[DEFEATED] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Covenstone]

This IS about women's rights. It's about the right for me, should I need to, to go down to the clinic without being faced by a crowd of religious nut jobs waving pictures of fetuses at me and calling me a baby killing slut.

It's about the right for me to go through one of the hardest, difficultest and most emotionally draining times of my life without a bunch of fucking moralistic whackjobs telling me I will burn in hell because I am putting my life above a collection of cells that don't even know they are cells let alone what fucking day it is.

It's about the right for me to decide NOT to have the child of my child-raping husband without a bunch of men telling me that they know what is better for me than I do, because clearly since they have never spoken to me before and will never speak to me again I should OBVIOUSLY cede every fucking decision in my fucking life to them.

So I am sorry if I am going to offend some people and vote against this abomination of a repeal and instead keep the right to have an abortion for reasons other than incest and my health, and I am going to vote against this fucked up twisted demented repeal and ensure that, should I ever have to have an abortion I can do it without being abused and shouted at by people who think they are doing God's Work (tm) by shouting at a woman who just wants to get out of a bad situation the best way she can.

And I am sorry that I might offend people by voting against a repeal that will permit men and women to go back to organising demonstrations to frighten scared teenagers whose birth control failed the first time they had sex with their boyfriend, but I believe that I am happy with my decision to vote against this piece of crap repeal and I hope it will be consigned to history.

Edit - on a related note, should this pass, and should any more resolutions pass forbidding abortions for any reason other than those established in existing resolutions, the medical establishments of Covenstone will no longer require proof of sexual assault/rape for reasons of abortion. Merely claiming the pregnancy is a result of rape will be good enough for every doctor throughout the country. This is just an advisory note for the future, in case it is needed.

"You know all the resolution would've done is end women's ability to have abortions in most cases in nations that want to do so (a minority). There would be no reason for you to change your laws.

There are several problems with your argument here.
#1. Though a major decision, You would be ceding one thing to the men (more on this in a moment)
#2. There are a good number of pro-life women.
#3. Your entire argument is based on emotion, not actual reason or counter argument.
#4. Adding the adjective "fucking" before every other noun doesn't anything constructive. Remaining calm would be nice.

Don't just go around having sex if your birth control isn't necessarily going to be effective. I oppose birth control, but it's at least not actively killing anyone."

1. *shrug* I am just suggesting that in most cases, the people who make the laws about controlling the reproductive organs of females are rarely female.
2. I do not doubt that there are, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to them.
3. Pffft. The vast majority of anti-choice arguments are anything but reason and logic. They are emotional appeal, religious dogma and other bullshit spewed at the emotional core of whoever happens to be listening.
4. I have tried remaining calm. It didn't help. I still had tosspots, twats, fuckwhits and morons waving signs calling me a baby-killing slut and doing so in the name of "free speech". So if they can hurl whatever shit they want in the name of free speech and their right to express themselves, then, sweetie, so can I.

And your last comment is (with all due respect) just idiotic and puerile. If that is the best you can do to defend making women mindless incubators for unwanted products of gang-rape and incest, no wonder this repeal was voted down by such a huge margin.

And since it was voted down, and will hopefully die a death, I am done arguing.

[Bakhton]

However, restricting the right to abortion does nothing to tackle the problem at its roots; it's the equivalent of solving the drug epidemic by banning drugs or ending petty theft by executing petty thieves.

First, how can abortion simultaneously be a "right" and a "problem"?

Second, banning a drug does reduce consumption of that drug.

(OOC: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html)

Third, if the state started executing petty thieves, I assure you that petty theft would decline.

"Rights are not inherently non-problematic. Freedom of speech in many instances cover hate speech, but I don't see you rattling your sabre over that."

[Fauxia]

First, how can abortion simultaneously be a "right" and a "problem"?

Second, banning a drug does reduce consumption of that drug.

(OOC: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html)

Third, if the state started executing petty thieves, I assure you that petty theft would decline.

"Rights are not inherently non-problematic. Freedom of speech in many instances cover hate speech, but I don't see you rattling your sabre over that."

"I have great respect for the Christian Democratic ambassador, but I must agree with this statement.

[Fauxia]

"You know all the resolution would've done is end women's ability to have abortions in most cases in nations that want to do so (a minority). There would be no reason for you to change your laws.

There are several problems with your argument here.
#1. Though a major decision, You would be ceding one thing to the men (more on this in a moment)
#2. There are a good number of pro-life women.
#3. Your entire argument is based on emotion, not actual reason or counter argument.
#4. Adding the adjective "fucking" before every other noun doesn't anything constructive. Remaining calm would be nice.

Don't just go around having sex if your birth control isn't necessarily going to be effective. I oppose birth control, but it's at least not actively killing anyone."

1. *shrug* I am just suggesting that in most cases, the people who make the laws about controlling the reproductive organs of females are rarely female.
2. I do not doubt that there are, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to them.
3. Pffft. The vast majority of anti-choice arguments are anything but reason and logic. They are emotional appeal, religious dogma and other bullshit spewed at the emotional core of whoever happens to be listening.
4. I have tried remaining calm. It didn't help. I still had tosspots, twats, fuckwhits and morons waving signs calling me a baby-killing slut and doing so in the name of "free speech". So if they can hurl whatever shit they want in the name of free speech and their right to express themselves, then, sweetie, so can I.

And your last comment is (with all due respect) just idiotic and puerile. If that is the best you can do to defend making women mindless incubators for unwanted products of gang-rape and incest, no wonder this repeal was voted down by such a huge margin.

And since it was voted down, and will hopefully die a death, I am done arguing.

"You quit the argument, so you lose. If you change your mind, I'd be happy to continue the conversation, but (unlike what abortion should be) that's your choice."

[Fauxia]

The above is an unsupported assertion.

It's very supported, actually. "This is about women's rights" was basically the statement. That's very circular. "This is about baby's rights" "no, women's" is what it leads to.

[Consular]

Since when is the right thing decided by majority vote?

Since democracy?

[Ventlimer]

Since when is the right thing decided by majority vote?

Since democracy?

Just because 51 percent of the population agrees with it does not make it the right thing. Jim Crow laws were democratically put in place in the south, but that definitely wasn't the right thing.

[Consular]

Since democracy?

Just because 51 percent of the population agrees with it does not make it the right thing. Jim Crow laws were democratically put in place in the south, but that definitely wasn't the right thing.

"democratically"

[Ventlimer]

Just because 51 percent of the population agrees with it does not make it the right thing. Jim Crow laws were democratically put in place in the south, but that definitely wasn't the right thing.

"democratically"

People elected representatives. Representatives proposed laws. Representatives passed said laws. The population helped enforce those laws. Pretty democratic process if you ask me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

Oh, really. Multiple personalities? That's how your delegation justifies its seeming inability to dredge up a singular message against this repeal? Whatever, guys. Good luck repealing PRA. Peace out.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

"democratically"

People elected representatives. Representatives proposed laws. Representatives passed said laws. The population helped enforce those laws. Pretty democratic process if you ask me.

OOC: A pretty roundabout democratic process, but to be fair I'd hate to see how horribly inefficient the US would be if it was a direct democracy rather than a representative one.

[Christian Democrats]

First, how can abortion simultaneously be a "right" and a "problem"?

"Rights are not inherently non-problematic. Freedom of speech in many instances cover hate speech, but I don't see you rattling your sabre over that."

I suspected that someone would say this. There is a difference.

Hate speech, if we're going to use this as our example, is incidental to free speech. It comes as part of the package, so to speak, when a nation decides to recognize free speech as a right. In other words, free speech is a right; but it comes with incidental problems because people are liable to misuse it. Free speech is not inherently problematic; it's problematic only if people abuse it.

The ambassador from the States of Glory said no such thing regarding abortion. He said that the "right to abortion" is a "problem." Therefore, I asked in response, "how can abortion simultaneously be a 'right' and a 'problem'?" Neither I nor any of my staff can think of any rights that are inherently problematic. The problems associated with true rights are always incidental to the rights. The problems come as part of the package, and they are the consequences of misuses of the rights. Obtaining an abortion, on the other hand, is not a misuse of the "right to abortion." It's the essence of the right. How can a "right" whose essence is problematic be a right at all?

[Araraukar]

OOC post.

The unborn child cannot be a foreign entity because he originates inside his mother.

So do tapeworm eggs. The child is a foreign entity in the sense that it doesn't have the same DNA as the host body and if you inserted bits of the fetus in direct contact with the mother's tissues, the mother's body would attack it the way it would attack anything that didn't belong to it.

Unborn children are indigenous to their mothers' reproductive systems.

No, not really. The mother's immune response has to be lowered by the mother's body for it to not attack and expel the fetus as a foreign object, and the failure of the system can lead to spontaneous abortions. More information on the subject. The placenta does a lot of things to keep the mother's body from rejecting it and the fetus. If the fetus wasn't a foreign body, none of that would be necessary. In fact, in cases where the mother's body rejects the fetus - or even earlier, the embryo - the natural killer cells (which are part of the innate immune system) treat the fetal cells as though they were cancer cells.

Essentially, you're arguing for the expulsion of people from their native environment because their presence is inconvenient to or unwanted by the expellers.

You're not honestly trying to say that humans' native environment is inside the womb, are you? Last I checked, we were naturally air-breathers. But yes, removing/driving away anyone who is unwanted where they are (consider illegal squatters in an otherwise abandoned building), tends to be the usual way that things work in this world.

Your children-as-cancer analogy does not, therefore, make sense.

I never compared children to cancer. A fetus isn't a child, plus you compared a fetus to an inner organ to argue against the mother's right to have it removed, and I pointed out that the attributes a fetus has (foreign DNA, rapid growth, etc.) would make any doctor view such an inner organ (your choice of word to use) to be cancerous and thus remove it sooner rather than later.

Make a point that doesn't refer to homicide and I might consider it worth rebutting.

I was responding to your post about homicide.

You were responding to my post which itself was a response to your post which used "child homicide". I didn't decide to use the term in the first place, just like it wasn't my idea to compare a fetus to an internal organ.

---

A fetus is alive, has its own cells, is human, and is an organism.

Still OOC: So do many cancers (to go with CD's choice of example); if you remove them from the body but keep providing them nutrients and oxygen, they quite happily stay alive outside the body. The only way a fetus is human at the point where it is still a fetus, is because it has human DNA. Otherwise, if you removed it from the host body, for the majority of the time it's called a fetus (rather than embryo), it can't survive outside the host body. So equating it to something like tapeworm is probably closer than cancer.

To deny that is to deny basic biology.

I don't think anyone's tried to say that a fetus wasn't an organism. What we're trying to say is that it's not allowed to parasitize another organism (the pregnant individual) if that other organism doesn't want it inside them.

The repeal would most likely be followed by a more rational legislation

And that's the part that nobody believes you actually mean or want.

---

First, how can abortion simultaneously be a "right" and a "problem"?

OOC still: I think the "problem" mentioned there is "unwanted pregnancies". If you, say, did a vasectomy on all men in your nation, that would end all unwanted pregnancies, since you'd need medical intervention to be able to conceive at all. Thus, problem solved. However, somehow I can't see many people (especially men) agreeing with that solution. Or, if you allowed women to abort unwanted fetuses, that would also solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, but not stop people's ability to reproduce naturally.

[Fauxia]

Since when is the right thing decided by majority vote?

Since democracy?

"Democracy only decides what is legal. It doesn't decide what's right, hence the not uncommon abortion position of "I'm personally opposed, but it's not my choice"

[States of Glory WA Office]

*snip*

Oh, really. Multiple personalities?

Fairburn: Eh?

Good luck repealing PRA.

Fairburn: Pfft. The lemmings wish for appeals to emotion, not luck.

Peace out.

Neville: 'Peace' is not a word that we associated with your Delegation, but OK.

For clarity (and I admit that I made an error in not making this clear in my original post), the "problem" I was referring to was the high incidence rate of abortions that are performed for financial reasons. Of course abortions can be performed for non-financial reasons, which is why I disagree with CD's argument as the right to the former is merely extra baggage, but similarly to how the drugs epidemic and petty theft are best solved through ensuring that the circumstances in which such actions are widespread do not occur, I support the idea that a nation ought to consider why abortions for financial reasons are common and work towards reducing, if not eliminating, those financial difficulties.

Once again, sincere apologies for the confusion.

[Noraika]

"A brilliant day for democracy, and a day in an overwhelming super-majority committed themselves to an unwavering commitment to the health and reproductive rights of women, in order to prevent these rights from being infringed upon and repealed by reactionary forces, and to continue to ensure that such immoral infringement is stamped out within World Assembly member countries, and to ensure basic dignity and respect for human rights within these countries, as recognized in the developed world.

The Dominion of Noraika looks onwards at the World Assembly with grand approval, and shall celebrate this day with the 82.7% of people who stood up to immorality this day. God Save the Queen."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Oh, so the pro-choicers are calling the pro-lifers "immoral" now? Isn't that ironic?

[Wallenburg]

Oh, so the pro-choicers are calling the pro-lifers "immoral" now? Isn't that ironic?

How is that ironic?

[Attempted Socialism]

Oh, so the pro-choicers are calling the pro-lifers "immoral" now? Isn't that ironic?

"I will just refer you back to the anti-choicer who compared this vote to the one about slavery. In both cases, a minority refused to allow people bodily autonomy and wanted to own other people. If we had a vote on whether to repeal the ban on slavery, I would certainly call that minority immoral - despite whatever moniker the pro-slavery group might give themselves. You may call yourself pro-lifer. A pro-slavery group may call themselves pro-employers. I don't really give a shit, I recognise what kind of immoral and often terroristic scum you are."

[Devernia]

Devernia's delegation for the WA was last seen rushing to a black limo, most likely as an effort to leave as soon as possible to "avoid harassment" (as one WA employee put it) for voting "For" in the most recent resolution.

[Sereeno]

Where are interactive forums for role play? I'm hopelessly lost.

[United Massachusetts]

Where are interactive forums for role play? I'm hopelessly lost.

Go to the Board Index, and then click under "NationStates"

[United Massachusetts]

Devernia's delegation for the WA was last seen rushing to a black limo, most likely as an effort to leave as soon as possible to "avoid harassment" (as one WA employee put it) for voting "For" in the most recent resolution.

Thank you for your efforts

[Devernia]

Devernia's delegation for the WA was last seen rushing to a black limo, most likely as an effort to leave as soon as possible to "avoid harassment" (as one WA employee put it) for voting "For" in the most recent resolution.

Thank you for your efforts

The delegation would have said "You're welcome" if he was there.