[PASSED] On Abortion

[Numdia]

This is about giving women the right to dismember and end the life of someone else's body.

Someone else's? No, the fetus is a parasite wholly reliant on the mother for life, if she wishes to end such a connection, she may.

A fetus is the creation of two beings in intercourse. If you choose to have unprotected sex and "have an accident" then you should not be allowed to abuse the right of abortion and terminate the fetus.

If the fetus is deformed or physically-threatening (I'm assuming the sex was willed by both parties) then abortion should not be disallowed.

[Numdia]

Not that I am trying to force a belief on you, but are you really so twisted that you are calling a fetus, the start of all life, a parasite?
I mean that just seems cold.

It's just another way to look at it. Needless to say, they most literally fill in that description. The relationship between a mother and a child isn't really symbiotic. The fetus gets most of the benefit, whilst the mother gets not direct benefit. Hell, sometimes a fetus could harm the mother.

Still, I think a better definition of the in utero situation is commensal.

The responsibility and risk of a fetus was placed upon a mother, if the mother is unlucky during unprotected sex then why must the fetus suffer?

And the fetus may get most of the benifit, but later in life when the fetus is grown to a man and the female into a senior it will be the man that will do his best to nurture his mother and care for her when she is weak.

A wise man once said, "The best retirement plan you can have is to have many, loving children."

[Nulono]

Someone else's? No, the fetus is a parasite wholly reliant on the mother for life, if she wishes to end such a connection, she may.

A fetus is the creation of two beings in intercourse. If you choose to have unprotected sex and "have an accident" then you should not be allowed to abuse the right of abortion and terminate the fetus.

If the fetus is deformed or physically-threatening (I'm assuming the sex was willed by both parties) then abortion should not be disallowed.

The "deformed" are subhuman now?

[Pirullinen Varjot]

Pirullinen Varjot's ambassador glances up at this
Not quite as a parasite, although dependent upon its host, can be said to have a life of its own. A fetus is more akin to a benign tumor. At least in our eyes.

Haha, that's a good one! The fetus, though dependent, is not a part of the mother; s/he is an organism, not an organ.

In your eyes, perhaps, ambassador. In our eyes, the fetus is no more than a piece of the mother, to do with as she will, until it is born and the cord connecting the two is severed. Then it becomes an organism of its own, and shall be granted full human rights as such, but not a single moment sooner. Although, if you would prefer the description provided to us by the honorable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium, and call it a parasite, we see no problems with that.

[St George of England]

In mine and all other civilized places, Ambassador. Unless you resign, yours as well, at least partially, after tonight.

You've clearly not read, as posted on this forum, my nation's Defence of the Unborn Act, which was passed to negate the effects of this resolution and render it unenforcable.

And what a triumph of dogmatic, misogynistic stubbornness it is. How fantastic it is to see a nation that hates it's women so much, it jumps to defend rapists, it jumps to defend to sexual assaults. It launches an attack on human rights and then has the gall, the audacity, the sheer arrogance, to lecture other nations on human rights. Well done, Ambassador, well done.

[Numdia]

A fetus is the creation of two beings in intercourse. If you choose to have unprotected sex and "have an accident" then you should not be allowed to abuse the right of abortion and terminate the fetus.

If the fetus is deformed or physically-threatening (I'm assuming the sex was willed by both parties) then abortion should not be disallowed.

The "deformed" are subhuman now?

The way one would classify "deformed" is very ranging. But some would argue that if you have a plethora of mental disabilities and otherwise then the fetus could be aborted. It would probably be determined on a nation-by-nation scale.

[The People of Belfast]

You've clearly not read, as posted on this forum, my nation's Defence of the Unborn Act, which was passed to negate the effects of this resolution and render it unenforcable.

And what a triumph of dogmatic, misogynistic stubbornness it is. How fantastic it is to see a nation that hates it's women so much, it jumps to defend rapists, it jumps to defend to sexual assaults. It launches an attack on human rights and then has the gall, the audacity, the sheer arrogance, to lecture other nations on human rights. Well done, Ambassador, well done.

The honourable ambassador for St George of England speaks untruths. Where does the Defence of the Unborn Act defend either rapists or sexual assaults? What human rights does it attack?

[Nulono]

Haha, that's a good one! The fetus, though dependent, is not a part of the mother; s/he is an organism, not an organ.

In your eyes, perhaps, ambassador. In our eyes, the fetus is no more than a piece of the mother, to do with as she will, until it is born and the cord connecting the two is severed. Then it becomes an organism of its own, and shall be granted full human rights as such, but not a single moment sooner. Although, if you would prefer the description provided to us by the honorable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium, and call it a parasite, we see no problems with that.

1. So it's okay to murder a born infant if the cord hasn't been cut?
2. A parasite is another organism by definition. You can't have it both ways.
3. This isn't a "your eyes, my eyes" issue. This is basic biology.

You've clearly not read, as posted on this forum, my nation's Defence of the Unborn Act, which was passed to negate the effects of this resolution and render it unenforcable.

And what a triumph of dogmatic, misogynistic stubbornness it is. How fantastic it is to see a nation that hates it's women so much, it jumps to defend rapists, it jumps to defend to sexual assaults. It launches an attack on human rights and then has the gall, the audacity, the sheer arrogance, to lecture other nations on human rights. Well done, Ambassador, well done.

This is about protecting the rapist's child, not the rapist. The rapist could be castrated with a rusty nail and it wouldn't contradict the DotUA.

The "deformed" are subhuman now?

The way one would classify "deformed" is very ranging. But some would argue that if you have a plethora of mental disabilities and otherwise then the fetus could be aborted. It would probably be determined on a nation-by-nation scale.

Uh, come again?

[Keronians]

The issue brought up was career, not bodily autonomy. That's another topic altogether.

The only issue of concern in the abortion debate is bodily autonomy. All others derive from it, or are smokescreens.

An individual does not wish to have a child for the sake of her career may terminate her pregnancy but not her born child for one reason: no one may be forced to have their body used by another person. Not because of the age of the child, nor because of whatever strawman argument you come up with. This applies if the other person's age is 20 weeks or 20 years.

Of course, I don't anticipate this argument will make any impact on you, since you've displayed a marked habit of addressing one line of a disagreement with some irrelevant statement and simply ignoring any points too inconvenient to your argument.

Anyway, 7 hours before this debate's over. Hopefully for a long, long time.

- S.K.

Good luck with that. There's still the repeal to be dealt with (both the one that's already been drafted and the one I'm going to draft -so it appeals more to pro-choicers- since I find it unsatisfactory).

[Motuka]

As expected you have displayed total ignorance of the concept of bodily sovereignty.

Here's a better question -- is it moral to force people to donate blood? People die every day due to a lack of blood transfusions, after all.

- S.K.

You show total ignorance of the difference between killing and neglecting to aid.

You have not addressed the question once again.

No, it's not moral to force people to do things they don't want to.

It's also not moral to sit around on the couch watching TV when people are dying because your to lazy to donate blood.[/quote]
This may be true, but you still believe blood donation should be elective, correct?

- S.K.

[Numdia]

Haha, that's a good one! The fetus, though dependent, is not a part of the mother; s/he is an organism, not an organ.

In your eyes, perhaps, ambassador. In our eyes, the fetus is no more than a piece of the mother, to do with as she will, until it is born and the cord connecting the two is severed. Then it becomes an organism of its own, and shall be granted full human rights as such, but not a single moment sooner. Although, if you would prefer the description provided to us by the honorable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium, and call it a parasite, we see no problems with that.

I must respectfully disagree that the fetus should not be denied a livelihood for the mother's convenience. If your nation chooses to allow financial aid to mothers of families who could not afford a child then I see no reason why to disprove.

But as long as the fetus is not deformed or will cause physical harm (beyond normal birth) then I see no reason to deny it a life.

[The Rich Port]

The responsibility and risk of a fetus was placed upon a mother, if the mother is unlucky during unprotected sex then why must the fetus suffer?

And the fetus may get most of the benifit, but later in life when the fetus is grown to a man and the female into a senior it will be the man that will do his best to nurture his mother and care for her when she is weak.

A wise man once said, "The best retirement plan you can have is to have many, loving children."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you don't have to tell me all about it. Yeesh... I already concluded that definition is obtuse. Nevertheless, this is an INDIRECT benefit. Abortion is only when looking at the embryo up 'till the birthing. Afterwards, "abortion" can be illegal.

And that wise man was a selfish a-hol. Who SAYS that? "I'm only treating you good because then you clean up my POOP"

In your eyes, perhaps, ambassador. In our eyes, the fetus is no more than a piece of the mother, to do with as she will, until it is born and the cord connecting the two is severed. Then it becomes an organism of its own, and shall be granted full human rights as such, but not a single moment sooner. Although, if you would prefer the description provided to us by the honorable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium, and call it a parasite, we see no problems with that.

I say take the middle road... Seriously, that's just depressing. COMMENSAL is the secret word.

[Numdia]

Edited due to mis-placement of end quote

No, it's not moral to force people to do things they don't want to.

It's also not moral to sit around on the couch watching TV when people are dying because your to lazy to donate blood.

This may be true, but you still believe blood donation should be elective, correct?

- S.K.[/quote]

Yes, I believe it is a personal manor. I simply argue the morality of the point.

[Nulono]

You show total ignorance of the difference between killing and neglecting to aid.

You have not addressed the question once again.

No, I do not believe blood donation should be compulsory.

[Pirullinen Varjot]

In your eyes, perhaps, ambassador. In our eyes, the fetus is no more than a piece of the mother, to do with as she will, until it is born and the cord connecting the two is severed. Then it becomes an organism of its own, and shall be granted full human rights as such, but not a single moment sooner. Although, if you would prefer the description provided to us by the honorable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium, and call it a parasite, we see no problems with that.

1. So it's okay to murder a born infant if the cord hasn't been cut?
2. A parasite is another organism by definition. You can't have it both ways.
3. This isn't a "your eyes, my eyes" issue. This is basic biology.

1. In such a case, we would let the mother decide if she wishes to press charges. Our government, however, would not automatically assign a murder charge, no.
2. I was merely saying that if you wish to go by the definition of a fetus as a parasite, then we have no issue with this. We in Pirullinen Varjot, however, still consider it little more than a tumor.
3. Perception is at the heart of everything.

(OOC: And, unfortunately I must be off. Good night to all.)

[Motuka]

This may be true, but you still believe blood donation should be elective, correct?

Yes, I believe it is a personal manor. I simply argue the morality of the point.

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.

You have not addressed the question once again.

No, I do not believe blood donation should be compulsory.

Do you believe any other form of organ donation should be compulsory?

- S.K.

[St George of England]

And what a triumph of dogmatic, misogynistic stubbornness it is. How fantastic it is to see a nation that hates it's women so much, it jumps to defend rapists, it jumps to defend to sexual assaults. It launches an attack on human rights and then has the gall, the audacity, the sheer arrogance, to lecture other nations on human rights. Well done, Ambassador, well done.

The honourable ambassador for St George of England speaks untruths. Where does the Defence of the Unborn Act defend either rapists or sexual assaults? What human rights does it attack?

By forcing the host to carry the parasite to term, you are breaching her human rights. And, if you believe in predestination based, partly, off your parents, they you are likely inflicting another rapist on your nation. Your government, therefore, becomes an accessory to rape, you become the enabler. That is how you breach human rights.

[Numdia]

The responsibility and risk of a fetus was placed upon a mother, if the mother is unlucky during unprotected sex then why must the fetus suffer?

And the fetus may get most of the benifit, but later in life when the fetus is grown to a man and the female into a senior it will be the man that will do his best to nurture his mother and care for her when she is weak.

A wise man once said, "The best retirement plan you can have is to have many, loving children."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you don't have to tell me all about it. Yeesh... I already concluded that definition is obtuse. Nevertheless, this is an INDIRECT benefit. Abortion is only when looking at the embryo up 'till the birthing. Afterwards, "abortion" can be illegal.

And that wise man was a selfish a-hol. Who SAYS that? "I'm only treating you good because then you clean up my POOP"

Yes, but I argue that abortion because one feels they would be weighed down by a child should be illegal.

And no, the wise man was not selfish, he was co-operative. It would be simply like borrowing money or such. Although I would agree that his motives for raising a child were disagreeable.

[The People of Belfast]

1. So it's okay to murder a born infant if the cord hasn't been cut?
2. A parasite is another organism by definition. You can't have it both ways.
3. This isn't a "your eyes, my eyes" issue. This is basic biology.

1. In such a case, we would let the mother decide if she wishes to press charges. Our government, however, would not automatically assign a murder charge, no.
2. I was merely saying that if you wish to go by the definition of a fetus as a parasite, then we have no issue with this. We in Pirullinen Varjot, however, still consider it little more than a tumor.
3. Perception is at the heart of everything.

(OOC: And, unfortunately I must be off. Good night to all.)

Ambassador a tumour is, generally speaking, genetically identical to the host body. The same can not be said of an unborn child, short of a nation developing human parthenogenesis.

[The Rich Port]

The honourable ambassador for St George of England speaks untruths. Where does the Defence of the Unborn Act defend either rapists or sexual assaults? What human rights does it attack?

By forcing the host to carry the parasite to term, you are breaching her human rights. And, if you believe in predestination based, partly, off your parents, they you are likely inflicting another rapist on your nation. Your government, therefore, becomes an accessory to rape, you become the enabler. That is how you breach human rights.

A bit of a stretch... I think the social situation and the environment, though, would most certainly brew doubts and anxieties in the growing child.

[Nulono]

1. So it's okay to murder a born infant if the cord hasn't been cut?
2. A parasite is another organism by definition. You can't have it both ways.
3. This isn't a "your eyes, my eyes" issue. This is basic biology.

1. In such a case, we would let the mother decide if she wishes to press charges. Our government, however, would not automatically assign a murder charge, no.
2. I was merely saying that if you wish to go by the definition of a fetus as a parasite, then we have no issue with this. We in Pirullinen Varjot, however, still consider it little more than a tumor.
3. Perception is at the heart of everything.

(OOC: And, unfortunately I must be off. Good night to all.)

OOC: So when the Virginia mother suffocated her baby but got off because the afterbirth hadn't been delivered, you were cool with that?

Yes, I believe it is a personal manor. I simply argue the morality of the point.

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.

No, I do not believe blood donation should be compulsory.

Do you believe any other form of organ donation should be compulsory?

- S.K.

If you're already dead, I don't see the problem with taking organs.

The honourable ambassador for St George of England speaks untruths. Where does the Defence of the Unborn Act defend either rapists or sexual assaults? What human rights does it attack?

By forcing the host to carry the parasite to term, you are breaching her human rights. And, if you believe in predestination based, partly, off your parents, they you are likely inflicting another rapist on your nation. Your government, therefore, becomes an accessory to rape, you become the enabler. That is how you breach human rights.

I suppose if your mother was an ax murderer, you should be put to death too, as you could become an ax murderer.

[The People of Belfast]

The honourable ambassador for St George of England speaks untruths. Where does the Defence of the Unborn Act defend either rapists or sexual assaults? What human rights does it attack?

By forcing the host to carry the parasite to term, you are breaching her human rights. And, if you believe in predestination based, partly, off your parents, they you are likely inflicting another rapist on your nation. Your government, therefore, becomes an accessory to rape, you become the enabler. That is how you breach human rights.

No we are not. I have read the People of Belfast's Charter on Human Rights and I don't see abortion listed on it. Name me one other source of Human Rights that does.

Also we don't believe in predestination based on blood. The child of a murderer will not necessarily become a murderer. A child of an ordinary citizen may become a murderer. So the People of Belfast are no more an accessory to rape than anyone else.

Also in your weird and twisted way of looking at things, if the mother chooses in your nation to carry the rapist's child to term and the child becomes a rapist is the mother an accessory to rape based on the predestination based off your parents?

[Numdia]

Yes, I believe it is a personal manor. I simply argue the morality of the point.

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.


- S.K.

No, for abortion (as I am disagreeing with) does remove the fetus from ever being born, meaning it never does get to experience true life other than being inside of a body for a couple of weeks.

It is however personal on whether or not you wish to volunteer to have a child. If you give your consent to have unprotected sex with another and become impregnated then why is it just to be able to have an abortion?

[Numdia]

Yes, I believe it is a personal manor. I simply argue the morality of the point.

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.

No, I do not believe blood donation should be compulsory.

Do you believe any other form of organ donation should be compulsory?

- S.K.

If you're already dead, I don't see the problem with taking organs.

It should be decided by the person(s) was/were given the responsibility of deciding what was to be done with the body. If there are none available then I would suppose it would be considered as an asset as your house or any other owned object was. Otherwise it could be included in your will, I guess.

[Motuka]

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.


Do you believe any other form of organ donation should be compulsory?

- S.K.

If you're already dead, I don't see the problem with taking organs.

We are in agreement on that point, therefore. But you do not seem to believe any living people should be required to donate their organs.

You may also contest the morality of abortion, then, but it should also be a personal matter by your reasoning.


- S.K.

No, for abortion (as I am disagreeing with) does remove the fetus from ever being born, meaning it never does get to experience true life other than being inside of a body for a couple of weeks.

It is however personal on whether or not you wish to volunteer to have a child. If you give your consent to have unprotected sex with another and become impregnated then why is it just to be able to have an abortion?

Consent is a legal doctrine. Just as consent to sex can be withdrawn at any point, consent to pregnancy can be withdrawn at any point -- in this case, by having an abortion.

Nor should consent to sex be considered consent to pregnancy. This is in violation of logic -- leaving a safe unlocked, while rather foolish, does not mean you agree to have it burgled, and waive the ability to have the burglars prosecuted under the law.

- S.K.