[PASSED] On Abortion

[Darenjon WA Embassy]

We would accept such a clause.

However, we would like something such as this:



Other than that, (and I'll check up on Dr. Castro's question regarding depression), we feel that Ms. Harper has done a wonderful job and that, the sooner this is passed, the better.

Not all abortions are surgical.

I wouldn't know - I'm not a woman or a doctor, or a medical student. Still, I'd like something akin to my proposed line in the proposal.

[Just Guy]

I would like to reask my question regarding clause 5.

Oh, I didn't claim it was illegal. I don't like it though, since I do not believe you should block the WA from passing future legislation on such a broad and controversial topic -- what if someone has another genius idea like yours? It would present them with two choices -- either accept the fact that they can't propose their idea, or repeal your resolution. Both would be bad.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I would like to reask my question regarding clause 5.

Oh, I didn't claim it was illegal. I don't like it though, since I do not believe you should block the WA from passing future legislation on such a broad and controversial topic -- what if someone has another genius idea like yours? It would present them with two choices -- either accept the fact that they can't propose their idea, or repeal your resolution. Both would be bad.

It is not the intention of Ms. Harper to block resolutions on abortion if it was to regard safety standards or even forced abortion, although that did come under FGM. Tell you what, I could put the clause concerned on hold while others can have their input on the necessity of the said clause, but I want to stop the problem of forcing abortion bans on other member states against their will.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We would accept such a clause.

However, we would like something such as this:

REQUIRES that all physicians who carry out abortions be trained to the same accepted medical standards that all surgeons are held to, and that abortions are carried out in a way that is as painless as possible to both the mother and fetus while preserving the mother's physical health;

Other than that, (and I'll check up on Dr. Castro's question regarding depression), we feel that Ms. Harper has done a wonderful job and that, the sooner this is passed, the better.

Hold on, it may be a bit of a trade-off but I have to admit that abortion could be in all ways painful to the foetus. Correct me if I'm wrong

[Mahaj WA Seat]

I support this. It may be because this resolution reflects my personal views, but still.

[Apollonesia]

I don't think so. The Apollonesian government prefers to handle its abortion cases privately and independently. We are openly against abortion, regardless of the circumstances. We shall decide and possibly make exceptions with certain cases ... we don't need laws to force us to sin and prevent life.

[Absolvability]

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one... but if I may make a few comments, I'd like to address a few of the concerns that don't seem terribly important to me.

1) I believe it was Bob Flibble who said something along the lines of, "the WA making the decision for a woman." Similar points have been made before on not so similar subjects, but I believe a gross generalization can be made here in simple answer: "Giving someone a right is not forcing them to avail themselves of it." By many judicial systems a person accused of a crime has the 'right' to remain silent. But they may certainly speak on their own behalf if they so desire. Likewise, there is nothing in this legislation that requires or even encourages a woman to have an abortion.

2) The Ambassador of Just Guy has a legitimate concern about this resolution serving as a 'blocker' for future legislation. However, I would encourage the Ambassador not to see things in black and white. Sometimes the correct answer does rest in the middle; I dare say that either extreme to any problem is almost never the best answer. If we all do happen to stumble into some Age of Enlightenment then this could be repealed easily enough... otherwise, lets be grateful for a compromise? Anybody that can definitively say abortion is bad in all cases or good in all cases is probably wrong, don't you agree?

3) The Ambassador of American Capitalist would like a clause in here limiting the availability of abortions by trimester. I agree with this, and do not think that it would be a problem as the Ambassador from Charlotte Ryberg seems to. Yes, there are many different species with different lengths of pregnancy. As far as I know though numbers (especially percentages,) don't depend on size. Let me explain:

I live on a planet called Earth (no need to check your space maps, I just arbitrarily made a name up,) and you live on a planet called Mars. Mars is about 80 times the size of Earth. Earth has hemispheres. Does the fact that Mars is 80 times larger prevent it from having hemispheres? No. Perhaps the indigenous people of Mars do not refer to them as such, but even still any planet can be divided into halves.

So lets say that your pregnancy lasts 2 years instead of what we may consider a normal 9 months. Can we not still divide this period into trimesters? Does trimester really mean anything more than a third? In the final trimester, when the baby is most developed and quite possibly conscious of its own existance, abortions should not be had. This is my opinion... and it may not be correct... but I am simply trying to show that it does not at all depend on the length of pregnancy. It doesn't matter if it's after the 6th month or after the 16th.

Continuing on with this problem, we have heard the contention that this could be construed as unequal medical treatment... and therefore be illegal by way of discrimination. I disagree with the legitimacy of this concern as well, and will continue to explain if my longwindedness can be forgiven:

To say that this woman can not have an abortion because she is already in her third trimester of pregnancy is discrimination (I use the word for the sake of being on the same page,) by time not by color or creed. This same woman had the same rights as any of her peers at the same time they did. And they share the limitations as this woman if they do not avail themselves of this right in a timely manner.

Friends... let us not be caught in a paradigm, yes? Let us not think that anything different must be bad or unfair. Sometimes I worry that we've come too far too fast... and that we now support ideas based on precedent without proper examination of reasons behind those prior decisions.

[Flibbleites]

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one... but if I may make a few comments, I'd like to address a few of the concerns that don't seem terribly important to me.

1) I believe it was Bob Flibble who said something along the lines of, "the WA making the decision for a woman." Similar points have been made before on not so similar subjects, but I believe a gross generalization can be made here in simple answer: "Giving someone a right is not forcing them to avail themselves of it." By many judicial systems a person accused of a crime has the 'right' to remain silent. But they may certainly speak on their own behalf if they so desire. Likewise, there is nothing in this legislation that requires or even encourages a woman to have an abortion.

Did I say that, yes. But I wasn't actually commenting on this proposal. If you read the transcript.

Oppose #2 because no one else should make that decision for the woman

This coming from the guy who wants the WA to make the decision for the woman?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

You'll see I was talking to the ambassador from Christian Democrats about their comment with regards to the proposal they're trying to write.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Absolvability]

Please excuse my mistake, Mr. Flibble. I should pay more attention at times.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The OP is now brought up to date:

Clause A, which declares neutrality on abortion in other cases, is currently on hold. The confidentiality clause is now abandoned because Ms. Harper is convinced that Resolution #29 provides satisfactory levels of confidentiality. Now, if I was to take up part of American Capitalist's trimester idea I could only go as far as saying that except for circumstances under Section 1, member states should implement reasonable restrictions on abortion if the foetus is fully developed. However, the oods of adopting this is unlikely.

[Eireann Fae WA Mission]

So lets say that your pregnancy lasts 2 years instead of what we may consider a normal 9 months. Can we not still divide this period into trimesters? Does trimester really mean anything more than a third? In the final trimester, when the baby is most developed and quite possibly conscious of its own existance, abortions should not be had. This is my opinion... and it may not be correct... but I am simply trying to show that it does not at all depend on the length of pregnancy. It doesn't matter if it's after the 6th month or after the 16th.

(OOC: Time scales regarding reproductive physiology do not necessarily work that way. Gestation period could be two years, but the 'fetus' may be "viable" after two days, or two seconds before the gestation period is up. A.I. "life" can be completely constructed, but inert, until someone flips a switch. Certain other forms of life may not be viable at all until a catalyst is activated; if a Faerie Flower is destroyed at any time before the flower opens of its own accord, the gestating Faerie within is destroyed as well. "Two-thirds into pregnancy" is not a test of viability. If the OP wants the resolution to protect viable fetuses, they need to protect viable fetuses, not fetuses that have happened to been around for two-thirds of their species' gestation period.)

[Just Guy]

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one... but if I may make a few comments, I'd like to address a few of the concerns that don't seem terribly important to me.

2) The Ambassador of Just Guy has a legitimate concern about this resolution serving as a 'blocker' for future legislation. However, I would encourage the Ambassador not to see things in black and white. Sometimes the correct answer does rest in the middle; I dare say that either extreme to any problem is almost never the best answer. If we all do happen to stumble into some Age of Enlightenment then this could be repealed easily enough... otherwise, lets be grateful for a compromise? Anybody that can definitively say abortion is bad in all cases or good in all cases is probably wrong, don't you agree?

However, there may be another proposal which is relatively non-controversial.

[Flibbleites]

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one... but if I may make a few comments, I'd like to address a few of the concerns that don't seem terribly important to me.

2) The Ambassador of Just Guy has a legitimate concern about this resolution serving as a 'blocker' for future legislation. However, I would encourage the Ambassador not to see things in black and white. Sometimes the correct answer does rest in the middle; I dare say that either extreme to any problem is almost never the best answer. If we all do happen to stumble into some Age of Enlightenment then this could be repealed easily enough... otherwise, lets be grateful for a compromise? Anybody that can definitively say abortion is bad in all cases or good in all cases is probably wrong, don't you agree?

However, there may be another proposal which is relatively non-controversial.

When the topic of a proposal is abortion, there's no such thing as non-controversial. I say put the blocker clause back in and kill CD's proposal once and for all.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Charlotte Ryberg]

However, there may be another proposal which is relatively non-controversial.

When the topic of a proposal is abortion, there's no such thing as non-controversial. I say put the blocker clause back in and kill CD's proposal once and for all.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Okay, but as long it doesn't prevent a resolution regarding further the safety or ethics of abortion. I hope that would be a sensible settlement/compromise.

[Airport Motor Lodge]

When the topic of a proposal is abortion, there's no such thing as non-controversial. I say put the blocker clause back in and kill CD's proposal once and for all.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Okay, but as long it doesn't prevent a resolution regarding further the safety or ethics of abortion. I hope that would be a sensible settlement/compromise.

Perhaps Your Excellency should add a miniature flag clause to mollify abortion opponents.

[Darenjo]

When the topic of a proposal is abortion, there's no such thing as non-controversial. I say put the blocker clause back in and kill CD's proposal once and for all.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Okay, but as long it doesn't prevent a resolution regarding further the safety or ethics of abortion. I hope that would be a sensible settlement/compromise.

We agree that there should be a blocker clause (for the same reason regarding CD). I doubt that such a blocker could deny the wa the ability to make abortions safe - abortion safety and who can get an abortion are rather different things.

[Christian Democrats]

If the OP wants the resolution to protect viable fetuses, they need to protect viable fetuses, not fetuses that have happened to been around for two-thirds of their species' gestation period.

No need to worry. I've already submitted a proposal that would do that.

[Christian Democrats]

When the topic of a proposal is abortion, there's no such thing as non-controversial.

Agreed.

I say put the blocker clause back in and kill CD's proposal once and for all.

Finally! A strategy to stop my proposal that doesn't include trying to strike it down for legality.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Finally! A strategy to stop my proposal that doesn't include trying to strike it down for legality.

If Your Excellency's strategy was not based on pushing down illegal texts down our throats, whether we like it or not, there would not exist a pressing need for our so-called "strategy". To us, it is more of a moral obligation than anything else, and we shall fight every other blatant attempt to subvert the rules, be the topic abortion or anything else.

If this has been found legal, it still is a moral distortion of the highest order, and we shall fight it on the floor to our very last drop of blood.

Win or lose, may Your Excellency be declared damnatio memoriae.

Yours in shock with such gall,

[Charlotte Ryberg]

6. ENCOURAGES pregnant females considering abortion in circumstances other than those defined in Section 1 to choose to give the child up for adoption or, in cases of child disability give the child to a facility or family fully and readily equipped to take care of severely handicapped children;

This clause will have to be booted out because WA should not convey its opinion on every single individual case in such a broad manner. As such, the clause seems to relate more closely with the abandonment of babies rather than simply abortion.

[Christian Democrats]

[M]ember states should implement reasonable restrictions on abortion if the foetus is fully developed.

A) A human isn't fully developed until (s)he is about 25 years old.

B) Despite many of you seeing my proposal as radical, ( ^ ) this is what my proposal is trying to accomplish:

DIRECTS member states to prohibit abortion when a developing offspring is older than the limit of viability [i.e., 24 weeks in humans], except when such an abortion is performed because a pregnancy itself or continuance of a pregnancy poses an immediate and significant threat to a pregnant individual's life or health, there is a severe abnormality in a pregnancy, a developing offspring is believed to have severe defects, or a developing offspring provably was conceived because of illegal sexual activity,

There are five exceptions in this clause: maternal life, maternal health, abnormality in pregnancy, fetal defects, and rape. Abortions for incest could be carried out under the fetal defects provision.

C) Ms. Harper, I laud you for your efforts; however, I believe my proposal already "implement[s] reasonable restrictions on abortion if the foetus is fully developed." Feel free to pursue the other parts of your proposal. Though I oppose it, I'm sure it will pass.

[Darenjo]

I'm sad to see my clause go, but okay.

CD, my problem with what you just said is age. Darenjo allows those 16 and under to get abortions if they get pregnant, regardless of circumstances (there is a 2-time limit).

[Sedgistan]

No need to worry. I've already submitted a proposal that would do that.

Finally! A strategy to stop my proposal that doesn't include trying to strike it down for legality.

B) Despite many of you seeing my proposal as radical, ( ^ ) this is what my proposal is trying to accomplish: <snip>
C) Ms. Harper, I laud you for your efforts; however, I believe my proposal already "implement[s] reasonable restrictions on abortion if the foetus is fully developed."

Keep debate of your proposal to your thread - ie keep it out of this one.

[Christian Democrats]

No need to worry. I've already submitted a proposal that would do that.

Finally! A strategy to stop my proposal that doesn't include trying to strike it down for legality.

B) Despite many of you seeing my proposal as radical, ( ^ ) this is what my proposal is trying to accomplish: <snip>
C) Ms. Harper, I laud you for your efforts; however, I believe my proposal already "implement[s] reasonable restrictions on abortion if the foetus is fully developed."

Keep debate of your proposal to your thread - ie keep it out of this one.

I will.

[Urgench]

However, there may be another proposal which is relatively non-controversial.

When the topic of a proposal is abortion, there's no such thing as non-controversial. I say put the blocker clause back in and kill CD's proposal once and for all.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We agree with this course of action. If the WA must legislate on abortion again then it should do so finally.


Yours,