where the mother posed a possibility for physical harm and/or death by carrying a child full term and having it delivered. Could you not then argue it would be in self defense of the mother to have an abortion? This type of situation, as rare as it may be, is why an extreme and absolute ban should not exist. (In addition to the million other reasons of morality, personal choice, etc. etc.)

So what about a hypothetical situation where the mother posed a possibility for physical harm and/or death by carrying a child full term and having it delivered. Could you not then argue it would be in self defense of the mother to have an abortion? This type of situation, as rare as it may be, is why an extreme and absolute ban should not exist. (In addition to the million other reasons of morality, personal choice, etc. etc.)

Took the words out of my mouth. I completely agree with you on this regard.

... please tucker island. stop posting these types of threads. I'm serious. the last one was one that said that evolution shouldn't be tought.

EDIT: Wow. Two pages wasted on a joke resolution. Although I'm partly to blame as well...
Sadly, from Tucker's previous threads and comments, it ain't a joke. As far as I can tell, he's the WA's version of Hataria. >.>

Sadly, from Tucker's previous threads and comments, it ain't a joke. As far as I can tell, he's the WA's version of Hataria. >.>

No!!! Please, let me hold on to this one shred of a reason to believe in humanity's ultimate goodness beneath it all! Don't do this to meee......

I'm being facetious here. It's just that even though I know that people do stupid things, I still manage to pull a virtual face fault when they actually happen.

Seriously, Tucker Island, please stop. These threads aren't going to get anything done (except make people think you're an idiot). Let's get on to more important things, like helping the needy or fighting corruption.

By the way, who is Hataria?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is it that people find so obviously trivial about this? My nation won't be approving this proposal, nor would we support it at vote, but it's not obviously any worse than any of the one line legalise cannabis/legalise guns/give the WA a magical super elite ultra storm force/outlaw gambling/whatever proposals the queue sees everyday.

Tucker Island: if you truly want to stop abortions, let's start by promoting comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, provide more support for pregnant women, strengthen adoption services, legalise adoption by homosexual couples, require pay equity, prohibit of the classification of pregnancy as a pre-existing condition by health insurers, provide protection for sexual harassment whistleblowers...

There's plenty more, and it's frankly naive to think that passing a law of this brevity will end abortions.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs

What we find so trivial about this is that it's a one line proposal from a nation with an established history of these kinds of proposals, and with quite a few of them in the past week or so, I'm frankly a little tired of them. Most of his (assumed gender, no offense meant) arguments basically boil down to "because I say so" or "because the bible says so". Unfortunately, we the respondents have fallen into the classic "hate the sinner as well as the sin" trap, instead of "hating the sin but loving the sinner" as we should.

This whole affair feels like a rather demented game of political whack-a-mole: Tucker Island presents arguments, the other posters beat him down with logic and reason and sanity, but he persists in popping back up again.

Lovely sermon, but Tucker Island has thus far presented two - this is their third - proposals to the WA. Hardly a 'track record'. Thus far the only objection proferred is that abortion is not murder based on the contention that is legal in some places. This is the equivalent of saying that shooting someone in the head is not murder because in some places it is legal. (There are indeed some - a very token few - anarchies in the world having no laws against murder.) To answer 'abortion ought to be illegal' with 'abortion is not illegal' is in no way a rebuttal.

-- Samantha Benson

By the way, who is Hataria?
Do a user search for Ryou Black Islands, Hataria, and The Steppe Empire (all the same person, just different accounts) in the International Incidents forum and you'll find out. You'll wish you hadn't, but you'll find out...

PS: Go ahead and throw the moderation forum in there as well, at least for Hataria.

Lovely sermon, but Tucker Island has thus far presented two - this is their third - proposals to the WA. Hardly a 'track record'.
Fourth, technically. The "Ban Evolution" one was presented twice. Regardless, my point was mainly that Tucker Islands is A) a proclivative poster (4 proposals in a week is a tad higher than most), B) posts poorly thought through proposals based primarily on religious grounds (banning of Evolution, banning of gambling, and now banning of abortions), and C) is not particularly verbose in his proposals or arguments. Thus the comparison to Hataria, although it does fall short as he hasn't asked for 3 of his 4 threads to be closed nor has he threatened to sue Jolt and Max Berry both.

Anyway, that's enough OOC shooting of the bull from moi. On with the show!

EDIT: And I realise you were probably talking to Imota. Whoops. >.>

To Quintessence of Dust:

I never made comments about jurisdictions in which abortion is illegal. I merely stated that in places where abortion is legal, it cannot be regarded as murder. Tucker Island based his contention that abortion is murder on these premises:
Abortion is a type of murder, which is illegal.
Murder is the killing of any human being.
both of which are obviously false. I tried to explain that since murder is the unlawful taking of life, abortion is not murder in jurisdictions where it is legal. I did not counter 'abortion ought to be illegal' with 'abortion is not illegal'. I countered 'abortion is illegal' with 'abortion is not illegal'.

I will concede that Tucker Island does not yet have a track record. However, four proposals in a week is more than most and given that all of them are one liners and that in the ensuing "debates" Tucker Island did not seriously attempt to defend his proposals except for the aforementioned "because I say so" argument, I hardly feel that he merits a serious audience yet.

To Otagia:

Ouch. That bad, huh? Well, I figure something like that had to happen at some point. Thanks for the info.

And finally, to counter 'abortion ought to be illegal' with 'abortion ought to be legal, or at the very least, ought not to be illegal':

Quintessence of Dust put this in better words than I ever could.

Abortion has been, is, and will continue to be a highly controversial issue. Individual nations, as collective groups of people, will always have differing opinions on how best to handle the issue. Certain nations will support completely banning abortion, others will support removing all restrictions on abortion, and still others will choose some sort of a middle ground. The best way to solve this problem is to allow each individual nation to choose for itself how it wants to handle the issue. This allows individual nations to choose solutions that work best for them, while respecting the right of these nations to make decisions for themselves. This also allows for the nations to change their policies as they deem needed to adapt to changing situations, as opposed to locking them into a narrowly defined policy established by an extranational power that can seem overwhelming and out of control at times.

What Tucker Island is proposing is the use of such an extranational power to force others to form their policies based on his worldview. This would unfairly infringe on the right of individual nations to make their own policies based on their own worldviews.

I believe that what Tucker Island is trying to do is wrong. I do not disagree with his motives, but I cannot agree with his actions. That is why I have chosen to oppose him here.

So by your definition someone who kills the person in the act of self-defense is a murderer? So by your definition all our soldiers defending our country are murderers? Just wondering

They don't kill unborn babies!

I dont know the correct way to write a proposal. Frankly I didn't think there was a correct way to write one. I'm done, Yall win.

Free Bikers will NEVER support this proposal, or vote to support this resolution.
While I, personally, find abortion distasteful, I cannot, and will not, force a decision upon another person. My beliefs end where your body/beliefs/hard thought decisions begin.
Don't believe in abortion? Then don't have one.
Leave the poor woman that had to make this painfully personal decision alone.

The problem with the proposal, and the reason why I was completely serious when I asked if the Ambassador for Tucker Island had no common sense, is that it takes a complex set of situations, makes a single inflexible judgement, and boldly asserts that this judgement is always correct. Since that judgement manifestly isn't correct -- for starters just consider medical cases where you can save the mother, the baby or neither, but not both -- then it's pretty clearly a duff proposal.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

OMG abortion may be the taking of a life but only with the desireed end result being one or both party's being better off! say a woman is rapeed,gets pregnant and has an abortion. to me she had every right to do so.
and dont say it goes against religions because i know for a fact that in Judaism it is allowable to abort the baby before its head is out of the womb if it is a hazard to the womans life.

of course to abort a baby like a week b4 its due is horrendous and if someone is going to have an abortion it should be early on whilst it is stilla embro or foetus, in either case before it is mre than 3/4 way developed.
say a dredfully poor family were to have another baby, or she's got i dunno some terrible genetic disease which would most likely leave her child deformed, she hsas every right to destroy the embryo/foetus/baby to save it from a terrible life. i dont see you arguing about contraception, is not sperm a form of life as well?

Abortion is okay, plus if it is murder, who cares?!

Awww jeez....not this shite again.

Okay, lets go through this a bit at a time.

This is a proposal to ban the right to have an abortion.Well done, have a a cookie.Abortion is a type of murder, which is illegal.Why is abortion a type of murder? You need to present a case for why abortion is a murder and not more akin to an amputation of an unwanted organ, such as an appendix. You can make the obvious argument that a foetus has the potential to become a human being as opposed to an appendix which is nothing without the rest of the human body, but it's a nice easy starting point.

More to the point, why exactly is murder a bad thing? Some nations or cultures might think ethnic cleansing, genocide, Familicide, Infanticide or whatever else is not a bad thing? That might be distastful to you or I, but I'd suggest there are far more important matters for the World Assembly to unify on, such as the matters above rather than debating something which many feel governments should not be meddling (and this is when I annoyed everyone with suggesting individual self-determination back in the old days).Abortion is not a good option for women because not only is it killing a baby it can cause harm to the woman having the abortion.If you are going along the lines of physical harm ,you'll have to make a case for why forcing women to have illicit abortions without healthcare standards being applied is a better option than imposing decent healthcare standards on abortion clinics. Because that's what this proposal would do - so in effect you are undermining your own proposal - by saying it's unsafe for the woman on medical grounds, and thus forcing certain women to have abortions in unsanitary conditions, you are making it more unsafe for women.

This should be stopped immediately.Opposed.

Seriously, you'll need to do much much better than this to get anywhere on this one. It took months of legislation back and forth amongst some of the most respected member states on here in the old days before we got to a point where legislation was passed. Nobody was especially delighted with the outcome (if I recall it boiled down to NatSov) but at least it meant the end of the whole debacle.

Oh dear god, I was worried the piles of tripe that are abortion arguments would rear their bloody ugly head once again. Where is a "running about screaming whilst poking ones eyes out repeatedly with a wooden spatula" emoticon when you need one? What's the worst that can happen if a women has an abortion, going by religious arguments? Well, the foetus goes to heaven or purgatory, which isn't bad, and the mother goes to Hell with all the fornicators, ass covetors, shellfish eaters, sausage lovers (in both senses of the word), Belgians, wankers, Protestants/Catholics/Jews/Moslems/Sikhs/Hindus/Scientologists/Pastafarians/Janists/Norse Pagans/Wiccans/Voodooists/ (delete as applicable), WA Ambassadors, etc. assuming she doesn't repent. Surely that's her problem? Furthermore Heaven (http://www.nationstates.net/24788/page=display_region/region=heaven) is far less powerful than Hell (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_region/region=Hell), so I would recommend getting on the side of the Beezlebub if I were you...