[DRAFT] Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"

[Ovybia]

That won't stop the murder of millions of innocent unborn children who can feel pain who have a heartbeat who can kick and move their arms who can feel...

Have you heard the Planned "Parenthood" video in which the "doctor" talks about how she crunchs the baby in different places in order to murder him while saving the human tissue?

OOC:
You are aware that the video in question was almost entirely falsified, right?

OOC: No, the video is completely real. Planned "Parenthood" admitted it and even "apologized" for some of it. In fact, there are many videos. If these videos were fake then the media would immediately jump on it.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: No, the video is completely real. Planned "Parenthood" admitted it and even "apologized" for some of it. In fact, there are many videos. If these videos were fake then the media would immediately jump on it.

OOC: ignoring the mountain of factual inaccuracies involved here, this is the wrong firm to discuss that video. Take it to General. The is about the repeal that isn't going anywhere.

[Tinfect]

OOC: No, the video is completely real. Planned "Parenthood" admitted it and even "apologized" for some of it. In fact, there are many videos. If these videos were fake then the media would immediately jump on it.

OOC:
No, they wouldn't, the media, in the US at least, does only what causes the most uproar and makes them the most money. A story that panders to an audience that knows no better, and causes them to lash out and bring yet more attention to the story will be far more successful than one that factually represents the reality of the situation. So they choose the former. The video is utter crap.

[Ovybia]

OOC: ignoring the mountain of factual inaccuracies involved here, this is the wrong firm to discuss that video. Take it to General. The is about the repeal that isn't going anywhere.

In a way you are right. It doesn't matter whether the video is real or not (although it is real), the point is that people do kill fetus' for human tissue.

This repeal has so far only been commented on by about .1% of the WA. That is not enough to decide whether most people in the WA think infanticide is wrong or not.

Note: All this discussion kind of buried my major arguments on proving that a fetus was indeed a person. Go back to the page before this if you still want to try and answer my arguments.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

OOC: GAR #286 forces some nations to either force their doctors to perform unethical procedures with the threat of firing them, not requiring their doctors to perform many other procedures, or doing away with their government-run medical programs entirely.

OOC: your doctors will only be forced to do so if they are also compelled to perform similar procedures despite their ethical judgements. Unless you force your doctors to administer drugs against the blatant and stated will of their patients, that isn't true. In most systems, doctors can already recuse themselves from a particular procedure. That sinks your first two points.

I don't know from what non-rectal source you've pulled that last idea from, but there is no mandate to dissolve a government run medical program under those provisions. If ever single one of the potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors in your nation who would be qualified to perform as simple a procedure as an abortion refused on legitimate and non-coerced ethic grounds, your patient could simply have the procedure done in a different nation and not be penalized.

Not that it's a likely scenario. I can't imagine a scenario where every one of hundreds of thousands of medic professionals would all refuse to perform a lawful procedure with no greater acuity than administering antibiotics or, at worst, an appendectomy, that also has no lawful ramifications, as there is no way to consider a fetus a baby without finding ones laws in contradiction to the WA. It sounds like claiming that to be true would result in claims of godmodding, to which one would point out that either A: your entire effort is a waste of time since you won't abide by the standards of Roleplay laid out regarding WA compliance, and nobody is interested in playing with a godmodder, or B: your effort is a waste of time because you could just pretend ever one of those hundreds of thousands of doctors believe thusly, and the target resolution is meaningless to you.

It is entirely possible to define a fetus as having sapient rights while complying with the resolution, though only for nations with sufficiently advanced technology.

Which is why the resolution should not exist, because of all the nations that lack such technology. Those nations don't want objectively false world views forced into their legal systems (IE the concept that an unborn child is not a living being)

[Bright Waters]

This repeal has so far only been commented on by about .1% of the WA. That is not enough to decide whether most people in the WA think infanticide is wrong or not.

Note: All this discussion kind of buried my major arguments on proving that a fetus was indeed a person. Go back to the page before this if you still want to try and answer my arguments.

IC: Lets see...perhaps the three (in my memory) repeals that have already tried and failed by rather laughable, lopsided totals would be enough to decide.

PS Saying that people who support the original legislation think infanticide is a great idea is nothing more than an attempt to rile us up.

OOC: Your major arguments might have been missed because your associate from your region is serving a ban and we were discussing it. I would say this bill, and topic, are no more until he returns.

[Caracasus]

In a way you are right. It doesn't matter whether the video is real or not (although it is real), the point is that people do kill fetus' for human tissue.

So... the video that by your admission has a significant amount of controversy surrounding it, where large chunks of video have been edited to paint the said organization proves that women who would have gotten an abortion anyway are in fact being given abortions because said organization wishes harvest human tissue? You'll have to forgive us ambassador, we are not exactly following the thread of that argument.

This repeal has so far only been commented on by about .1% of the WA. That is not enough to decide whether most people in the WA think infanticide is wrong or not.

Indeed - however the three doomed repeals and ten repeal attempts that did not even make it to voting do show that the majority of the WA feels that women should be allowed abortions.

We imagine that the WA stands firmly against infanticide as infanticide is the murder of an infant. A fetus is not an infant.

Note: All this discussion kind of buried my major arguments on proving that a fetus was indeed a person. Go back to the page before this if you still want to try and answer my arguments.

People have, repeatedly ambassador. You just choose not to listen.

[Separatist Peoples]

[
It is entirely possible to define a fetus as having sapient rights while complying with the resolution, though only for nations with sufficiently advanced technology.

OOC: this is true, but sufficiently rare a situation as to merit glossing over. Your suit on does, however, escape that legal trap.

Which is why the resolution should not exist, because of all the nations that lack such technology. Those nations don't want objectively false world views forced into their legal systems (IE the concept that an unborn child is not a living being)

OOC: and this is where you derail the logic train. I assume that you mean that a fetus is a person, because there's no argument that a fetus is alive. The bundle of cells is objectively with the characteristics of life, much like a jellyfish or multi-cellular microorganism.

However, the claim that a fetus is a person, endowed with the same qualities as an individual, is not objectively true. You can argue that you are right all you want, and you may even be on the winning side at the end of the day, but it is clearly not an objective truth, or the lawyers and judges and scientists, who rely on objective logic to find a solution, would be far more unanimous on one point or the other. This isn't the case. That tells me that there isn't anything objective about this premise.

[Imperium Anglorum]

[
It is entirely possible to define a fetus as having sapient rights while complying with the resolution, though only for nations with sufficiently advanced technology.

OOC: this is true, but sufficiently rare a situation as to merit glossing over. Your suit on does, however, escape that legal trap.

Must be a damn good suit. Where did you buy it, Armani? Ede & Ravenscroft?

[Mundiferrum]

OOC: and this is where you derail the logic train. I assume that you mean that a fetus is a person, because there's no argument that a fetus is alive. The bundle of cells is objectively with the characteristics of life, much like a jellyfish or multi-cellular microorganism.

However, the claim that a fetus is a person, endowed with the same qualities as an individual, is not objectively true. You can argue that you are right all you want, and you may even be on the winning side at the end of the day, but it is clearly not an objective truth, or the lawyers and judges and scientists, who rely on objective logic to find a solution, would be far more unanimous on one point or the other. This isn't the case. That tells me that there isn't anything objective about this premise.

Butts in, but only for a second: I've always wondered how RF works with late term pregnancies. Late term fetuses come very, very close to essentially being a person anyway (at least if you consider babies people, which one normally does, unless one strictly follows that new res on sapience), and this point of contention is why we're generally in support of a repeal (and, for now, following the Kennyite workaround).

[Elke and Elba]

This repeal has so far only been commented on by about .1% of the WA. That is not enough to decide whether most people in the WA think infanticide is wrong or not.

Note: All this discussion kind of buried my major arguments on proving that a fetus was indeed a person. Go back to the page before this if you still want to try and answer my arguments.

IC: Lets see...perhaps the three (in my memory) repeals that have already tried and failed by rather laughable, lopsided totals would be enough to decide.

PS Saying that people who support the original legislation think infanticide is a great idea is nothing more than an attempt to rile us up.

OOC: Your major arguments might have been missed because your associate from your region is serving a ban and we were discussing it. I would say this bill, and topic, are no more until he returns.

DING DING DING.

I would find it quite appalling that some individuals (not Bright Waters, of course) here are insinuating that the WA membership is clearly very ignorant for voting contrary to their wishes at least thrice.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OOC: and this is where you derail the logic train. I assume that you mean that a fetus is a person, because there's no argument that a fetus is alive. The bundle of cells is objectively with the characteristics of life, much like a jellyfish or multi-cellular microorganism.

However, the claim that a fetus is a person, endowed with the same qualities as an individual, is not objectively true. You can argue that you are right all you want, and you may even be on the winning side at the end of the day, but it is clearly not an objective truth, or the lawyers and judges and scientists, who rely on objective logic to find a solution, would be far more unanimous on one point or the other. This isn't the case. That tells me that there isn't anything objective about this premise.

Butts in, but only for a second: I've always wondered how RF works with late term pregnancies. Late term fetuses come very, very close to essentially being a person anyway (at least if you consider babies people, which one normally does, unless one strictly follows that new res on sapience), and this point of contention is why we're generally in support of a repeal (and, for now, following the Kennyite workaround).

OOC: Not mine. EF and Defwa were the ones contending that nations could force mothers to carry a baby to term, because "terminate" has an ostensibly imprecise meaning. It's a pretty fucked-up distortion worthy of Creative Solutions, however.

[Hirota]

It's a pretty fucked-up distortion worthy of Creative Solutions, however.

Meaning you kinda wish you had come up with it

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's a pretty fucked-up distortion worthy of Creative Solutions, however.

Meaning you kinda wish you had come up with it

It certainly deals with the case of there is a country which lacks the technology to do abortions safely.

[Libertarian South America]

I can see both sides of the point of view.
I'm pro abortion. And my nation also is. But I think that an WA resolution that forbidden a nation to ban abortion is doing the same forbidden that they do. Using the force to force one thing over the people. If a nation want to allow or ban something is a freedom of the nation. The people who wants a more free life could emigrate to another nation that don't ban things based on religion.

Doing a resolution limits the creativity and personal concept of each nation created. Thats why I'm against any resolution that force any nation to take sides over any domestic matter.

Even on my nation concept I try to achieve a balance based on proprierty. We allow nudity. Drugs. Wars for sport. Clones. Prostitution. Gambling. Everything. But we do not interfere on proprierty. So if some land owner wants to build an piece of land and create your own laws and says that everyone's must say that he is the God and kiss his feet and follow his religion he can do it. But he can't force anyone to do it. People are free to left his land and move to an land or buy their own. Laws are based on proprierty. Not on society.

I believe that the most free way is an decentralized way. With different systems on each one. And freedom to people to chose as a costumer on a free market.

We are all free to chose good or bad things. There is no right or wrong just differents point of view. We just can't judge or ban people to have their little piece of personal universe. Thats why I base everything on land ownership. The nature and the free choise will make the best decision prosperity and the worst come to an end.

A resolution like this kills it. Why can't be a nation of religious people? Wouldn't be better a resolution to guarantee the right to citzens that do not agree to the nations laws have the help of WA nations to move elsewhere? We can't give a freedom by destroying another freedom. We can't ban abortion to everyone but we can't ban people of ban things inside their house. There is an limit of where one universe finds another one. We have to respect. I don't like religious people. Neither the way they want to impose their view on others. But if an territory have 100% of people that thinks like that they have the right to ban things on that place to ensure unity of their culture. Doesnt matter what they are. We can't force freedom we can just offer it. Like a good on a store. We offer them and let the people chose it.
a resolution to guarantee the freedom to emigrate would be the right thing.

[Helltank]

OOC:
You are aware that the video in question was almost entirely falsified, right?

OOC: No, the video is completely real. Planned "Parenthood" admitted it and even "apologized" for some of it. In fact, there are many videos. If these videos were fake then the media would immediately jump on it.

Beliazrael: Luckily, the Overlordship of Helltank doesn't really care about murdering innocent unborn children. We have the usage of human shields in our military manual and the forced sterilization of the mentally disabled in our laws already; what's a few million more semi-sentient fetuses to add to the mountain of corpses?

[Stellonia]

OOC: Your major arguments might have been missed because your associate from your region is serving a ban and we were discussing it. I would say this bill, and topic, are no more until he returns.

OOC: You may be disappointed to learn that my ban has ended.
Also, my forum ban is irrelevant to this discussion, except for the fact that it prevents me from continuing to discuss this draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Your major arguments might have been missed because your associate from your region is serving a ban and we were discussing it. I would say this bill, and topic, are no more until he returns.

OOC: You may be disappointed to learn that my ban has ended.
Also, my forum ban is irrelevant to this discussion, except for the fact that it prevents me from continuing to discuss this draft.

OOC: way to miss the entire point of the comment.

[UED]

How many attempts have been made to repeal this?
3? 4?

[Stellonia]

How many attempts have been made to repeal this?
3? 4?

OOC: Your behavior is considered to be gravedigging, which is prohibited under forum rules.

[Wallenburg]

How many attempts have been made to repeal this?
3? 4?

OOC: Your behavior is considered to be gravedigging, which is prohibited under forum rules.

OOC: 6 days of inactivity does not make further posts gravedigging.

[Separatist Peoples]

How many attempts have been made to repeal this?
3? 4?

OOC: Your behavior is considered to be gravedigging, which is prohibited under forum rules.

OOC:I see we're into rules lawyering to feel better. Should we assume this monstrosity is finally dead? Pretty please?

[Stellonia]

OOC: Your behavior is considered to be gravedigging, which is prohibited under forum rules.

OOC:I see we're into rules lawyering to feel better. Should we assume this monstrosity is finally dead? Pretty please?

OOC: I cannot make any guarantees.

Also, this habit of underlining, italicizing, enlarging, and making red of the letters "OOC" is very bothersome, to say the least.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC:I see we're into rules lawyering to feel better. Should we assume this monstrosity is finally dead? Pretty please?

OOC: I cannot make any guarantees.

Also, this habit of underlining, italicizing, enlarging, and making red of the letters "OOC" is very bothersome, to say the least.

OOC:Thats because you've consistently shown your incompetence in regard to comprehend what is OOC and what is not. When that particular failing is addressed, I'll stop. Until then, I'll make damn sure you don't miss it.

[Ovybia]

OOC: I cannot make any guarantees.

Also, this habit of underlining, italicizing, enlarging, and making red of the letters "OOC" is very bothersome, to say the least.

OOC:Thats because you've consistently shown your incompetence in regard to comprehend what is OOC and what is not. When that particular failing is addressed, I'll stop. Until then, I'll make damn sure you don't miss it.

It seems like this is all besides the point. Let's try to stay on topic.

I'm interested to know when you consider human life to begin. Since you are so sure that life does begin at conception but human life doesn't (if I'm wrong about this please clarify your position), then I have two questions for you.

1. When does human life begin? (You must have some idea since you say you have such strong beliefs on the subject.)
2. What life is the fetus before he is human? (Don't give me this "seed" or "brick" stuff. I want to know what kind of lifeform the fetus is. No analogies. In your world, does this lifeform have intellectual knowledge? Does this lifeform have sensorial knowledge? Is it like a plant or what?)

And the surroundings of a child have nothing to do with whether he is human or not. The point is that the fetus receives nutrition from the mother, that's it. Just like we receive nutrition from farmers. We're dependent on farmers and the farmers are dependent on the environment. The surroundings have nothing to do with humanity. If someone sticks us inside of a giant's belly we are still human.