NationStates Jolt Archive

A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency; Strong

CONVINCED that abortion is an immoral act that takes the life of an innoncent person.

CONVINCED abortions are only a get-out-of-jail-free pass for the irresponsible.

CONVINCED that killing an innocent child, born or unborn, is against its rights as it has no say in the matter.

CONVINCED there is no reason for abortion as a birth-control, as pregnancy is easily avoidable weather through the use of condoms, medication, or simply not having sex. Having sex without said protection is inviting a pregnancy, as it is the natural thing to come by it.

UNDERSTANDING some abortions are needed, such as for victims of rape or to save a mother from complications at birth.

DEMANDING that a world-wide abortion ban be in effect, except in instances of rape victims or to save a mother.

Abortion is acceptable in cases of medical need (to save the mother), but in cases of just getting out of a consequence of mistakes or bad judgement it is wrong. A child, born or unborn, still has its rights, and deserves to have a say in the matter of its life and/or death. Of course, it is understood that in cases of victims of rape or in cases of life-threatening circumstances to the mother, that it is ok.
-----------

What do you think? Is it submit worthy or is there something that needs work?

I have updated it, what do you think of it now?

What do I think? I think that it doesn't do what it calls for. If, as your preamble proclaims, abortion is an immoral act, your proposal should need to do more than just "REQUEST" for a world-wide ban.

I also think it doesn't have the slightest chance of passing because I get the feeling that more than 50% of nations disagree with the premise that human rights should be made available to the the fetus, and perhaps half of those who think a fetus does deserve human rights don't believe the WA is the body to ensure those rights are protected. The proposal cuts too thin of a slice of the pie to pass.

I think the strength doesn't match the actual effect.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

While we are unlikely to support such a resolution, we wish the honoured ambassador luck. We would say that the final two paragraphs smack of debate, and need to be cast in the form of law instead. The final paragraph, certainly, should be reduced to a single sentence and placed in the preamble.

On a minor point, we think you intended "irresponsible" when you wrote "unresponsible."

More seriously, "REQUESTING" is a feeble verb to choose, and casts doubt upon your chosen strength. It makes the clause read as if it were saying "it would be awfully nice if we had a worldwide ban on abortion, except for rape victims and to save mothers, but don't feel that you have to." We would suggest a more forceful verb, and casting it in simple rather than continuous aspect. Something of the nature of "IMPOSES a world-wide abortion ban..." perhaps?

We also note that "saving a mother" is not the same thing as "medical need", and strongly suggest that the latter be the phrase used in the active clause.

We also note that "saving a mother" is not the same thing as "medical need", and strongly suggest that the latter be the phrase used in the active clause.
That's a really good point. I mean, yes, "Saving a mother" is fine rhetoric because it creates a protagonist an antagonist and a pressing action. The phrase, to a degree, personifies a "medical need" into something that is putting the mother into unusual danger and puts us in the role of hero to preserve her life from this danger. I say that because "save" requires peril to a desired level of life, happiness, pleasure, etc.

And in a preambulary clause, it works to create the narrative of pressing action of an abortion being needed in this case (though, in a larger sense, I'm not sure that mini-narrative jives well with the overall narrative to prove abortion 'reprehensible'). But in an active clause, you really ought to write something specific, denotive and, well, legal-ly. "Medical need" is a good one. "Life-threatening" could be used to describe it as well. Likewise there's the question of who determines "medical need" and the "life-threatening" quality of this medical need. That ought to be specified--or it could be specified in the legislation that such specifics are up to member nations. Either way, I agree with Gobbannium's reply.

I think you need to check spelling and word choices. Also think in certain paragraphs you overstate was is neccessary.
CONVINCED there is no reason for abortion as a birth-control, as pregnancy is easily avoidable weather through the use of condoms, medication, or simply not having sex. Having sex without said protection is inviting a pregnancy, as it is the natural thing to come by it.
it should be whether and I believe the last sentence of this paragraph should be taken out.
Also wonder why everyone thinks rape is an acceptable reason to kill an innocent? I guess adoption or the day after pill doesn't exist in said country but certainly does in Minucular Bob.
Lastly, I don't think this will pass. My kingdom already has abortions outlawed and others who agree with me already do as well. The people this effects the most would be those countries who already decided as a nation to allow abortions and they won't want to change that.
I'm for you if it gets to that point, just very skeptical.

You shouldn't have submitted this already.

First of all, those introductory clauses are not sentences, so they do not end in periods. They should end either in commas or semicolons. For example, this: "CONVINCED abortions are only a get-out-of-jail-free pass for the irresponsible," is a dependent clause, not a complete thought.

Also, I believe that an exception for rape, incest, or medical "necessity" is inconsistent with your position. Why is it acceptable to kill a baby merely because he was conceived through rape? By the way, you should know that this will not pass. It likely will not even reach quorum. Even if you refined it to be the most perfect proposal in the world, the main audience for this game is made up of young liberals, who really support abortion, and don't look kindly on people telling them that they shouldn't have sex "irresponsibly"; it's just an unfortunate fact.

I suggest that you draft a proposal banning abortion after the start of brain activity (which, conveniently, happens to be my own position ;)). This is a reasonable compromise, and even if you do believe that life begins at conception, at least it cuts down on the number and is a start, no?

I think you were a little too hasty to submit this, but with some polish I think it could be a good proposal.

Try and rewrite it taking in some of the suggestions of those who already posted.

What do you think? Is it submit worthy or is there something that needs work?

I think this proposal is undesirable in spirit, counter-productive, and poorly written.

On the overall intent, I believe that abortion is a fundamental right closely associated to rights to control over one's own body, privacy, self-ownership, and liberty in general.

Moreover, legal bans on abortion are not only oppressive, but counter-productive. Making abortion illegal does not significantly reduce the number of abortions that occurs in a nation, but does make the abortions that do occur much more dangerous and harmful.

CONVINCED that abortion is an immoral act that takes the life of an innoncent person.

1) Abortion can be, and usually is, a moral decision.

2) The morality of abortion is better decided by an individual woman and her doctor than by a nation of the WA.

3) The unborn -- especially almost all of those that are aborted -- are not persons.

CONVINCED abortions are only a get-out-of-jail-free pass for the irresponsible.

1. Abortion is a responsible choice and one does not have to be irresponsible to need an abortion.

2. Ignores the many circumstances under which abortion is a moral, responsible, and even unavoidable decision.

CONVINCED that killing an innocent child, born or unborn, is against its rights as it has no say in the matter.

1. Begs the question of whether the unborn, particularly embryos and zygotes, have rights.

2. What about killing other "innocent" beings that have no say in the matter? Apes, pigs, and dolphins have better claims to a right to life than an embryo -- yet we kill pigs 'cuz they are tasty.

CONVINCED there is no reason for abortion as a birth-control, as pregnancy is easily avoidable weather through the use of condoms, medication, or simply not having sex.

1. Mispells "whether"

2. Ignores that contraception is not 100% effective and is often used in cases of unwanted pregnancy.

3. Reflects a prudish and unrealistic attitude against consensual sex.

Having sex without said protection is inviting a pregnancy, as it is the natural thing to come by it.

Is riding in a car inviting a crippling injury that should not be medically treated because it is a common consequence of such activity?

UNDERSTANDING some abortions are needed, such as for victims of rape or to save a mother from complications at birth.

1. "or to save a mother from complications at birth" should be replaced with "or to preserve the life or health of the mother"

2. What about cases of incest, child pregnancies, severe fetal deformity, fetal death, etc?

DEMANDING that a world-wide abortion ban be in effect, except in instances of rape victims or to save a mother.

1. Unacceptable.

2. See wording change regarding "save a mother"

3. See other circumstances where abortion is necessary and/or justifiable even to those who are anti-choice.

Abortion is acceptable in cases of medical need (to save the mother), but in cases of just getting out of a consequence of mistakes or bad judgement it is wrong. A child, born or unborn, still has its rights, and deserves to have a say in the matter of its life and/or death. Of course, it is understood that in cases of victims of rape or in cases of life-threatening circumstances to the mother, that it is ok.


1. This argumentative commentary is repetitive and inappropriate in a proposed resolution outside the opening clauses.

2. This is all pure bullshit for the reasons explained above.

3. FWIW, I am working on a resolution that would seek to reduce abortions without the unnecessary, counter-productive, and oppressive step of denying fundamental rights to women.

I won't try to better the analysis of Dear and Most Respected Cat-Tribe's Amabassador, insofar it is excellent (no surprise here).

3. FWIW, I am working on a resolution that would seek to reduce abortions without the unnecessary, counter-productive, and oppressive step of denying fundamental rights to women.

I'm very much looking forward to this.

Yours truly,

For one, simply "demanding" a ban doesn't actually ban anything either.

For two, the intent of the author, to force nations to alter their domestic laws in accordance with a one-size-fits-all proscription against legal abortions flies in the very face of the cause of national sovereignty -- and the Federal Republic, hardly a champion of the "right" to kill unborn babies, is unalterably opposed.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

I rise to echo the sentiments of the Cat Tribe, Sinonis, and OMGTKK ambassador and to oppose this measure should it run its course.

We too look forward to the submission from our esteemed colleague from Cat Tribe.