02-18-2006, 08:01 PM
We endorse the intentions of the author, to free underprivileged and distressed women from the opression of selfrighteous religious fanatics, who feel the need to impose their morality on others. Independently of one's personal beliefs, those who do not share those beliefs should not be outcast and sent to jail.
However, this proposal is too extreme for us to offer our vote:
- It imposes the debatable view that a fetus is strictly a part of a woman's body, which is unacceptable to many;
- It makes no effort to balance the rights of women with the views of significant factions, specifically regarding late term abortions;
- It forces states to find financial means for abortions, which is no longer a human rights issue, and as such overextends the legitimate scope of the UN
We would have no problems implementing this proposal in Fonzoland. However, we urge other nations to consider the divisive impact it would have on (voluntary) UN membership. Abstain.
We would also like to enquire what the regional voting procedure is. Are there circumstances (other than an exact for/against split) which would lead the delegate to refrain from voting?
However, this proposal is too extreme for us to offer our vote:
- It imposes the debatable view that a fetus is strictly a part of a woman's body, which is unacceptable to many;
- It makes no effort to balance the rights of women with the views of significant factions, specifically regarding late term abortions;
- It forces states to find financial means for abortions, which is no longer a human rights issue, and as such overextends the legitimate scope of the UN
We would have no problems implementing this proposal in Fonzoland. However, we urge other nations to consider the divisive impact it would have on (voluntary) UN membership. Abstain.
We would also like to enquire what the regional voting procedure is. Are there circumstances (other than an exact for/against split) which would lead the delegate to refrain from voting?