[DEFEATED] Protection of Partially Born

[Separatist Peoples]

After further review, The Second Moon Rising feels compelled to also point out that the terms of this proposal also only gives rights to a fetus only if it experiences birth as defined by the proposal. It gives no protection to a fetus that is removed from the mother via cesarean. Does a fetus that is surgically removed by cutting into the mother's abdomen have less rights than one that is to be, is being, or has been expelled through the birth canal?

Under the very narrow definition of birth this proposal uses, The Second Moon Rising does not look forward to the potential rise of back-alley cesareans that may crop up to circumvent the proposal if it goes into effect.

Ooc: this times a thousand.

OOC: Unfortunately, though, it does. Either by mistake or design by the author (I highly, and I think reasonably, suspect the latter), the proposal targets a very specific form of late-term abortion -- IDX. Even the author's own arguments over the past 30-ish pages fairly clearly indicates that this is to ban IDX, and has cited it as the "most common form of child destruction".

The proposal defines birth as the second and third stages of labor (which, while not defined in the contents of the proposal, is the process where the fetus is leaving the uterus, moving down the birth canal, is expelled from the mother's body and and is culminated by the expulsion of the placenta). But does not limit this definition of birth as second/third stages of labor that would occur at/around 40 weeks of pregnancy, at which point would be a healthy, normal birthing event. Only that birth is the second and third stages of labor. Therefore, labor that is mechanically/chemically induced at 20 weeks for the purpose of a late-term abortion via IDX procedure, by the definition put forth in the proposal, is no different than naturally occurring labor at 40 weeks.

The proposal itself speaks nothing towards other, and what seems to be factually -more- common, forms of child destruction, such as assaults/self-induced assaults/pseudo-accidents perpetrated on/by pregnant women for the purpose of killing a fetus before labor begins (and in the Real World, legally falls under child destruction). Instead what it does, is attempt to make a form of abortion that is typically done for medical reasons (it is easier to examine an intact fetus with a collapsed skull than it is to examine a jar of dismembered baby goop, is less invasive/physically traumatizing to the mother) no different from tying the mother's legs together so that the infant smothers just before crowning, smothering the infant before the placenta is expelled, strangling the infant with the umbilical cord while still attached to the mother, etc., because of the way birth has been defined.

Also:

Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth; each having a living brain, beating heart, or their functional equivalents; and are, in every way, persons who are entitled to full and equal recognition of their dignity and protection under the law of their inherent rights

Because of how this is worded, coupled with the definition of birth given in the proposal, it seems to say that a 20-week-old fetus that is going to be aborted via IDX has more rights than a 20-week-old fetus that is going to be aborted via D&E, because mechanically/chemically induced labor is involved. And that a fetus that is to be or has been delivered via cesarean has no rights under the proposal.

"This is a fascinating point that I had, up until now, not considered. I think it is distinctly possible that, assuming this goes to drafting in the future, a failure to accommodate for this interpretation would cause a conflict with extant law. I'll just file this away for now."

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Saying the stating of my personal opinion, i neither claim is right nor try to force on others, about *EXTREME* (as i pointed out for the third time now already ffs) non-human roleplay *WHEN RELATED TO THE WORLD ASSEMBLY*

OOC: Just making a point here, speaking entirely out of character. This is Araraukar's WA nation. It's more of a person than a nation, really, as it's a hivemind. Its bodies are the various plants that originally only existed here in the WAHQ, and these days some of them exist on ally planets as well.

I roleplay it consistently, from the chrolophyllic point of view and from the point of view of a hivemind that can reasonably expect to live forever (it just has to plant the seeds of its various plant bodies to have all the new bodies it wants). You can see as much by searching this account's posts. I think I use my human nation (Araraukar) to talk more about "specieswank" (aka "taking into account the fact that not everyone is human in the WA") than I actually do on my non-human nations (WA Kitty Kops is the other). I mostly use this nation in IC mode to point out an entirely different point of view. And sometimes just to, you know, roleplay on this IC forum.

I do take into account that most WA nations probably are populated by humans, because most players are unlikely to actually roleplay on their accounts, at least not on these forums, but I do insist on species-neutral language ("sapient" instead of "human", kind of thing) and dislike human-specific resolutions like this one. You wanting to force everyone in the WA to roleplay human nations is as bad as if I tried to demand everyone played non-human nations.

Most people with good and consistent roleplayed realities are able to tell the limits of their roleplay, and drop out of character to go further, or - like me, even on Araraukar - put in OOC remarks and references to make the discussion more universally understandable.

Why doesn't this go through some people's thick head?

So all the above taken into account, I don't exactly appreciate being called thick-headed and will continue roleplaying an extremely non-human WA nation. Not that it should bother you, since you haven't been on the GA forum before, at least not on that account.

All i pointed out was that the World Assembly cannot regulate biology based processes

Nor should it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Unfortunately, though, it does.

OOC: The "this is not an abortion discussion" has more to do with avoiding the whole "should abortions be allowed in the first place, since RL reason X says Y" as well as any RP abortions discussion that has nothing to do with this particular proposal.

I totally agree with you that this proposal is a sneaky attempt at forbidding certain kinds of abortion - that's one reason why I've been grumping about the lack of viability as a requirement.

EDIT: It amuses me that this post was the 777th reply to the topic.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

We once again have to object to this proposal until it provides protections for all or at least most sapient species. As written, it is mammalian-centric. The Greater Siriusian Domain is also disappointed that no effort has been made by the author of this proposal to rectify this issue.

If this is to be resubmitted, the Greater Siriusian Domain strongly recommends that it should be reworded to refer to basic prenatal developmental stages and not to stages of pregnancy and labor. Not only would this close the C-section loophole, but it would also cover a much greater range of sapient species, many of which do not give birth to live young but lay eggs instead, without making the proposal overly complex.

The Greater Siriusian Domain votes no to the proposal as written.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: That has nothing to do with this resolution.


That has nothing to do with this resolution.



That has nothing to do with this resolution.

Damn, you might as well have named it Ban on Necrophilia. The conversation would have been equally off topic.

Maybe the person who made the original resolution was better at writing it, we could actually understand its true intent? It is vague as hell, as shown by how many are genuinely confused by the wording and what it actually proposes.

It's intent is to ban partial birth abortions and/or child destruction (the latter term has its own Wikipedia page, look it up), both of which are easy enough to figure out. If the author had named it what I had suggested it should be named way earlier, there would likely be less confusion on this issue.

The vast majority of argumentation here is pro-choice nonsense that has nothing to do with this resolution, as "Reproductive Freedoms" already guarantees an almost unlimited access to abortions, and this proposal cannot contradict "Reproductive Freedoms".

We once again have to object to this proposal until it provides protections for all or at least most sapient species. As written, it is mammalian-centric. The Greater Siriusian Domain is also disappointed that no effort has been made by the author of this proposal to rectify this issue.

If this is to be resubmitted, the Greater Siriusian Domain strongly recommends that it should be reworded to refer to basic prenatal developmental stages and not to stages of pregnancy and labor. Not only would this close the C-section loophole, but it would also cover a much greater range of sapient species, many of which do not give birth to live young but lay eggs instead, without making the proposal overly complex.

The Greater Siriusian Domain votes no to the proposal as written.

OOC: Are you serious? Egg laying species don't have birth, why would partial birth abortions need to be prohibited for them? This proposal only deals with the grey area between being subject to abortion under "Reproductive Freedoms" (which deals exclusively on
live-birth species) and being considered minors. Egg laying species don't really have that grey area, because abortion is not a right given to egg laying species by the WA.

[Serene Israel]

Once again, all it OOC and this will be my last post here that isn't related to the proposal (i sincerely apologize for the ruckus i caused OP), If anyone wants to keep the off-topic discussion with me going my telegram receiver is fixed and ready for the sh*t storm.

OOC: Just making a point here, speaking entirely out of character. This is Araraukar's WA nation. It's more of a person than a nation, really, as it's a hivemind. Its bodies are the various plants that originally only existed here in the WAHQ, and these days some of them exist on ally planets as well.

And i am absolutely fine with that.

I roleplay it consistently, from the chrolophyllic point of view and from the point of view of a hivemind that can reasonably expect to live forever (it just has to plant the seeds of its various plant bodies to have all the new bodies it wants). You can see as much by searching this account's posts. I think I use my human nation (Araraukar) to talk more about "specieswank" (aka "taking into account the fact that not everyone is human in the WA") than I actually do on my non-human nations (WA Kitty Kops is the other). I mostly use this nation in IC mode to point out an entirely different point of view. And sometimes just to, you know, roleplay on this IC forum.

I do take into account that most WA nations probably are populated by humans, because most players are unlikely to actually roleplay on their accounts, at least not on these forums, but I do insist on species-neutral language ("sapient" instead of "human", kind of thing) and dislike human-specific resolutions like this one. You wanting to force everyone in the WA to roleplay human nations is as bad as if I tried to demand everyone played non-human nations.

And as long as you do it in this fashion, kudos to you, this is the way of roleplaying i personally don't have an issue with at all.
I do want to point out that i, in no way, seek to make people roleplay human nations only. I respect and treat those equally who do the same with others.

Most people with good and consistent roleplayed realities are able to tell the limits of their roleplay, and drop out of character to go further, or - like me, even on Araraukar - put in OOC remarks and references to make the discussion more universally understandable.

And THERE we have the worm in the apple. You see, you seem to understand those "limits" of serious roleplay. When you are different than the rest, some things may be different for you BUT you should always be careful to keep it in such boundaries that your roleplay doesn't aggressively limit the roleplay of others. I am basically against rp-hijacking. I was going to make a fictional example but why not just borrow something from a person who embodies the situation i dislike:

We once again have to object to this proposal until it provides protections for all or at least most sapient species. As written, it is mammalian-centric. The Greater Siriusian Domain is also disappointed that no effort has been made by the author of this proposal to rectify this issue.

If this is to be resubmitted, the Greater Siriusian Domain strongly recommends that it should be reworded to refer to basic prenatal developmental stages and not to stages of pregnancy and labor. Not only would this close the C-section loophole, but it would also cover a much greater range of sapient species, many of which do not give birth to live young but lay eggs instead, without making the proposal overly complex.

The Greater Siriusian Domain votes no to the proposal as written.

THIS is what i mean with "extreme" non-human roleplay (sorry for taking you as an public example here Siriusian Domain)
This kind of behaviour doesn't sit right with me. Just rejecting a proposal because "it doesn't include me!". And this comes from someone who also rejected the proposal, so i am not salty or anything. I simply see the, again my personal opinion, no attempt to force anything on anyone, aggressively selfish behaviour when roleplaying in this specific way and i don't like it one bit. It doesn't contribute much to the discussion, it doesn't has any space for a question, it's just a "no because i wasn't personally mentioned meh meh".

If someone plays it in a positive way, i love it and yes, even "mean" roleplay can still be good roleplay, the world isn't made out of candy, neither should the one(or many) in this game.

Why doesn't this go through some people's thick head?

So all the above taken into account, I don't exactly appreciate being called thick-headed and will continue roleplaying an extremely non-human WA nation. Not that it should bother you, since you haven't been on the GA forum before, at least not on that account.

And i never said, you shouldn't continue roleplaying an extremely non-human WA nation, when you know how to be non-toxic/destructive in your roleplay, which seems to be the case (you not being the last part i mean).

All i pointed out was that the World Assembly cannot regulate biology based processes

Nor should it.

At least we can agree on that i guess?^^

[Imperium Anglorum]

This has got to be a branding violation for use of the long title instead of the short-title. If the point of that rule was to prevent nations from screwing with WA legislation by changing their long-titles, that is the same today. The submission did not use the short-title of the nation, thus this must be branding.

[Wallenburg]

Well that especially hysterical laugh especially after such a cold hard debunkal in fact only proves my accusation of you beeing dogmatic and fanatic, thanks rofl

Ogenbond keeps laughing. "Me finding this situation funny proves your points correct? What kind of idiot reasoning is that, Ambassador? And what on Earth does 'rahfel' mean?"

And yes obviously you are, through whatever measures, brainwashed so hard that you simply fail to see the things rationally and logically as they are and agree to the rational and logical approach that would benefit everyone, instead you protect your dogma that only benefits a few including you and your sick and narrow worldviews.

"We are the Nethra. Lower your guns and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile!"

Since the very beginning, and congratz the only one doing that as I pointed out multiple times and early already is you, but hey nice selfprojecting here.

"Doing what? Ambassador, you make absolutely no sense. Stop speaking in these meaningless ramblings or I will be forced to recommend an elementary school language education for you, so that you may make more coherent your arguments. Furthermore, an 'I know you are, but what am I?' argument like that is never going to gain ground with me or anyone else of even rudimentary skill in debate or discussion."

Further going into senseless and childish hysteria and comedy doesn´t make it any better but in fact only further underlines and proves my points, thanks for that again.

"I'd consider your personal attacks against me, your strawmen, your sweeping generalizations, your lies, and your hypocrisy far more senseless and childish than me having a good laugh at your ridiculous assumptions."

All I asked you too and again instead of actually rationally backing it up you fail and this time resort to childish behaviour at its finest.

"Ambassador, fix your translator or fix your grammar. One of them is broken."

I don´t even know what there is to discuss any further here? You claimed I made a claim multiple times that I in fact during the entire discussion from the beginning to the end only made twice. And you did that to try to produce yet another strawman as well.

"Ambassador, it appears you need an elementary mathematics class as well. Doing something twice is doing something multiple times. Furthermore, if your best defense against my arguments is to split hairs about my word choice, you clearly don't have much of a position to defend in the first place."

Um.... everything you claim? Rofl. Since so far you backed up nothing at all.

"For fuck's sake, Ambassador, stop it with these random rambling--"

The aide interrupts Ogenbond and hands him a copy of the debate transcript. She points to two different lines further up the page and whispers something to him. "Hmm, indeed," says Ogenbond. "Thank you, Viviana. I didn't think the Ambassador would be so silly as to not make the target of each of his statements clear."

Ogenbond redirects his attention to the Azurian ambassador. "When I asked what you want me to back up, I was talking about specifics. Give me an example of a claim I have not backed up."

Again never said you did, nice strawman again. I said once again: You are 1 of the most flaming supporters that work to push the resolution through, and that is a fact or are you going to deny that?

Ogenbond looks at the transcript in confusion. "Wait...what? I thought there was a method to their madness! Viviana, I'm afraid you are incorrect, he isn't following the order of my statements, he's just ranting randomly about strawmen. If he actually were replying to the next statement I made, which was 'Your point, sir?', he would have had a response that at least remotely served as a valid answer."

Ogenbond pauses and looks at the ambassador. "Or maybe not. I'm still not sure what this 'flaming' business is about. I can assure you that I am not on fire."

Yes you are, either dogmatically religious or dogmatically conservative or both. If not then prove me wrong by acting otherwise.

Ogenbond erupts in laughter again. "Ah, you want proof! Viviana, should I tease him some more, or stomp his argument into the dust? Both seem equally entertaining."

Slightly irritated at the excuse for a conversation between the two ambassadors, the Wallenburgian aide responds, "Show him your damn voter ID."

"All right, all right, Viviana. Let's see, I always keep it next to the passport...ah, here it is!" Ogenbond pulls out a royal blue leather slip, and shows it to the Azurian. "See? 'Party identification: Social Democrat'. In my nation, the Social Democrats favor economically leftist and socially libertarian policy. As to my religious identification, here's my passport. There, see? 'Religious Identification: None'. Sure, I go to the temple every month and recognize Notch for his good works, but that hardly makes me religious."

I do not believe you in this one, but okay let´s go by your claim and pretend it is true:

"Hah! You don't believe me! Viviana, get me the papers."

The aide nods and picks up a phone from the desk. She punches in the numbers to the Wallenburgian office and begins speaking with the archivist.

Then tell me: Why do you now do the exact opposite of what you claimed you did whilst voting against the "repeal reproductive freedom" resolution?

"First, I do not do anything in opposition to my previous votes. I have consistently voted in favor of abortion rights. This resolution, however, does not affect abortion rights."

Explain especially after the undeniable aruments and facts i´ve presented you,

"Undeniable? More like indefensible."

how that fits and how that is not totally self contradictive and why the hell I should believe that?

"Well, again, this resolution does not limit abortion rights. When a child is out of the womb and the afterbirth is on its way out, it is physically impossible to abort the pregnancy. I'd think that is quite clear to anyone with half a brain. As to why you should believe me, it appears that my papers are here."

A Wallenburgian office worker enters the chamber with a large briefcase. He sets it on the Wallenburgian desk and opens it up. Sifting through the papers, he pulls out one, then another file.

"Thank you, Winston," says Ogenbond to the office worker. "Now ambassador, here are some copies of the relevant files."

As a firm believer in the right to bodily sovereignty, I have maintained an opposition to attacks on efforts to strip away protections on women's right to have abortions. My government often disagrees with my "radicalism" with regard to this issue, but out of luck conservatives at home have been unable to gather support to override my decisions on these pieces of legislation.
This repeal of reproductive freedoms does not make arguments against the choice of the pregnant woman. It does not employ rhetoric pretending that fetuses are people. Rather, it focuses on a claim that "Reproductive Freedoms" allows for sex-selective abortions, a truly horrible and ultraconservative custom of savage nations. I agree with the author that such practices must end, but unfortunately the replacement effort for "Reproductive Freedoms" is far worse than the current resolution, essentially removing all protections against violation of bodily sovereignty by anti-choice governments, excluding cases currently protected by "On Abortion".

Furthermore, this vote comes at a time when the infamous Stellonian delegation attempts yet again to repeal "On Abortion" based on anti-choice beliefs. While both repeal efforts currently suffer strong opposition, I realize that the World Assembly is still replete with those too conservative to grant women the basic liberty of self-ownership. I vote against this resolution, and rest well knowing it has no chance of success.

This delegation is tempted to file a legality challenge. You could have taken our advice and added three words to clause 3, "prior to birth", but you did not. Now, you're trying to impose a de facto partial-birth abortion ban while simultaneously upholding a woman's right to an abortion. That's not only self-contradictory, but it's probably contradictory of Reproductive Freedoms.

The Secretariat has received a legality challenge on this. We will try to be timely with our ruling.

And you prove me right again, instead if actually offering a valid counterargument, all you do is laugh and ridicule xD Nice, an applause for you.

"Umm...thanks?" Ogenbond says, confused as to why the ambassador said, "kssssd".

Never said that either and nice strawman and evasion of answering instead of actually offering a valid counterargument, thanks for only proving me right again.

"Oh, for heck's sake, Ambassador, live a little. I was having fun. You know what fun is, right? They have that in your nation, right?"

Ah yeah by your definition we then should also sexually abuse children and wait for them to grow up until they are old enough to decide that they actually never wanted that? *big thumbsup for your nonexistant logic here*

"Actually, by your logic, we should sexually abuse children and wait for them to grow up until they are old enough to decide they didn't want that. How the hell is letting someone live in any way comparable to sexually abusing them? You have a very sick sense of right and wrong, Ambassador, if you think killing people is just and letting them live is comparable to a violent crime."

That point was already addressed multiple times and in this very comment of mine once again, but nice that you prove me that all you do is repeat old strawmans and lies instead of actually adressing my points and refuting them like one would actually expect from a mentally healthy and adult person, seems to me you are not such a person.

"Ambassador, shut up about these nonexistent strawmen. You are not fooling anyone. Saying that this is not my resolution is not a strawman nor is it a lie. It is the truth, and your insistence that this is my resolution is pathetic and infantile. Again, go back to elementary school and learn how to have a goddamned conversation."

Which is the same, it is the same principe: It is unclear and broad as hell and one can intepret nearly anything into it. It doesn´t make any difference wether you merely switch the words "partially unborn" to "partially born". But it seems you cannot and also don´t want to recognize the logical fallacies here, since you are too caught up in your dogmatic thinking and your pathetic try to force that upon others while trying to sell that as "protecing civil rights and freedoms".

"And you are caught up in your asinine claims that essentially any criticism of you is a strawman and actually proves you are correct. Once again, Ambassador, you seriously need to learn how debate works."

Ever heard of sarcasm? Obviously not. Sorry for overestimating your intelligence, my bad, won´t happen again.

"I see, nothing more than more ad hominem attacks. It amuses me that you criticize me for such statements, but show absolutely no restraint in using them yourself. And I have, indeed, heard of sarcasm. In case you hadn't noticed, I've used it myself in our conversation, and you have been so goddamned blind as to totally misread it as serious behavior."

Again sorry for overestimating your intelligence, flaming as meant in "burning", burning meaning: "Passionate, devoted, active." Yes there are also definitions outside of cheap internet slang, that however seems to be to high for you already. Sorry for yet again overestimating your knowledge and lingual prowess, as said my bad and won´t happen again.

"Ambassador, now you are just making no fucking sense. What in Notch's name is an inter-net? And when are you going to actually make reasonable arguments rather than simply assault my intelligence? Do you even know how a debate works?"

I don´t see what needs any more explaining here on that topic, except for totally delusional people like you who for reasons of personal belief(i.e. dogma) totally refuse to see things objectively and rationaly.

"Ah, I see, so you really don't have anything but personal attacks, lies, and strawmen to defend yourself. In that case, I shall leave the rest of this conversation to Viviana. I'm done exposing myself to this cancerous and entirely moronic back-and-forth, and I've quite exhausted my opportunities to make some light fun out of your idiotic claims."

Ogenbond stands and leaves the chamber, whistling "L'Internationale" to himself. The Wallenburgian aide looks at the Azurian with disdain. "I don't get paid enough to do this job."

Hahahahaha omfg the last one is really the best^^

The aide, totally confused, mutters to herself. "Oh-emme-ef-gee? And what the hell was that at the end there? His translator must be even more damaged than I thought. That, or he's gone completely mad."

See and that is also EXACTLY what I meant when I said that you are dogmatic xD

Viviana looks through the transcript, then asks, "It's dogmatic to not kill babies? Sir, are you referring to a different claim Representative Ogenbond made? Perhaps one that doesn't defend the lives of innocent children?"

Also you prove me totally right here on another point too: That you absolutely do not care for the childs life, happieness or well beeing.

"You're a looney, aren't you? My superior has always defended the wellbeing of all innocent persons, and even the guilty in some cases. He is quite utilitarian at times, and wants to see everyone as happy and cared for as possible. Of course, I doubt you care whether what you say is right or not, but I thought I may as well tell you that anyway."

All you care for is your dogma and forcing your way of thinking and what you believe is right onto everyone else to satisfy your own ego.

"More lies, huh? Tell me, ambassador, when are you going to stop screaming like a child and actually debate with us?"

You don´t care what the facts and reality are, nor do you care what other people think or want.

"I see that your translator is, indeed, broken. When you said 'I', it came out as 'you'. I could arrange for repairs and an update to your universal translator if you wish, or you could keep talking with whatever archaic device you are using there."

You assume that: You know what other people think and want, and know what is best for them and try to force that on them.

"Well, to an extent. Most people want to live. Do you really think that's such a radical assumption?"

Thanks for totally proving me right especially with your last sentence on so many things I said.

"How does asserting that babies don't want to die prove you right? You are the one advocating the right to murder them."

[Araraukar]

OOC: Are you serious? Egg laying species don't have birth

OOC: Well, if we're talking about birth as "when the fetus leaves the mother's body" then for egg-laying species that is the process of egg-laying. If you instead count birth as "when the fetus becomes independent of its incubator", then for egg-laying species that would when the offspring hatches.

you should always be careful to keep it in such boundaries that your roleplay doesn't aggressively limit the roleplay of others. I am basically against rp-hijacking.

Still an OOC post. I don't know where you normally RP, but here if you try to limit others' roleplay, like you're doing despite claiming otherwise, the response is people like SP and me telling you how silly that is. Trying to "godmod" on the GA forum means basically dictating how other people's roleplay works or should work, and it will quickly get you ignored.

I was going to make a fictional example but why not just borrow something from a person who embodies the situation i dislike:
*snip*
THIS is what i mean with "extreme" non-human roleplay (sorry for taking you as an public example here Siriusian Domain)

What's extreme about wanting resolutions that apply to more sapients than just one species? It's just common sense, if you want as much support as you can get around here.

his kind of behaviour doesn't sit right with me. Just rejecting a proposal because "it doesn't include me!"

Have you looked at the posts of non-GA people on this thread, or any of the at-vote threads? They're basically "Opposed/Supported, because my nation does X". Actually, many don't even bother with the "because" part. It's entirely fine and encouraged to roleplay differences on the GA forum. From my point of view you are attempting "rp-hijack" here, by claiming that only your kind of roleplay is good for the WA. That's now how this forum works. If you want to know how the forum works, I'll be more than happy to continue educating you via TG, so as to avoid further off-topicness.

I simply see the, again my personal opinion, no attempt to force anything on anyone, aggressively selfish behaviour when roleplaying in this specific way and i don't like it one bit.

This is what you're currently exhibiting, and I don't like it one bit. Just so we understand each other.

It doesn't contribute much to the discussion, it doesn't has any space for a question, it's just a "no because i wasn't personally mentioned meh meh".

...you really have no idea how freeflow RP works.

the world isn't made out of candy, neither should the one(or many) in this game.

Knowing people around here, someone's going to make a puppet nation called "World Made Out Of Candy" or something similar, just to prove you wrong.

And i never said, you shouldn't continue roleplaying an extremely non-human WA nation, when you know how to be non-toxic/destructive in your roleplay, which seems to be the case (you not being the last part i mean).

No, but you are saying people shouldn't continue roleplaying an extremely non-human WA nation if they don't want to bow down to what you view as the only right way to RP a WA nation.

Nor should it.

At least we can agree on that i guess?^^

If you agree with that, then why the fuck are you complaining about how people say how something doesn't agree with their RP reality? If you don't care, it shouldn't bother you.

All of that said, if you want to continue to contribute to discussions on this forum, you can either ignore people RPing in a way you don't like and partake discussions anyway, or ignore the people themselves (which will likely be reciprocated by them), or let everyone RP the way they want. I suggest that last mode of approach.

This has got to be a branding violation for use of the long title instead of the short-title. If the point of that rule was to prevent nations from screwing with WA legislation by changing their long-titles, that is the same today. The submission did not use the short-title of the nation, thus this must be branding.

Wrapper already headed off, if you want to take this up with mods, try Moderation Forum?

*snip*

When you're done wasting time on him, I want to see what Ogenbond makes of the Chief Inshpekshuuner telling him off.

[Wallenburg]

When you're done wasting time on him, I want to see what Ogenbond makes of the Chief Inshpekshuuner telling him off.

OOC: Hmm? I think I missed that post.

[Sapient Candy]

the world isn't made out of candy, neither should the one(or many) in this game.

Knowing people around here, someone's going to make a puppet nation called "World Made Out Of Candy" or something similar, just to prove you wrong.

A young woman made out of bubblegum enters the chamber. "Hello there. How may I represent the people of the Candy Kingdom?"

[Serene Israel]

Knowing people around here, someone's going to make a puppet nation called "World Made Out Of Candy" or something similar, just to prove you wrong.

A young woman made out of bubblegum enters the chamber. "Hello there. How may I represent the people of the Candy Kingdom?"

I am not even mad at that amount of dedication. I applaud and will be silent on this topic for now as so many people demanded from me already. Take you win and like!

[The Galactic Triumvirate]

'In the opinion of the Federation, this Bill goes far beyond what what international law should be, imposing personal morals onto individual Nation States which is why, i imagine, many others including myself have voted Against this proposal.' - Dr Nancy Lyman: Consul General

[Aleyovska]

'In the opinion of the Federation, this Bill goes far beyond what what international law should be, imposing personal morals onto individual Nation States which is why, i imagine, many others including myself have voted Against this proposal.' - Dr Nancy Lyman: Consul General

Absolutely.

[Christian Democrats]

This has to be one of the most vague things I have had to vote on. There is not clear-cut way of defining "partially born"

This proposal does, in fact, give a clear definition: the second and third stages of labor.

and the very idea that a baby is anything more than a parasite BY ITS VERY DEFINITION is absurd.

Sir, I believe you need a dictionary or an encyclopedia. A baby is not, by its very definition, a parasite.

"In biology/ecology, parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other [species], the host" (Wikipedia).

nor does it take into account that birth can cause death to the person birthing the child and the only way to prevent this is an abortion

This proposal, by its very terms, does not interfere with abortion; and it permits child destruction to save the mother from death.

This proposal is redundant because it is already only performed when medically necessary.

No decent human being would ever needlessly destroy a baby coming out of the womb.

In this topic, one ambassador has already suggested that a physician should consider euthanizing a child who suffers from a birth defect before cutting the umbilical cord.

Although it is not considered a homicide in most countries it is still morally wrong. Wrong enough so it should be a tort.

Who would be seeking damages from whom?

A baby is akin to a worm living in the guts of a dog.

Really?

Learn basic biology. That's junior high level stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

"In biology/ecology, parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. "

In other words, baby takes nutrients from mother, mother gets nothing in return/ loses said nutrients :. parasite.

What species is the mother, and what species is her child?

"Even if this did pass, it would pointless and unenforceable" Clover said "There is no such thing as 'partially born', regardless of what definition you attempt to attach. As its a cut and dry scenerio of rather a child is born or not

Since you're such an expert, will you please tell the Assembly at which moment a child goes from being unborn to born? What instant is birth?

From a biological and evolutionary perspective

Ah, so you're an evolutionary biologist, Ambassador?

Well the only reason you haven´t is clearly because you are biased, brainwashed and dogmatic as hell. Since from a logical, rational and objective perspective, there is nothing to argue against here.

It's always amusing when people turn "reason" into dogmatism.

"You're biased, brainwashed, and dogmatic. I'm logical, rational, and objective. Therefore, I'm right. I don't have to argue my point. Reason!"

All OOC, with a reminder that I've recused myself from any official ruling since my involvement in this thread predates modhood. Take this as an experienced player's opinion and nothing more.

Abortion is the destruction and removal of the fetus and other contents from the uterus (medical source and a WebMD source). This proposal covers the second and third stages of labor (not, as some have apparently misinterpreted, the second and third trimesters of pregnancy). Those stages occur after the fetus has left the uterus, covering the period from the entrance into the birth canal to the expulsion of the afterbirth.

In other words, Araraukar is right.

This proposal has nothing to do with abortion.

I'm done here, as I'm heading out of town for a few days. Try not to burn the place down while I'm gone.

Ooc: this times a thousand.

Times a million.

[Ovybia]

The Ovybian ambassador enters the hall hands covering his ears from the cacophony. "Umm...I must have the wrong room."
"No," the aide responds, "this is the right room."
"I am very disappointed in the WA. Many ambassadors are more interested in jumping to conclusions about the proposal and spending their time screaming about it than taking five short minutes to actually read the proposal itself. And, unfortunately, that is the reason this proposal is failing so badly. I wouldn't be as disappointed if people rejected it because of its true contents but this..." the Ovybian ambassador stares sadly about the ashes around him.

"The proposal obviously wasn't perfect, no proposal is, but I believe it was clear enough to anyone who legitimately wanted to understand it." The aide chimed in.

[Imperial Republic of Shadow]

The Imperial republic of shadow has the following laws:

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, then abortion is not allowed unless required by health of mother. Instead, a ceasarian birth or natural birth will take place with the mother and father responsible for the child until adopting parents are found Intentional death during birth process is considered death of a child (save for saving life of mother). Deliberately causing death of a child is considered Murder.

Otherwise, we place no legal restriction on abortion other than as a community we express a moral but not LEGaL value that abortion should only occur in cases of rape, incest or threat to health of the mother.

With this in mind, we see no need for this particular law.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Imperial republic of shadow has the following laws:

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, then abortion is not allowed unless required by health of mother. Instead, a ceasarian birth or natural birth will take place with the mother and father responsible for the child until adopting parents are found Intentional death during birth process is considered death of a child (save for saving life of mother). Deliberately causing death of a child is considered Murder.

Otherwise, we place no legal restriction on abortion other than as a community we express a moral but not LEGaL value that abortion should only occur in cases of rape, incest or threat to health of the mother.

With this in mind, we see no need for this particular law.

"That is not in following with World Assembly law, ambassador."

[The Second Moon Rising]

The Ovybian ambassador enters the hall hands covering his ears from the cacophony. "Umm...I must have the wrong room."
"No," the aide responds, "this is the right room."
"I am very disappointed in the WA. Many ambassadors are more interested in jumping to conclusions about the proposal and spending their time screaming about it than taking five short minutes to actually read the proposal itself. And, unfortunately, that is the reason this proposal is failing so badly. I wouldn't be as disappointed if people rejected it because of its true contents but this..." the Ovybian ambassador stares sadly about the ashes around him.

"The proposal obviously wasn't perfect, no proposal is, but I believe it was clear enough to anyone who legitimately wanted to understand it." The aide chimed in.

The Second Moon Rising would like to know in which way we are jumping to conclusions.

- birth, as used in this resolution, as the second and third stages of labor, namely the passing of a child from the uterus and through the birth canal as well as the expulsion of the afterbirth

As this is the only definition of birth in the proposal, by the exact letter of this definition, there would be no difference between labor that occurs at or around forty weeks which would be the natural conclusion of a normal, healthy pregnancy and labor that is mechanically/chemically induced at twenty weeks for the purpose of a late-term abortion via IDX procedure. Also, by this definition, a fetus removed from the mother by cesarean did not experience birth.

Observing that most intelligent species, including mankind, are well-developed at the time of birth; each having a living brain, beating heart, or their functional equivalents; and are, in every way, persons who are entitled to full and equal recognition of their dignity and protection under the law of their inherent rights,

By the proposal's definition of birth, this would mean that a twenty-week-old fetus that is to be aborted via IDX has more rights than a twenty-week-old fetus that is to be aborted via D&E, solely on the basis that an IDX procedure includes mechanically/chemically inducing labor. It also offers no rights to a fetus that is, has been, or to be removed via cesarean because, by the proposal's definition, the fetus does not experience birth. Under this proposal, quite literally a mother can opt for a cesarean and then have the infant smothered the moment it is removed from her womb.

The wording of the proposal is, The Second Moon Rising will admit, a rather clever way to disguise an attempt to ban a specific form of abortion. The Second Moon Rising truly believes that if this had been a straightforward proposal to end child destruction, the proposal would have touched on all forms of this horrible act.

[Ovybia]

- birth, as used in this resolution, as the second and third stages of labor, namely the passing of a child from the uterus and through the birth canal as well as the expulsion of the afterbirth

As this is the only definition of birth in the proposal, by the exact letter of this definition, there would be no difference between labor that occurs at or around forty weeks which would be the natural conclusion of a normal, healthy pregnancy and labor that is mechanically/chemically induced at twenty weeks for the purpose of a late-term abortion via IDX procedure. Also, by this definition, a fetus removed from the mother by cesarean did not experience birth.

WA law already prohibits killing a child after birth is complete. This proposal focuses only on child destruction, the act of killing a child during birth. IDX is the only current form of child destruction.

The wording of the proposal is, The Second Moon Rising will admit, a rather clever way to disguise an attempt to ban a specific form of abortion.

No.

The Second Moon Rising truly believes that if this had been a straightforward proposal to end child destruction, the proposal would have touched on all forms of this horrible act.

The proposal does touch all forms of the horrible act (excepting the life of the mother).

[Mattopilos]

Congrats on Christian Democrats being so far behind in the conversation that he attacks my initial arguments without reading more recent ones which retract any such early remarks. Keep up, slowpokes.

[Christian Democrats]

Congrats on Christian Democrats being so far behind in the conversation that he attacks my initial arguments without reading more recent ones which retract any such early remarks. Keep up, slowpokes.

I read all of the comments that I missed, and every post to which I responded had been made in the previous 20 hours. If your opinions change more often than once every 20 hours, then that's not my problem.

[Koopa-Toadaria]

Koopa-Toadaria, standing as mostly pro-choice and fair state, sees this resolution as a religiously bias attempt to control maternal rights and trim legislation on an already existing WA law.

[The Rouge Christmas State]

*The RCS Ambassador walks in*
"I'm disappointed in the World Assembly for disregarding a proposal to end a barbaric practice because of the authors of the proposal. I understand that there are Pro-Choice advocates that must get their daily dose of death to be satisfied with themselves. But an attempt to end a despicable act like this and it gets rejected not based of reason for some, but due to the name of who wrote it. The World Assembly will continue to roll around in its own filth if nonsense like this is allowed to continue. I'm appalled and disgusted with the WA and I've nothing more to say. Good day!"
*He leaves the room and slams the door behind him*

[Excidium Planetis]

Koopa-Toadaria, standing as mostly pro-choice and fair state, sees this resolution as a religiously bias attempt to control maternal rights and trim legislation on an already existing WA law.

"Koopa-Toadaria must be blind. Proposals cannot trim legislation on an already existing law." Schultz replies.