NationStates Jolt Archive

The abortion vote is over

His Majesty of the Holy Empire of Alarician Inquisitions is in support of this proposal.

With that said, the High Inquisitor of the Alarician Supreme Court asks "Do women not have the right to choose?" (citing the landmark Alarician Supreme Court decision Woe v. Rade )

A referendum conducted in our nation has shown that the vast majority of citizens approve of this policy. In a statement issued by our government the Prime Minister makes the point that of course women do not have the right to choose to end a life and that babies have been mindlessly slaughtered due to potential "inconvience" of motherhood for too long. Klemonland will vote FOR the resolution when it comes to the vote. We send our commendations to Wicknatius.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain are in every way opposed to this proposal. Not only are we for abortion as a means of birth control, but we also believe that international legislation on such a subjective matter (since there is no defined beginning of human life) is unrequested. On arbitrary matters, legislation should be left in the hands of the national governments.

We cannot imagine what philosophy has motivated this proposal since it presents no coherent argument and is written in such a way as to prevent comprehension or legal interpretation. But since it expresses the intention of banning abortion ( if it in fact does not actually do so ) we will oppose this resolution root and branch.

No form of this resolution, no matter how much it is re-drafted and improved, will ever find support with us. It is our sincerest hope that this resolution will not proceed beyond this phase of development and its authors should know that we will do everything within our power to prevent this statute from ever becoming law.

Abortion is a private matter of both complex medical and emotional nature which cannot be dealt with by deeply substandard legislative talent accompanied by rank ignorance and foolish presumptions.

Yours sincerely,

I agree with the general idea of this resolution - that abortion only be permitted only when the health of the mother is in danger or in case of rape. However, this resolution is poorly written as it is. Article 1 needs to be expanded, and 'birth control' need to be taken out. Article 2 doesn't seem to belong in this resolution. Article 3 and 4 need to be thought out much better.

In this present form I'm against this resolution but with improvements I will support it..

The people of Zodiax disagree with the entire resolution. We as a nation take pride in civil liberities and rights. This extends to a women's right to choose. We believe that all women should be able to choose to keep a child or not.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites firmly believes that abortion laws are an intra-national issue and as such should be left for individual nations to decide.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

though, i support the general idea of the proposal, it is largely messed up.

there are several questions, though they may not apply to my nation, are important to ask for less developed nations. how can one tell if the birth will threaten the woman's life in countries without the medical technologies to figure it out?

what if a woman falsely calls rape simply to have an abortion?

what about countries who don't have an adoption department to have adoptions?

you also fail to talk about the abortion clinics in detail. in less developed nations, they have very unsanitary forms of abortion. you need to add something to help them develop better medical ways of having an abortion.

After discussing the issue with our Emperor, I have been instructed to oppose any legislation which takes away the right of the woman to choose.

Even though our own laws follow a path similar to what this proposal does, we cannot, in good conscious, force our views on others in such a controversial topic.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Abortion is a morally complex issue with no clear "right" answer in terms of human rights. That makes it difficult to write convincing international laws about it, given that you need to be very clear about your approach. This proposal doesn't justify itself at all, so no way will I be supporting it. There are issues surrounding abortion that can be legislated about -- some of them really should be soonish -- but this isn't the way.

After careful deliberation with His Majesty the King of the Kingdom of Atanatari, our nation is completly opposed to any goverment making family planning decision for the citizens of our nation.

Honorable Delegate of Wicknatius,
Ondars applauds your attempts to uphold the sanctity of life. We are in approval of your intention, but cannot support your proposal as written, because it leaves the entire burden of the abortion with the mother, rather than placing the burden of the abortion fine with both the biological father and mother, encouraging fathers to take responsibility as well.
Additionally, we would suggest adding a section regarding sexual education for the specific case of abortion and its effects.
Ondars encourages the Delegate to withdraw this proposal as written and submit it to the World Assembly in order to get a working committee to help draft it. Ondars would surely volunteer to help with the draft.

The states are in support with the proposal.

I'm going to wait until, the vote is over. (Tomorrow) I will then create a new proposal, based on the suggestions you guys have made in the forum. I understand that abortion is a debatable issue, and that is really the main reason why I made this proposal. I want it to take effect, but I also wanted to see the different reactions, so that we could make an abortion proposal that in a way was fair to both pro-choice and pro-life. Thank you for your suggestions, comments, and concerns. Sometime, this week I will make a new proposal on Abortion. Hopefully, if anyone is interested, you could help me out. Just send me a telegram, or post here on the thread.

The Hero Empire region is in support of your poposal!!!!!!! You should be in my region. You could be a WA Delegate

Thank you Hero League, but I'm actually a WA delegate for my region Peaceful Place. The other thing is you aren't really allowed to recruit anybody, even me in the WA forum. If you want to talk recruiting shoot me a telegram, I'll be happy to talk to you.

I learned that the hard way

I will then create a new proposal, based on the suggestions you guys have made in the forum.

Post it here first. Don't submit it until you've had a fair bit of feedback. Most of the best proposals get worked on for as much as a month before they're ready. Post it here ... and patiently respond. This is a complex, emotional issue, and you won't get anywhere trying to bull it through.

That was what I was going to do.

That was what I was going to do.


It wasn't what you did do though was it honoured Ambassador?

yours e.t.c. ,

I will then create a new proposal, based on the suggestions you guys have made in the forum.
I must confess to being a little surprised at the tone of this discussion, until I noticed the above comment. And you are indeed right.

I'd forgotten what a boys' club the halls of the WA had latterly become, but this proposal and its level of support provides a grim reminder. Though we disagree with most nations who question the WA's legitimacy for legislative action in this role, we also disagree with those who see this as a 'complex issue': either we are for choice, or state-mandated rape. How shocking that a bunch of old white men should have banded together in support of the latter sentiment.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I must confess to being a little surprised at the tone of this discussion, until I noticed the above comment. And you are indeed right.

I'd forgotten what a boys' club the halls of the WA had latterly become, but this proposal and its level of support provides a grim reminder. Though we disagree with most nations who question the WA's legitimacy for legislative action in this role, we also disagree with those who see this as a 'complex issue': either we are for choice, or state-mandated rape. How shocking that a bunch of old white men should have banded together in support of the latter sentiment.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria



The government of the Emperor of Urgench could not agree more with the sentiments of Ms. Benson in so much as this issue has a clear moral dichotomy at its heart. But perhaps we might add that the situations and circumstances which surround this dichotomy are complex in nature and are beyond the grasp of international law.

We do reiterate our previous commitment however, human freedom animates all our policies and therefore corporeal autonomy is central to this mission, a woman's right to do with her own body as she wishes is paramount in our eyes and we will oppose any statutory attempt to compromise this right where it already exists in the membership of this organisation.

yours sincerely,

Looking back over what I said before, I can see how you might take my comments as encouragement. Don't.

I think you should put this proposal into WA hands. You will probably get this passed.

we have come to a conclusion, that we will oppose such a proposal because abortion laws should stay and be based on individual states. All WA nations should have individual rights to choose such laws and ideologies shouldn't be forced on them.

thank you.

That is bull! We can edit it to have them choose laws then. Otherwise who cares about what Wachichi says

Put the Proposal as a resalution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OOC: I have a suggestion for you:

1. Calm down and grow up.

2. Reduce your grossly, pointlessly oversized signature.

3. Stop spamming. The WA forum has a much slower pace than some other forums. Proposals are generally drafted for weeks, and should they be part of the tiny minority that goes to vote that process still takes five days.

4. Saying 'who cares what x thinks', particularly where x has demonstrated considerable more capacity to give drafting the time and consideration it requires, is not on the recommended list of ways to win friends and influence people.

5. Since, clearly, you have not done so yet, read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) and (admittedly out of date) guide (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=490188).

I do not, incidentally, have even the slightest hope that you will read two words of this post.

Dude your a Post Demon! And I like my signature. If you got a problem with that I can report you!

For what? Taking offense to what you say?

Really, its not funny

Dude your a Post Demon! And I like my signature. If you got a problem with that I can report you!

OOC: Well then. I suppose you'll just have to report me too. Your signature is a severe annoyance. It's oversized and detracts from what's important. The proposal at hand. If you think your nation rules, fine, but you don't really have to declare it to the world. Thank you much.

It wasn't what you did do though was it honoured Ambassador?

yours e.t.c. ,

Not at first no, but the second time yes. I'm learning.

Not at first no, but the second time yes. I'm learning.

Everyone has to learn the same lessons sometime. With a bit of time, there should be a proposal that stands a chance of getting passed, however, be prepared for a fairly heated debate. It's a touchy subject that has a lot of strong viewpoints. I wish you luck. I'll offer advice where I can and when I can.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

I cannot vote for almost any proposal that would limit the decisions of my citizens on this matter. However I do respect your position and will make all suggestions that I can to help, perhaps, get something thru on this.

I like my signature. If you got a problem with that I can report you!

No, you can't. Please take a few moments to read some of the material here before spouting off to experienced players about how this game works.

2nd, reduce your signature size. It's offensively large.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop
Rules For WA Proposals

No, you can't. Please take a few moments to read some of the material here before spouting off to experienced players about how this game works.

2nd, reduce your signature size. It's offensively large.



Three words: Freedom, of, Speech

I must confess to being a little surprised at the tone of this discussion, until I noticed the above comment. And you are indeed right.

I'd forgotten what a boys' club the halls of the WA had latterly become, but this proposal and its level of support provides a grim reminder. Though we disagree with most nations who question the WA's legitimacy for legislative action in this role, we also disagree with those who see this as a 'complex issue': either we are for choice, or state-mandated rape. How shocking that a bunch of old white men should have banded together in support of the latter sentiment.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

What a tasteless argument by follow ambassador - Be pro-choice or you support state-sponsored rape... How can I have an intelligent discussion about the merit of having certain kind of restraint in abortion and regulating abortion clinics when the other is accusing me of sponsoring rape...??

Personally I think abortion should be banned except on certain circonstances:

1) to protect the mother's life
2) in case of rape
3) On certain circonstances to protect mother's health (has to be defined precisely in a resolution)
4) On certain circonstances in case of fetal defects (again, to be defined in a resolution)

Absolutely no abortion allowed for socio-economic or on-request abortion. Also late term abortion should be absolutely banned except to save mother's life.

Also abortion clinic must be regulated to meet minimum hygiene requirement. No 'back-alley' abortion clinic that jeopardize the health of the mother and the fetus.

I think my position is very resonable. If anyone wants to write a resolution I'll be happy to help.

ok if we aren't going to put this proposal in to resulation then just close the thread because I ain't going to take this bull anymore.

ok if we aren't going to put this proposal in to resolution then just close the thread because I ain't going to take this bull anymore.

I thought you were a fan of freedom of speech...

Actually, you can't ask for the thread to be closed, as you were not the originator of this thread.

Sara Mavenu
UN Representative for Mavenu

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain believe the Ambassador of The Hero League should be given the "Ambassador of the Month" award. We mean, seriously. We almost want to go over and squeeze his bigoted cheeks.

I want it to take effect, but I also wanted to see the different reactions, so that we could make an abortion proposal that in a way was fair to both pro-choice and pro-life.

And while you're at it, make a proposal that is fair to both pro-capitalist and pro-Marxist. Followed, naturally, by one that is both pro-democracy and pro-fascist.

Don't take this as a serious criticism, though. It's just impossible to make an abortion proposal with teeth that doesn't take sides.

MapleLeafss;14165645']What a tasteless argument by follow ambassador - Be pro-choice or you support state-sponsored rape... How can I have an intelligent discussion about the merit of having certain kind of restraint in abortion and regulating abortion clinics when the other is accusing me of sponsoring rape...??


The honoured Ambassador for MapleLeafs is asking this organisation to believe that theirs will be an intelligent contribution to this debate? Under what "circonstances" as they put it would this ever be the case?

Ms. Benson makes the perfectly logical point that the state has no business controlling individual women's reproductive self-determination, likening this control over a womans body to a form of sexual assault is perfectly legitimate.

A description of a rape might be "denying a person's right to dissent to a sex act and forcing them to engage in this act regardless of the distress or harm it may do them " and a reasonable description of the state restricting or banning access to abortion might be described as " denying a woman's right to dissent to pregnancy and forcing her to engage in this process regardless of the distress or harm it may do her " .

If the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs cannot see that a logical relationship exists between anti-choice ideas and rape-think , even if they do not agree with this comparison then intelligent debate with them may very well be impossible.


yours e.t.c.

Three words: Freedom, of, Speech

Three letter: FAQ
>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.
As a site moderator appointed by the site owner, I enforce the owner's wishes. You WILL follow the rules or be banned from the site. Is that entirely clear?

i have some problems. 1 what if the rapest cant pay for the abortion? 2. i do not beleave the central government should force tax payers to pay for abortions

A description of a rape might be "denying a person's right to dissent to a sex act and forcing them to engage in this act regardless of the distress or harm it may do them " and a reasonable description of the state restricting or banning access to abortion might be described as " denying a woman's right to dissent to pregnancy and forcing her to engage in this process regardless of the distress or harm it may do her" .

In this respect the Peoples of Sasquatchewain must disagree with the Ambassador for Urgench.

While we do not disagree with the respective definitions for rape and abortion represented by the ambassador, we disagree with the following interpretation of this similarity. While rape is a consequence of something beyond the woman's control (a man's rabid lust), pregnancy is not. If a woman does not wish to have a child, then it is entirely reasonable to believe that she should then refrain from such acts as would cause such a thing, be that through full-blown abstinence or the consistent and adequate use of the best combination of contraceptive devices. In a way, pro-life could be said to be pro-choice: the choice between (unprotected) sex or the lack of children.

As well, there is yet another difference between rape and pregnancy. With rape, the victim has only to think for herself. With pregnancy, she has to think of not only herself, but the fetus in her womb. Nations who believe that a fetus has as much of a right to life as a born individual can very well argue that, with the onset of pregnancy, the woman has lost the right to choose in the matter, since she is not the only person affected by her choice.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain would simply once more like to state our complete and utter opposition to this proposal, however it is stated. We simply felt the need to counter the ambassador's statement.

A description of a rape might be "denying a person's right to dissent to a sex act and forcing them to engage in this act regardless of the distress or harm it may do them " and a reasonable description of the state restricting or banning access to abortion might be described as " denying a woman's right to dissent to pregnancy and forcing her to engage in this process regardless of the distress or harm it may do her " .

What a lunatic argument... A rape is forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will. I don't see any forcible sexual relations in an abortion or no abortion... Note that rape is forcing to have sexual intercourse without giving consent. How denying abortion and forcing to have sexual intercourse without consent are related is beyond my comprehension...

It is the woman's choice, as proven by Woe Vs. Rade, and ARMT Vs. M.A.A.L.

In this respect the Peoples of Sasquatchewain must disagree with the Ambassador for Urgench.

While we do not disagree with the respective definitions for rape and abortion represented by the ambassador, we disagree with the following interpretation of this similarity. While rape is a consequence of something beyond the woman's control (a man's rabid lust), pregnancy is not. If a woman does not wish to have a child, then it is entirely reasonable to believe that she should then refrain from such acts as would cause such a thing, be that through full-blown abstinence or the consistent and adequate use of the best combination of contraceptive devices. In a way, pro-life could be said to be pro-choice: the choice between (unprotected) sex or the lack of children.

As well, there is yet another difference between rape and pregnancy. With rape, the victim has only to think for herself. With pregnancy, she has to think of not only herself, but the fetus in her womb. Nations who believe that a fetus has as much of a right to life as a born individual can very well argue that, with the onset of pregnancy, the woman has lost the right to choose in the matter, since she is not the only person affected by her choice.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain would simply once more like to state our complete and utter opposition to this proposal, however it is stated. We simply felt the need to counter the ambassador's statement.



We should point out to the honoured Ambassador for Sasquatchewain that the position we were explaining was one which was used by the honoured and respected Ms. Benson of Quintessence of Dust which the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs, unsurprisingly could not grasp.

Our own position on this issue has completely different motivations and we were not making any comment on whether Ms. Benson's argument was more or less compelling than any other. We were merely pointing out that contrary to the assertion of the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs a logical comparison between rape and removal of rights to abortion does in fact exist. It may be that other factors make these two things different in some respects but they are also very similar in others. Principally and crucially the right to assent or dissent to what happens to ones own body.

So far as this similarity goes the logic follows. The respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs seems incapable of even this most basic of logical deductions. We suspect that the honoured Ambassador for Sasquatchewain is more perceptive than that, and we would point out that we made no comparison between rape and abortion which is what they say we have made, we were pointing out that Ms. Benson of Quintessence of Dust made a ( fair ) comparison between rape and denial of abortion.

States which make fallacious arguments about the rights of Foetuses are beyond reason. Little if any real logic at all can be associated with such beliefs and even less morality. it should never be the case that the state has the right to deny an individual's right to control what happens to their own body on the basis that the individual's body is somehow beholden to others or that what happens to their body is a matter of public interest or property. this basic right of corporeal autonomy must be fundamental to a civilised society which is not bound by primitive superstition and magical thinking or illogical sentiment.


Yours e.t.c. ,

It is the woman's choice, as proven by Woe Vs. Rade, and ARMT Vs. M.A.A.L.

Considering that Rutianas does not recognise judicial decisions made by other nations, we do not agree that this Woe Vs Rade decision as proving the woman's choice.

Rutianas allows abortion in several cases.

1) Rape or incest
2) Significant health risk to mother
3) Significant fetal deformity

These are not the only cases, but these are the main ones.

We do not allow abortion as a form of birth control. Especially when birth control, in many forms, is offered free of charge to our citizens to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The point here, however, is be cautious of attempting to prove your way of thought by quoting your own judicial achievements. Unless another country has something similar, it's a completely irrelevant point to the debate at hand.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Oh see we give them the choice to either abort the baby or if they want to they can sell it to us as a unskilled laborer or a solider.

Oh see we give them the choice to either abort the baby or if they want to they can sell it to us as a unskilled laborer or a solider.


that sounds like a form of slavery and trafficking which as the respected Ambassador knows is now illegal as per resolution #23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking.

yours e.t.c.,

that sounds like a form of slavery and trafficking which as the respected Ambassador knows is now illegal as per resolution #23 Ban on Slavery and Trafficking.

yours e.t.c.,

Slavery? Trafficking? They don't leave the nation and are given a choice to leave at 18. Until then they are wards of the state.

Oh see we give them the choice to either abort the baby or if they want to they can sell it to us as a unskilled laborer or a solider.

We don't sell babies in Rutianas.

If the woman was raped, they have the choice to keep the child or abort the fetus. The government will not interfere in her choice then. The woman can always place the child for adoption instead of abortion.

As for soldiers... All Rutianas citizens are soldiers. We all have spent at least five years in military service. I'm still associated with the military. I just use the title Ambassador instead of Lieutenant. So there's no selling babies as soldiers.

Besides, we abhor the idea of human trafficking. It's not only despicable, it's also illegal.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Slavery? Trafficking? They don't leave the nation and are given a choice to leave at 18. Until then they are wards of the state.

Trafficking in this context does not merely mean the movement of persons abroad it also means paying for someone. And in what way is keeping these children as "wards of state" and making them train to be soldiers against their will not constitute slavery?

yours e.t.c.,

Trafficking in this context does not merely mean the movement of persons abroad it also means paying for someone. And in what way is keeping these children as "wards of state" and making them train to be soldiers against their will not constitute slavery?

yours e.t.c.,

Also, someone receiving money for an individual also constitutes slavery, at least by Rutianas standards. Doesn't matter if the child is unwanted. It's still selling a child into slavery.

The people of Rutianas would make an offer, however. All unwanted children from Michael Toth's nation are welcome to be adopted in Rutianas. These children will be cared for and loved as if they were a Rutianas-born child.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Trafficking in this context does not merely mean the movement of persons abroad it also means paying for someone. And in what way is keeping these children as "wards of state" and making them train to be soldiers against their will not constitute slavery?

yours e.t.c.,

We pay yes, but they are not forced. They can stop anytime they want, they are loyal though and feel no need to.
As for the Ambassador former Lieutenant, we are a military country. Hence my rank of Grand-General.

We pay yes, but they are not forced. They can stop anytime they want, they are loyal though and feel no need to.

OOC: Real populations wouldn't behave in this way. Teens tend to be willful, and you would likely have lots of runaways, layabouts, and other dissenters, unless you're biologically or chemically modifying them in some way...

States which make fallacious arguments about the rights of Foetuses are beyond reason. Little if any real logic at all can be associated with such beliefs and even less morality. it should never be the case that the state has the right to deny an individual's right to control what happens to their own body on the basis that the individual's body is somehow beholden to others or that what happens to their body is a matter of public interest or property. this basic right of corporeal autonomy must be fundamental to a civilised society which is not bound by primitive superstition and magical thinking or illogical sentiment.

Honored Delegate of Urgench,
Are you suggesting that it's primitive superstition and magical thinking to believe that a human life has inherent value? Isn't the belief that human life confers inherent value and associated rights a fundamental concept in modern democracy? We certainly hope that the World Assembly embraces a democratic philosophy, otherwise what are we all doing here?
Urgench appears to be arguing from a stance of nihilism, atheism, and overall lack of compassion for the dignity of human life.
Ondars recognizes your cold, hard logic. We might accept it if we were computers; however, we are human beings, and as human beings we value life and its wonders. We certainly hope you aren't advocating the disposal of all human value.

As for the Ambassador former Lieutenant, we are a military country. Hence my rank of Grand-General.

Former Lieutenant? I believe my comment was that I am still a Lieutenant. I just choose to go by the title of Ambassador.

And if you honestly believe that by being a military country means that you can buy children to serve in your military, then I have nothing but pity for your people and contempt for your leaders.

I truly pray that you are in compliance with previous WA proposals. Namely #4, #19 and #23.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Fetus can feel pain, can move, has a circulatory system, have organs including lung, heart, brain... needs oxygen and nutrient... Seems to be alive to me...

MapleLeafss;14167327']Fetus can feel pain, can move, has a circulatory system, have organs including lung, heart, brain... needs oxygen and nutrient... Seems to be alive to me...

This seems to be the view that many inhabitants of Rutianas has taken. Thus, our laws reflect this view. Even so, we cannot take the choice away from a woman faced with certain situations. Rape, incest, etc. Our abortion laws were actually put to the vote. This was the consensus of our people.

Even with our own beliefs, we cannot, in good conscious, force other nations to accept them. What we would like to see is something that bans the more questionable forms of abortion, including partial birth abortion and late term abortion.

Why people don't just use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place is beyond me.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

We should point out to the honoured Ambassador for Sasquatchewain that the position we were explaining was one which was used by the honoured and respected Ms. Benson of Quintessence of Dust which the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs, unsurprisingly could not grasp.

Our own position on this issue has completely different motivations and we were not making any comment on whether Ms. Benson's argument was more or less compelling than any other. We were merely pointing out that contrary to the assertion of the respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs a logical comparison between rape and removal of rights to abortion does in fact exist. It may be that other factors make these two things different in some respects but they are also very similar in others. Principally and crucially the right to assent or dissent to what happens to ones own body.

So far as this similarity goes the logic follows. The respected Ambassador for MapleLeafs seems incapable of even this most basic of logical deductions. We suspect that the honoured Ambassador for Sasquatchewain is more perceptive than that, and we would point out that we made no comparison between rape and abortion which is what they say we have made, we were pointing out that Ms. Benson of Quintessence of Dust made a ( fair ) comparison between rape and denial of abortion.

States which make fallacious arguments about the rights of Foetuses are beyond reason. Little if any real logic at all can be associated with such beliefs and even less morality. it should never be the case that the state has the right to deny an individual's right to control what happens to their own body on the basis that the individual's body is somehow beholden to others or that what happens to their body is a matter of public interest or property. this basic right of corporeal autonomy must be fundamental to a civilised society which is not bound by primitive superstition and magical thinking or illogical sentiment.


Yours e.t.c. ,

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain apologize for misstating the opinions of the Ambassador for Urgench. However, our counterarguments are still valid against the statement presented by the Ambassador for Quintessence of Dust.

As well, my argument was not mistakenly comparing rape and abortion (as opposed to the denial thereof). It was simply showing how it is incorrect to compare them (rape and the denial of abortion) in the first place simply by your definitions since they overlook many a difference between the two.

A crocodile and a dog may both have tails and four limbs, but that does not make them similar creatures.

As well, the Peoples of Sasquatchewain are uninterested in faulty logic. Sure, from that one, highly specific angle the logic of relation between rape and denial of abortion works. However, logic only applies in the real world when all relevant premises are considered.

As well, the moment of "it's alive and human" is almost entirely subjective. In Sasquatchewain it is accepted as the moment when the nervous system reacts to pain. However, we are aware of how completely subjective such a decision is. Other nations may very well believe it to be the moment of conception (after all, genetically speaking, the very first cell is entirely alive, human, and capable of progress), others simply the moment of birth. Or some other subjective point in between. Or after. Maybe a life is only truly human after the first year, since the child is barely aware of its surroundings during the first few months, and, since humanity is a social group, it can be argued that for something to be human, it must be able to relate to it's surrounding society.

Personally I think abortion should be banned except on certain circonstances:

1) to protect the mother's life
2) in case of rape
3) On certain circonstances to protect mother's health (has to be defined precisely in a resolution)
4) On certain circonstances in case of fetal defects (again, to be defined in a resolution)

Absolutely no abortion allowed for socio-economic or on-request abortion. Also late term abortion should be absolutely banned except to save mother's life.

Also abortion clinic must be regulated to meet minimum hygiene requirement. No 'back-alley' abortion clinic that jeopardize the health of the mother and the fetus.

I think my position is very resonable. If anyone wants to write a resolution I'll be happy to help.

That was my position and it didn't change. I think it's a resonable compromise.

MapleLeafss;14167384']That was my position and it didn't change. I think it's a resonable compromise.

The people of Rutianas would likely agree. Of course, once a proposal reaches the floor, it is always put to a vote in Rutianas to determine my vote.

A proposal that reaches a compromise, would get my support in reaching the floor, but I can't guarantee how my country would feel about it.

1) to protect the mother's life
2) in case of rape
3) On certain circonstances to protect mother's health (has to be defined precisely in a resolution)
4) On certain circonstances in case of fetal defects (again, to be defined in a resolution)


If these were used in an abortion proposal, I would honestly combine 1 and 3. I would also extend 2 to include incest.

All in all, this would be a good starting point for reasons abortion should be allowed.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas

The Democratic Republic of Grzbeckistan politely disagrees with the proposal, and according to the will of its people hereby votes no. Public opinion here has shown that the general population believes that a woman should have the choice, regardless of the circumstances, whether to complete a pregnancy or not.

However, that does not mean that a compromise cannot be reached. We are willing to hear any number of changes that would possible make this a better resolution, while maintaining a person's freedom and right to choice.

Former Lieutenant? I believe my comment was that I am still a Lieutenant. I just choose to go by the title of Ambassador.

And if you honestly believe that by being a military country means that you can buy children to serve in your military, then I have nothing but pity for your people and contempt for your leaders.

I truly pray that you are in compliance with previous WA proposals. Namely #4, #19 and #23.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Yes you are right. Time to go back to tossing them down into the mines. I would not give that to anyone. I fought my way out of the mines. Oh and I would beg you to not voice your contempt for the Controller. People have a bad habit of going missing for that.

Oh and I would beg you to not voice your contempt for the Controller. People have a bad habit of going missing for that.

Are you actually threatening me? It seems like you are. Were I you, I'd do your research prior to threatening someone that you have no experience dealing with. I'll bet you don't even know what we have in the way of military technology. And no, we won't share.

As for your Controller, I'll voice my contempt as much as I wish. As per Resolution #22, and I quote, all diplomats sent to the World Assembly shall be automatically granted diplomatic immunity. With that, I can say what I wish about your Controller.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain apologize for misstating the opinions of the Ambassador for Urgench. However, our counterarguments are still valid against the statement presented by the Ambassador for Quintessence of Dust.

As well, my argument was not mistakenly comparing rape and abortion (as opposed to the denial thereof). It was simply showing how it is incorrect to compare them (rape and the denial of abortion) in the first place simply by your definitions since they overlook many a difference between the two.

A crocodile and a dog may both have tails and four limbs, but that does not make them similar creatures.

As well, the Peoples of Sasquatchewain are uninterested in faulty logic. Sure, from that one, highly specific angle the logic of relation between rape and denial of abortion works. However, logic only applies in the real world when all relevant premises are considered.

As well, the moment of "it's alive and human" is almost entirely subjective. In Sasquatchewain it is accepted as the moment when the nervous system reacts to pain. However, we are aware of how completely subjective such a decision is. Other nations may very well believe it to be the moment of conception (after all, genetically speaking, the very first cell is entirely alive, human, and capable of progress), others simply the moment of birth. Or some other subjective point in between. Or after. Maybe a life is only truly human after the first year, since the child is barely aware of its surroundings during the first few months, and, since humanity is a social group, it can be argued that for something to be human, it must be able to relate to it's surrounding society.


We are supremely uninterested in becoming enmired in the toxic swamp which is the debate surrounding the beginning of life. No good can come from such a discourse since complete agreement on all particulars is impossible and the surrounding disagreement is bound to make enmities and discord where none is necessary.

This is not a general debating forum and therefore continued pontification on this topic is misplaced and fruitless. Our position on this resolution from the very beginning has been that the w.a. cannot properly legislate on this issue without acrimony which would make the Freedom of Marriage act debate look like a teddy bears tea party.

We would like to be able to help further human freedom in this area but are resigned that as yet the world is too full of Nations who's sentiment or superstition has blinded them to reason and morality and we wish only for this organisation to continue to allow its members to arrange their laws on this matter without interference.

Legislation which would regulate standards in medical practice which would prevent dubious practices in sexual health treatment would receive support from us and so would statutory implements dealing with unplanned pregnancy and family planning, adoption, maternity leave, enabling persons to travel for health care through out the w.a., proper standards in the treatment of rape victims and the prosecution of rapists e.t.c. e.t.c.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Are you actually threatening me? It seems like you are. Were I you, I'd do your research prior to threatening someone that you have no experience dealing with. I'll bet you don't even know what we have in the way of military technology. And no, we won't share.

As for your Controller, I'll voice my contempt as much as I wish. As per Resolution #22, and I quote, all diplomats sent to the World Assembly shall be automatically granted diplomatic immunity. With that, I can say what I wish about your Controller.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

We as much of the Land of Spam have achieved military superiority that few can best. Also I am not threatening you, I like your spunk but our private police have a habit of being a little over zealous. Resolution #22 does not protect you from assailants and assassins not under my direct command. He is not my Controller. His title is the Controller. No one not even me and the other five heads have seen his face.

We as much of the Land of Spam have achieved military superiority that few can best. Also I am not threatening you, I like your spunk but our private police have a habit of being a little over zealous. Resolution #22 does not protect you from assailants and assassins not under my direct command. He is not my Controller. His title is the Controller. No one not even me and the other five heads have seen his face.


Is this in any way relevant to this debate honoured Ambassador? Is it possible that you could find a more appropriate forum for this kind of discussion?

Yours e.t.c. ,

:Snores;
Is the Ambassador done?

MapleLeafss;14167327']Fetus can feel pain, can move, has a circulatory system, have organs including lung, heart, brain... needs oxygen and nutrient... Seems to be alive to me...
Depends on age of the fetus. for example a brain is not present until the third week and not developed (something vaguely resembling a human brain) until the 13th week

The states of Devonshir are opposed to this proposal on the grounds that the issue is not the business of the WA, and should be taken care of on the grounds of individual state actions.

We as much of the Land of Spam have achieved military superiority that few can best. Also I am not threatening you, I like your spunk but our private police have a habit of being a little over zealous. Resolution #22 does not protect you from assailants and assassins not under my direct command. He is not my Controller. His title is the Controller. No one not even me and the other five heads have seen his face.


Roused from semiconsciousness/meditation by the persistence of a WA Gnome with a note, the President for Life of Ardchoille read it, sat reluctantly upright and gavelled for (relative) silence.

"Order! As chairman pro tem of this committee, I remind honourable ambassadors of the standing orders (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14171100&postcount=2)," she droned.

"There is precedent for assassinating members of one's own delegation, there is precedent for offing oneself, but physical intimidation of other delegations is strictly forbidden while the WA is actually in session."

What they did to each other once the session adjourned was outside her writ -- but fancy trying it on in the chamber!

"Honestly, what do they think the lobbies are for?" she muttered, shutting her eyes and composing herself for further hangover-led recovery.

-- Dicey Reilly,
Wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Sorry, folks, but having now read more of what's been going on I feel an OOC, moderator-type comment is warranted, too.

The topic of this thread is in the first post: the draft proposal by Wicknatius.

To stay on-topic, you should:

suggest specific alterations that would make the proposal, in your view, more legal under WA rules or more likely to pass;

advise the proposer whether you would support the proposal as it stands or in any other form.

Instead, many nations appear to be debating the merits of abortion, even to the extent of using RW examples.

In this forum, you debate the actual proposal if and when it comes before the Assembly. You don't debate it in drafting. Drafting is for getting the wording right or persuading the author to give up/keep going.

If you want to have a generalised debate on the concept of abortion, do it in the General forum. The WA is a legislative body.

Roused from semiconsciousness/meditation by the persistence of a WA Gnome with a note, the President for Life of Ardchoille read it, sat reluctantly upright and gavelled for (relative) silence.

"Order! As chairman pro tem of this committee, I remind honourable ambassadors of the standing orders (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14171100&postcount=2)," she droned.

"There is precedent for assassinating members of one's own delegation, there is precedent for offing oneself, but physical intimidation of other delegations is strictly forbidden while the WA is actually in session."

What they did to each other once the session adjourned was outside her writ -- but fancy trying it on in the chamber!

"Honestly, what do they think the lobbies are for?" she muttered, shutting her eyes and composing herself for further hangover-led recovery.

-- Dicey Reilly,
Wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Not Physical intimidation. I will not do it, probably the Controller's private Police. :Takes off Helmet, revealing a trio of scars running across face from above right eye to left jaw.: I got this from father. I have no idea what his anger is like.

"Don't do this or my boss will kill you" (and similars) still consists of a physical threat.

And please, we're in session, not a bar. Go show off your scars to someone who cares.

He is not my boss. I command the military, he runs the country. and I was not saying he would, in fact we have a very low murder, I just said disappear. I believe that the honorable ambassador for Sasquatchewain is a bigot however.

He is not my boss. I command the military, he runs the country. and I was not saying he would, in fact we have a very low murder, I just said disappear. I believe that the honorable ambassador for Sasquatchewain is a bigot however.


Has the honoured Ambassador for Michael Toth been sent here by his "boss" with orders to provide this organisation with amusement and light relief? If so the honoured Ambassador should be recalled.

In any case this is a debate about a proposed resolution on Abortion. Does the honoured Ambassador for Michael Toth have anything to add to the debate on this topic? Or are they simply intent on bizarre displays of physical malformation and childish and impotent threats?

yours e.t.c. ,

Has the honoured Ambassador for Michael Toth been sent here by his "boss" with orders to provide this organisation with amusement and light relief? If so the honoured Ambassador should be recalled.

In any case this is a debate about a proposed resolution on Abortion. Does the honoured Ambassador for Michael Toth have anything to add to the debate on this topic? Or are they simply intent on bizarre displays of physical malformation and childish and impotent threats?

yours e.t.c. ,

:Looks at Annoying Ambassador: As a matter of fact I do. I see no reason to implement this. It is the woman's choice and I see no reason to take that from them, just because of fetes huggers want to impose their will on everyone else.

:Snores;
Is the Ambassador done?

*Bob walks over and smacks him in the head with a cast iron frying pan*

HEY! Only I can sleep during proposal discussions.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

*Bob walks over and smacks him in the head with a cast iron frying pan*

HEY! Only I can sleep during proposal discussions.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

:Looks at dented frying pan: Yes you want something?

Wow, aren't you awesome?

Sas I am concussed that would hardly make me awesome.

Hello all!

The voting for the proposal is over. Based on what I have read in this forum, it seemed as though it was very difficult to create a proposal that suited those of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. I am going to drop the proposal for now. I believe that this sort of issue should now be handled within the nations, rather than have it become an international law. At first, I thought an abortion law would be good, but it causes too much controversy to become an international law. So, this thread can officially end.

That is bull! We can edit it to have them choose laws then. Otherwise who cares about what Wachichi says

creating a resolution that would give WA nations the right to choose their own laws, (something they already have) would be pointless because it doesn't do anything. it needs to take steps. i'm open to ideas. it's just that the proposal hasn't changed much since it's original post.

Wachichi.

and i think you should be listening to advice from more seasoned nations when it comes to resolutions. we know how to get them passed. not you.

respected Ambassador of Wicknatius,

i completely agree with your actions. if ever there is a resolution you want to work on, look for my nation and i'll help out.

thank you.

Wachichi.

The Most Serene Republic of Dyayesh couldn't disagree more. There needs to be choices, and allowing the choice to be legal does not make it so that one must oblige to do it. If you are against abortion, then don't get one.

The Republic of Braaainsss strongly opposes this resolution.

1. A significant number of abortions fall into the category of spontaneous abortions, also known as miscarriages. Our research indicates that depending on a woman's age, a pregnancy will result in a spontaneous abortion between 10% and 50% of the time. We fear that this ambiguously-worded legislation will be exploited by fringe groups to legally force us to interfere with the course of nature in order to reduce or eliminate these spontaneous abortions. Such measures may be technically possible, but would be invasive and expensive.

2. The resolution outlaws abortion for the purposes of birth control, but fails to explain the reasoning behind this measure. It seems wholly arbitrary to permit all birth control measures up until the formation of a single-celled zygote, after which point it is an offense punishable by a large fine or imprisonment. The Republic of Braaainsss supports the use of birth control, and we find no special moral or legal difference between a gamete, a blastocyst, or a embryo in the early stages of development.

3. Our legal experts indicate that rape is a difficult crime to prove in the court of law, as it hinges on the notion of "consent." Our statistics also indicate that many rape victims fail to report the crime or press charges because they are unable to withstand the emotional distress. We are very concerned that under this legislation, rape victims would be required to correctly identify their attackers, file charges with the police, undergo a forensic investigation, have the police successfully find and arrest the attacker, and have prosecutors obtain a guilty verdict in the court of law, possibly against highly paid and skilled criminal defense attorneys. Even if they manage to do this, the protracted nature of this process simply increases the difficulty and risk of the abortion when it is performed.

4. Also chief among our concerns is that the resolution does not allow for the termination of an embryo or fetus with congenital disorders that would be fatal or have significant morbidity.

5. The author of the resolution may base their argument on morality. And yet it seems consummately immoral to force a woman to carry a defective fetus to term, to go through the pains of childbirth, only to have that child live a brief, tortured existence, unthinking and wracked with pain, before expiring to its disorder. It seems immoral to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's fetus until she can prove the crime, and to force her to birth and raise the rapist's child if she is unable to do that.

6. We are not fundamentally opposed to restrictions on late term abortions. Our nation has such restrictions. However, our data indicates that such procedures are rare and used only when warranted by extreme circumstances. We also do not believe it is the World Assembly's role to legislate such matters.

The Republic of Braaainsss strongly opposes this resolution.

1. A significant number of abortions fall into the category of spontaneous abortions, also known as miscarriages. Our research indicates that depending on a woman's age, a pregnancy will result in a spontaneous abortion between 10% and 50% of the time. We fear that this ambiguously-worded legislation will be exploited by fringe groups to legally force us to interfere with the course of nature in order to reduce or eliminate these spontaneous abortions. Such measures may be technically possible, but would be invasive and expensive.

2. The resolution outlaws abortion for the purposes of birth control, but fails to explain the reasoning behind this measure. It seems wholly arbitrary to permit all birth control measures up until the formation of a single-celled zygote, after which point it is an offense punishable by a large fine or imprisonment. The Republic of Braaainsss supports the use of birth control, and we find no special moral or legal difference between a gamete, a blastocyst, or a embryo in the early stages of development.

3. Our legal experts indicate that rape is a difficult crime to prove in the court of law, as it hinges on the notion of "consent." Our statistics also indicate that many rape victims fail to report the crime or press charges because they are unable to withstand the emotional distress. We are very concerned that under this legislation, rape victims would be required to correctly identify their attackers, file charges with the police, undergo a forensic investigation, have the police successfully find and arrest the attacker, and have prosecutors obtain a guilty verdict in the court of law, possibly against highly paid and skilled criminal defense attorneys. Even if they manage to do this, the protracted nature of this process simply increases the difficulty and risk of the abortion when it is performed.

4. Also chief among our concerns is that the resolution does not allow for the termination of an embryo or fetus with congenital disorders that would be fatal or have significant morbidity.

5. The author of the resolution may base their argument on morality. And yet it seems consummately immoral to force a woman to carry a defective fetus to term, to go through the pains of childbirth, only to have that child live a brief, tortured existence, unthinking and wracked with pain, before expiring to its disorder. It seems immoral to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's fetus until she can prove the crime, and to force her to birth and raise the rapist's child if she is unable to do that.

6. We are not fundamentally opposed to restrictions on late term abortions. Our nation has such restrictions. However, our data indicates that such procedures are rare and used only when warranted by extreme circumstances. We also do not believe it is the World Assembly's role to legislate such matters.



We could not possibly agree any more with the comments of the respected Ambassador for Braaainsss. Their critique of this resolution restores our faith in the membership of this organisation. Since it seems that the honoured Ambassador's nation is new to these halls may we be the first to welcome them and congratulate their government on its excellent decision to send such an insightful individual to represent them.

yours sincerely,

Guys, you may continue this debate and propose a new proposal on abortion, but I am going to stay with my plan and let this issue be dealt with within the nations.

Let me just say that Abortion should be legal for several reasons.

1. If a women cannot abort, is not she subject to forced raising of the child she bears, and thus made a slave?

2. What if the women was raped, or otherwise impregnated against her will?

3. Does not a women have the right to chose whether or not she wills to perform a certain act on her own flesh and blood or not?

The Most Serene Republic of Dyayesh couldn't disagree more. There needs to be choices, and allowing the choice to be legal does not make it so that one must oblige to do it. If you are against abortion, then don't get one.

i was reffering to the nation's own choice of law on this and all issues. my point was that a resolution saying 'all nations have the right to choose their own domestic policies' would be pointless since THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT!

my point was that this, and any resolution, needs to have concrete steps and guidelines to be enforced and effective. it can't just be a resolution to give rights to nations who already have those rights. it wouldn't address the problem in the first place (if indeed a problem exists)

Guys, you may continue this debate and propose a new proposal on abortion, but I am going to stay with my plan and let this issue be dealt with within the nations.

then delete the thread. or at least the proposal you have written.

I agree with those conditions...
Very good...Very good...

Guys, you may continue this debate and propose a new proposal on abortion, but I am going to stay with my plan and let this issue be dealt with within the nations.

OOC: seriously, having opened this can of worms you're probably going to have to ask a Moderator to lock the thread to stop people carrying on in here. A short post in the Moderation forum should do the trick!

1. A significant number of abortions fall into the category of spontaneous abortions, also known as miscarriages. Our research indicates that depending on a woman's age, a pregnancy will result in a spontaneous abortion between 10% and 50% of the time. We fear that this ambiguously-worded legislation will be exploited by fringe groups to legally force us to interfere with the course of nature in order to reduce or eliminate these spontaneous abortions. Such measures may be technically possible, but would be invasive and expensive.

Isn't it self-evident to you that we were talking about induced abortion, not spontaneous abortion??? Or does the ambassador feel the need to bring ludicrous argument. Although I agree that this particular resolution is poorly written.


3. Our legal experts indicate that rape is a difficult crime to prove in the court of law, as it hinges on the notion of "consent." Our statistics also indicate that many rape victims fail to report the crime or press charges because they are unable to withstand the emotional distress. We are very concerned that under this legislation, rape victims would be required to correctly identify their attackers, file charges with the police, undergo a forensic investigation, have the police successfully find and arrest the attacker, and have prosecutors obtain a guilty verdict in the court of law, possibly against highly paid and skilled criminal defense attorneys. Even if they manage to do this, the protracted nature of this process simply increases the difficulty and risk of the abortion when it is performed.

You must have poorly trained police officers and prosecutors... Rape and incest are one of the most serious crime and as such, great deal of resources must go to catch and prosecute those offenders. Beside, we find in our nation that usually white collar criminals have money to pay for big lawyers.. not common scum that commit rape.. But then I guess every nations are different.

4. Also chief among our concerns is that the resolution does not allow for the termination of an embryo or fetus with congenital disorders that would be fatal or have significant morbidity.

5. The author of the resolution may base their argument on morality. And yet it seems consummately immoral to force a woman to carry a defective fetus to term, to go through the pains of childbirth, only to have that child live a brief, tortured existence, unthinking and wracked with pain, before expiring to its disorder. It seems immoral to force a rape victim to carry her attacker's fetus until she can prove the crime, and to force her to birth and raise the rapist's child if she is unable to do that.

That's why I proposed to add fetus defect as exception to have abortion allowed.


6. We are not fundamentally opposed to restrictions on late term abortions. Our nation has such restrictions. However, our data indicates that such procedures are rare and used only when warranted by extreme circumstances. We also do not believe it is the World Assembly's role to legislate such matters.

Our nation welcomes your opposition to late term abortion.

MapleLeafss;14180218']Isn't it self-evident to you that we were talking about induced abortion, not spontaneous abortion??? Or does the ambassador feel the need to bring ludicrous argument. Although I agree that this particular resolution is poorly written.

With due respect to the ambassador of MapleLeafss, I and my government find the failure to define "abortion" to be a major flaw in the resolution. Section 1 of the statement Braaainsss filed is meant to highlight one of the many problems with this ambiguity, as "abortion" can potentially encompass a wide range of procedures.

You also failed to respond to my second point, which in my consideration is the most important.
You must have poorly trained police officers and prosecutors... Rape and incest are one of the most serious crime and as such, great deal of resources must go to catch and prosecute those offenders. Beside, we find in our nation that usually white collar criminals have money to pay for big lawyers.. not common scum that commit rape.. But then I guess every nations are different.

The nation of Braaainsss takes the crime of rape very seriously, and strongly objects to any suggestion to the contrary. But perhaps the esteemed ambassador is unacquainted with our court system. We possess what is called an "adversarial court system," under which all defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty. It is impossible to successfully prosecute every crime reported, let alone every crime committed. Because rape is such a serious crime, our court system has a high standard of evidence in order to avoid false convictions. I would also reiterate that the definition of rape hinges on the necessarily ambiguous concept of "consent," which makes it more difficult to prosecute than other crimes.

I would also point out that not every nation has an unlimited amount of resources. It is highly unfair to deny abortions to rape victims in developing countries simply because their court system is corrupt or overburdened.

I also take exception to the suggestion that only poor people commit rape. Low socioeconomic status may correlate to a proclivity to commit crimes, but that is by no means the rule.