[DEFEATED] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Christian Democrats]

Rape, whether by a single criminal or multiple criminals, is the primary reason for abortion in less than 0.5% of cases.

Peachby: (dismissively)  Yea, fuck them. Rights are forfeit when they only apply to small parts of the population, say, 0.5 pc of people. So we can repeal protections for disabled voters, protections for religious minorities, the ban on profits on worker deaths, etc.

If "Reproductive Freedoms" were repealed, would so-called "abortion rights" disappear for women impregnated by rape?

[Westermire]

unborn child

So, it is its own living, human, organism, then? Why does another human get to have power over it? Isn't that kind of like slavery, Ambassador (glares at Attempted Socialist delegation)

Call me out on my word choice all you want, but this is not a form of slavery. As the 'child' is inside the mother's body, it is completely HER choice as to what happens with it as it is HER body. Quite frankly, it's absurd we are even debating this issue, as men shouldn't have a say over what women do with their bodies.

[Arotania]

Sex-selective abortion? Limiting a woman's rights and reducing her to a willingless birthing tank is not going to stop a society where this would occur from treating women as second class citizens and make them valued equal to men.

See, the thing about these overemotional responses is that they only keep proving my point, and reveal far more about your personal issues than your opponents' supposed immorality. RF can always be replaced by another abortion rights resolution that doesn't equate "reproductive rights" with making sure that as many abortions as possible are performed.

As many as possible? Good thing you don't respond emotionally, like for example in hyperbole. Also the repeal itself is not exactly graced with a neutral and unemotional language and thus set the stage. It ressorts to paintig bloody scenarios and mixes these with non-medical dysphemisms like "partial-birth abortions". The opinion on the mental state of women it portraits is also rather disturbing. Why would any woman go through bodily taxing months of pregnancy and then on a whim without a good reason decide to have an abortion the day before birth? So what reason other than eliciting a desired emotional response is there for including such an outlandish scenario?
Additionally the repeal accuses the target resolution of circular reasoning. Still it resorts to exactly this in the accusatory clause, simply stating that objections exist and by the grace of their existence should supercede the individual rights of women

You also ignored the point that limiting the rights of women does not help improving their societal status which would eliminate incentives for sex-selective abortions.

unborn child

So, it is its own living, human, organism, then? Why does another human get to have power over it? Isn't that kind of like slavery, Ambassador (glares at Attempted Socialist delegation)

If it is its own organism why does it have to siphon nutrients off the woman? As abortion does not necessitate killing of the product of conception prior to eviction then there should be no problem with setting a "slave" free and letting it be "its own living organism" without being shackled to the woman.

[Devernia]

"Judging from the majority that are against this bill, we can only presume that nations pretty much have no choice other than to legalize abortion in all circumstances or resign. Despite the fact that abortion is illegal in our country, this does not mean that our nation will resign from the World Assembly when this resolution fails to pass.

"Even though it is a losing minority, we still vote 'For' to show our official opinion that nations should have the right to ban abortion if it makes them uncomfortable or if their religion prohibits them to. We have nothing against nations who are pro-choice, however this can offend nations who aren't, threatening them to resign."

[Attempted Socialism]

Now, what are your views on the average case: an unmarried woman in her middle or late 20s who is not using contraception or is using contraception inconsistently, who becomes pregnant following an act of consensual intercourse, and who obtains an abortion because she doesn't want to care for the child whom she helped create?

"This case is easy: You can't abort a child, since a child is already born. My view on the same case while the woman is pregnant is that it's the womans own choice, and Reproductive Freedoms gives her that choice across the World Assembly."

"Are you insane? Keeping people as property on a grand scale, and one step on the road to liberating women from being the property of their husbands, are almost diametrically opposed ideas."

To the contrary, both positions share the views that the state can and should deny an entire class of human beings the protection of the law and that what should be done with those human beings should be determined by individual "owners."

[/quote]"So you are in favour of slavery as long as the subjects are women? I also find it weird that you're talking about 'owning', when your desire is to deny women bodily autonomy - literally trying to take away our ownership over our own bodies. You fail to make sense ethically, legally, logically... can we expand the list with linguistically as well?"

unborn child

So, it is its own living, human, organism, then? Why does another human get to have power over it? Isn't that kind of like slavery, Ambassador (glares at Attempted Socialist delegation)

"It's human, just like my skincells. It's not its own living orgamism, and it's not deserving of personhood. Your entire case seems both built and predicated upon misunderstanding words and philosophical or legal concepts."

Yup, because all pro-life activists are murderers, barbaric medieval folks, and now, terrorists. Really?

Also, might I point out that pro-choice people don't exactly have the most morally upright history (Margaret Sanger)

"Many anti-choice movements are teetering on the edge of terrorism, most of them are defamatory by definition. If someone chooses to become an activist for such an organisation, we will have to watch that, yes. A homegrown movement for legalising arson during protests is also prohibited from staging protests around firehouses and courthouses, due to prior incidents. When their members make threats, they're sometimes prosecuted. It's basic public safety.
I tried to look up Margaret Sanger, but this person has not been notable enough to appear in my lexica."

[United Massachusetts]

So, it is its own living, human, organism, then? Why does another human get to have power over it? Isn't that kind of like slavery, Ambassador (glares at Attempted Socialist delegation)

If it is its own organism why does it have to siphon nutrients off the woman? As abortion does not necessitate killing of the product of conception prior to eviction then there should be no problem with setting a "slave" free and letting it be "its own living organism" without being shackled to the woman.

Is a person on artificial life support less of a living human organism

[Ledaj]

If it is its own organism why does it have to siphon nutrients off the woman? As abortion does not necessitate killing of the product of conception prior to eviction then there should be no problem with setting a "slave" free and letting it be "its own living organism" without being shackled to the woman.

Is a person on artificial life support less of a living human organism

Well we could also have a nice assisted dying argument.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... th%3B%2Cc0
or I guess 'assisted suicide'...

[Luna Amore]

It offers a great solution, actually. It repeals the resolution.

Have a nice day.

>Ignores the fact that the repeal was defeated by an army of support.

"It offers a great solution, actually. It repeals the resolution."

Not really a solution from a f***ing idiot, get the f*** out of here with your 'view'.

Were you lying when you applied for citizenship in Right to Life?
http://w11.zetaboards.com/NS_Right_to_Life/single/?p=10066021&t=7848682


The opposite comparison -- chattel slavery and legal abortion -- makes significantly more sense.


Also known as free speech.


You're mistaken if you think people picket abortion clinics because they get off from "oppressing women." They picket abortion clinics because they're convinced that homicide is wrong even if the victim lacks the mental capacity to know "what fucking day it is."


The right thing is to force abortionists out of the medical profession and into prison.


Advocates of equal rights are not people?


Because there's nothing as sexy as dismembering and beheading small children, right?

Why are you arguing when you have lost hahaha? Equal rights? Please, you subject woman to not have the right to chose to make the biggest decision of their life. Equal rights are for all, not to be directed, determined by sanctimonious a**holes like you.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

It's a fictional piece of legislation. Calm down.

[United Christian]

Because that statement was the only one I cared about in the slightest, you said and I quote "If the so-called logic of "my body, my choice" should be followed, then should we also allow our free citizens to perform medical operations on themselves, or to take their own lives?" which means you disallow it which means illegal. And I can name several governments including China and Russia who don't care if you take your own life. Some Islamic nations encourage it if you are LGBTQA+. You can't decide what people do to their bodies, however, you can provide services for people who seek help. I know very very little about self-medical operations. But mental illnesses, and in this conversation suicide, I know lots about. I've personally attempted suicide multiple times, my boyfriend and just in February a close friend both killed themselves. And I took extreme offense to what you said, you can't disallow suicide or self-harm unless you personally know that person. But you can let it be known that there are services out there for them should they want it.

If we were to accept your implication that to disallow and to illegalize are the same thing, then can we say that to allow and to legalize are also the same? If so, did your government pass a legislation authorizing your citizens to kill themselves? You live in a world where there are no gray matters, no middle grounds, no spectra and third options. However, in the real world, that is not the case.

You speak like you have the authority over suicide and depression, assuming that everyone else here lives a jolly, perfect life, with no anxieties, no trepidation, and no contemplation of self-harm, but allow me, without requiring legislation, to break it to you: You are not alone.

It is unfortunate that you took offense in my statement, but you are reading between compact lines and, at this point, are arguing with your own imagination; you are twisting my words and challenging your own interpretation of them, but, based on your previous posts on this forum, it seems you have made quite a peculiar habit of derailing conversations. If you need a distraction, I am open to a sensible dialogue; otherwise, while it is not necessarily illegal, I must not allow you to drag me with you to the sidetracks.

What I'm trying to say is that you can't regulate whether someone kills themselves. You can't allow or disallow it, you can only provide resources to assist them should they want it.

[Covenstone]

Maybe, but shouting abuse at fourteen year old girls is, quite frankly, a fucked up use of free speech.

Approximately 0.3% of people who procure abortions are girls younger than 15 years.

shouting abuse at a woman who [ . . . ] has been gang raped and tortured and left pregnant and now lives every day in a state of terror

Rape, whether by a single criminal or multiple criminals, is the primary reason for abortion in less than 0.5% of cases.

In both instances, you are missing my point.

The fourteen year old girl is scared out of her mind, terrified her parents might find out she is pregnant. Terrified her mother might find out HER FATHER is the father of the child. This is the single most horrifying thing that has ever happened in her life.

And there are people who don't know her, who have never met her, who are going to leave their "picket" and go to their nice warm, loving, friendly homes where the wives/husbands love them and their children adore them, people who would yell abuse at her just because she is trying to get through it the best way she knows how? Quite honestly people like that are monsters and this resolution is needed to protect the world from them.

The woman who has been gang raped, tortured, held for days as a prisoner and now finds herself pregnant against her will is in a similar situation. The "picketers" are going to judge her on THEIR morals without knowing anything about her story, and decide she is somehow worthy of the tags baby killing slut, and worthy of having abuse hurled at her despite the fact if what happened to her happened to the people shouting the abuse, they would just sit in the middle of the street and cry for their rest of their sad, pathetic little lives.

And, by the way, in NEITHER of these cases would repealing this resolution prevent these women getting abortions. All it would do is prevent them from having abuse hurled at them by sad, pathetic people who need to pay more attention to their own lives than everyone else's.

And, on a similar note, what do these pickets actually aim to achieve? Women who go to abortion clinics generally don't change their minds, and the abortion clinics don't control national policy. These people who think that abusing children and abusing women is the way to stop abortion would be much better picketing the government or organising protests or phone campaigns or shit like that, because, as a rule, most 14 year old girls don't have the vote and don't have the power to change things on a national level. Just saying.

[Araraukar]

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.

Also known as free speech.

Not protected by WA law, though:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation

So very possibly illegal due to national laws.

OOC EDIT: Did this thing actually get an all-GCR delegate stomp against? That has to be a record of some kind. 2nd EDIT: Oh, I think East Pacific is missing, but their delegate hasn't voted either way. Still, almost all feeders, all sinkers and Rejected Realms.

[Master Republic]

The World Assembly should not mandate that governments let people commit murder.

[Wallenburg]

The World Assembly should not mandate that governments let people commit murder.

"To my relief, it does not."

[Attempted Socialism]

The World Assembly should not mandate that governments let people commit murder.

"I did a quick run-through of WA legislation, and most were not about murder in any way. Some limited governments in killing people, either through warfare by limiting weapons, or through oppressive measures by giving people rights, but, while these killings may be wrong in ethical terms, they're not illegal, and as such not murders. I asked my secretary and our former ambassador, neither were aware of a General Assembly resolution mandating governments to let people commit murder. Could you please point out which resolution you're talking about?"

[Hardonius]

Ambassador, if it's not your body, it's not your business. and if you want the children to be born so badly, why don't you adopt them?

Well, we would, IF they would stop needlessly killing them. Also, it's a separate body by a certain time. Meaning..it's not their body.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Forced abortion?

Fairburn: Already covered:

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

Sex-selective abortion?

Fairburn: How would that be enforced? Ask the physician? What if they're mistaken or lying? Ask the person seeking an abortion? What motivation do they have to tell the truth if they wish to abort based on sex? Mind-reading technology? If your nation possesses such technology then it would be much appreciated if you raise the quality of life in member nations by sharing it.

Partial-birth abortion?

Fairburn: If Reproductive Freedoms prevents member states from banning partial-birth abortions then how on Earth did Protection of Partially Born make it to vote?

Honestly, it is a shame to see such a great nation as the Kennyites resort to ridiculous arguments in these august halls. Let us hope that this phenomenon is merely temporary.

[Christian Democrats]

Why would any woman go through bodily taxing months of pregnancy and then on a whim without a good reason decide to have an abortion the day before birth?

I can think of a number of bad reasons:

Boyfriend breaks off an engagement; therefore, abort the child.
Husband is discovered to be cheating; therefore, abort the child.
Woman is fired from her job; therefore, abort the child.
Etc.

You also ignored the point that limiting the rights of women does not help improving their societal status which would eliminate incentives for sex-selective abortions.

I was under the impression that sexual objectification reduces women's "societal status."

You can't abort a child, since a child is already born.

The dictionary disagrees:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

your desire is to deny women bodily autonomy - literally trying to take away our ownership over our own bodies

For the sake of argument, let's say that an unborn child is part of a woman's body -- i.e., a body part. Since when do people have a right to have their own internal organs removed for non-medical reasons? Is there a right to bodily mutilation?

It's human, just like my skincells. It's not its own living orgamism.

I hope, Ambassador, that your countrymen have a better understanding of elementary biology than you have.

Is a person on artificial life support less of a living human organism

Well we could also have a nice assisted dying argument.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... th%3B%2Cc0
or I guess 'assisted suicide'...

Now, add the word "euthanasia" to that chart.

The fourteen year old girl is scared out of her mind, terrified her parents might find out she is pregnant.

It's quite odd how abortion's partisans want to give minors the "right" to hide major medical procedures from their parents. Fortunately, we have Resolution 29.

The woman who has been gang raped, tortured, held for days as a prisoner and now finds herself pregnant against her will is in a similar situation. . . . And, by the way, in NEITHER of these cases would repealing this resolution prevent these women getting abortions.

Exactly. I thought you'd forgotten about Resolution 128.

EDIT: And a 14-year-old is a girl, not a woman.

And, on a similar note, what do these pickets actually aim to achieve? Women who go to abortion clinics generally don't change their minds

"Generally" implies that there are exceptions. Is the prevention of (even one) child homicide not a worthy cause?

[Araraukar]

I can think of a number of bad reasons:

Boyfriend breaks off an engagement; therefore, abort the child.
Husband is discovered to be cheating; therefore, abort the child.
Woman is fired from her job; therefore, abort the child.
Etc.

OOC: Why would those be bad reasons? Don't you want children to be wanted, planned and have a good quality of life?

The dictionary disagrees

Yes, and as has been said about 5 times by now, WA legislation disagrees with your definitions.

For the sake of argument, let's say that an unborn child is part of a woman's body -- i.e., a body part. Since when do people have a right to have their own internal organs removed for non-medical reasons? Is there a right to bodily mutilation?

Any body part that grows that rapidly, has mutated/foreign DNA, takes up space from other internal organs, and isn't needed for survival, is called cancer and gets removed.

EDIT: And a 14-year-old is a girl, not a woman.

Depends what culture you ask...

Is the prevention of (even one) child homicide not a worthy cause?

If you want to avoid child homicides, then you definitely should encourage abortions, since they're a way to prevent unwanted children from being born, or being born into life situations where they're likely to die due to deliberate actions of others of their species before reaching adulthood.

[West by West Lothian]

Well, we would, IF they would stop needlessly killing them. Also, it's a separate body by a certain time. Meaning..it's not their body.

The elected leaders of West by West Lothian find it amusing, and perhaps a bit confusing, as to why your people take such a harsh tone in regards to supposed murder, while you produce more weapons that likely end up in hands of murderers? Selective morality seems to be an issue of your people.

[Christian Democrats]

I can think of a number of bad reasons:

Boyfriend breaks off an engagement; therefore, abort the child.
Husband is discovered to be cheating; therefore, abort the child.
Woman is fired from her job; therefore, abort the child.
Etc.

OOC: Why would those be bad reasons? Don't you want children to be wanted, planned and have a good quality of life?

OOC: Why do you feel the need to continue to respond OOC?

IC: Being alive is certainly better than being dead. The examples above are bad reasons for late-term abortions. No child ought to be killed as a "solution" to relationship problems or to temporary economic burdens. Such homicides are gravely immoral and should be illegal.

For the sake of argument, let's say that an unborn child is part of a woman's body -- i.e., a body part. Since when do people have a right to have their own internal organs removed for non-medical reasons? Is there a right to bodily mutilation?

Any body part that grows that rapidly, has mutated/foreign DNA, takes up space from other internal organs, and isn't needed for survival, is called cancer and gets removed.

"Children are cancer," really?! The counterculture has gone a long way in devaluing parenthood, but children are cancer now?

Is the prevention of (even one) child homicide not a worthy cause?

If you want to avoid child homicides, then you definitely should encourage abortions, since they're a way to prevent unwanted children from being born, or being born into life situations where they're likely to die due to deliberate actions of others of their species before reaching adulthood.

Ambassador, your thinking here is irrational. Killing someone now to prevent him from being killed later doesn't make sense.

[Wallenburg]

Any body part that grows that rapidly, has mutated/foreign DNA, takes up space from other internal organs, and isn't needed for survival, is called cancer and gets removed.

"Children are cancer," really?! The counterculture has gone a long way in devaluing parenthood, but children are cancer now?

"Ambassador, you were the one who compared an unborn child to a non-sentient body part. You can't just go back on that and then pretend that you were talking about children the entire time."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Forced abortion?

Fairburn: Already covered:

(IV) Patients may refuse treatment, provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others. In non-emergency circumstances, treatment may be given without the patient's consent only in the presence of a legal instrument issued by a court of jurisdiction stating that the patient is not competent to make decisions.

You missed the part about underage girls, patients the family has managed to be declared incompetent, and social pressure from boyfriends/family members. Those elements are decidedly not covered by PRA's allowance for refusal of treatment.

Sex-selective abortion?

Fairburn: How would that be enforced? Ask the physician? What if they're mistaken or lying? Ask the person seeking an abortion? What motivation do they have to tell the truth if they wish to abort based on sex? Mind-reading technology? If your nation possesses such technology then it would be much appreciated if you raise the quality of life in member nations by sharing it.

We know it happens in certain societies. Your demonstrated indifference to the practice doesn't really indict us for our desire to prevent it.

Partial-birth abortion?

Fairburn: If Reproductive Freedoms prevents member states from banning partial-birth abortions then how on Earth did Protection of Partially Born make it to vote?

We really don't know. It's not as if the sorry state of moderation in this assembly could possibly be faulted for consistency these past 7-8 years.

Honestly, it is a shame to see such a great nation as the States of Glory resort to ridiculous arguments in these august halls. Let us hope that this phenomenon is merely temporary.

- Capt. Jenny Chiang

As many as possible? Good thing you don't respond emotionally...

Yeah. Good thing, huh?

You also ignored the point that limiting the rights of women does not help improving their societal status which would eliminate incentives for sex-selective abortions.

Good thing we're not advocating limiting the rights of women, but of the World Assembly to set such extreme, unworkable mandates.

But in the adverse: let's just allow sex-selective abortions to happen! In the long-run this resolution's nominal service to "women's rights" will eventually dissuade domineering men from naturally wanting boys to carry on their family name, right? Right?? Maybe within two or three generations the practice will eventually be eliminated!

[Consular]

Being alive is certainly better than being dead.

Eh, arguable.

[Covenstone]

Also known as free speech.

Not protected by WA law, though:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation

So very possibly illegal due to national laws.

OOC EDIT: Did this thing actually get an all-GCR delegate stomp against? That has to be a record of some kind. 2nd EDIT: Oh, I think East Pacific is missing, but their delegate hasn't voted either way. Still, almost all feeders, all sinkers and Rejected Realms.

And, in this instance, targeted intimidation of those seeking abortions is SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by WA law (this resolution) which is why I am fighting so hard against its repeal. So regardless of freedom of speech arguments, The WA ruled a long long time ago that "REQUIRES Member Nations to ensure protection from targeted animosity to providers and patients of the procedures covered by this resolution" is illegal and that the "picketers" (which is a very nice, polite phrase for someone who is just a moralistic busy body who should mind their own fucking business) cannot hide behind free speech laws to shout and hurl abuse at women and children, just because they think their god empowers them to do so.

Why would any woman go through bodily taxing months of pregnancy and then on a whim without a good reason decide to have an abortion the day before birth?

I can think of a number of bad reasons:

Boyfriend breaks off an engagement; therefore, abort the child.
Husband is discovered to be cheating; therefore, abort the child.
Woman is fired from her job; therefore, abort the child.
Etc.

Woman discovers the child will have a terrible disease that will give it a lifespan of two days, the entirety of which will be spent screaming in agony and wishing for a quick and easy death (if it knew what wishing, quick, easy and death actually meant.)

The fourteen year old girl is scared out of her mind, terrified her parents might find out she is pregnant.

It's quite odd how abortion's partisans want to give minors the "right" to hide major medical procedures from their parents. Fortunately, we have Resolution 29.

Actually, we don't. Abortion was not granted status as a medical procedure in WA law until this resolution. Once this is repealed, it loses that protection, and all the rights and privileges therein. So once this goes, it would be permissible for provides to deny access to it for a whole host of reasons, including a lack of consent from parents.

Another great reason for this resolution to stay in place. Thank you for pointing that out. One would almost think you don't want it to be repealed

The woman who has been gang raped, tortured, held for days as a prisoner and now finds herself pregnant against her will is in a similar situation. . . . And, by the way, in NEITHER of these cases would repealing this resolution prevent these women getting abortions.

Exactly. I thought you'd forgotten about Resolution 128.

EDIT: And a 14-year-old is a girl, not a woman.

Nope. But firstly I was explaining to someone who thought this would allow them to make abortion completely illegal why they were deluded and wrong.

And secondly, isn't there every chance that if, instead of facing a line of moralistic nutcases who are telling you you are sinner, that you will burn in hell, that the child is a product of love, not rape (all evidence to the contrary), that you are a baby killing slut and that if you do this you will make god cry, you might just opt for blowing your own brains out with a shotgun instead of having an abortion (thus solving both problems at once?)

And thirdly, since the "no intimidation" clause also covers doctors and other providers, these whackjobs could easily start targetting private citizens, their houses, their children, their families, their friends and so forth and eventually drive all the doctors and providers out of the profession. So while abortion would still be legal, it would be impossible to get one, thus making it virtually illegal. Which is not something we are willing to put up with.

And, on a similar note, what do these pickets actually aim to achieve? Women who go to abortion clinics generally don't change their minds

"Generally" implies that there are exceptions. Is the prevention of (even one) child homicide not a worthy cause?

You don't know me all that well, so let me explain :- when I use "generally" in a sentence like that, it means "never," as in "Women go to abortion clinics don't change their minds."

From what I've learned, and from the experience of friends, colleagues and so forth, once you've made up your mind to go through with it, that's generally it. And having a bunch of people screaming at you that you are disappointing god doesn't tend to change your mind, it just upsets you even more at a point where you need sympathy and love, not abuse and torment.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn:
Already covered:

You missed the part about underage girls, patients the family has managed to be declared incompetent

Fairburn: I understand where you're coming from, but let's' take a closer look:

(VIII) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority, or is an adult unable to understand their rights under this Act.

As you can see, in this situation, both the parents and the daughter would count as patients. As for what happens when one patient consents and the other doesn't: I don't know. I'm not the author. We're at a roadblock here.

At least this discussion has provided me with a repeal argument, so thank you. (evil grin)

and social pressure from boyfriends/family members. Those elements are decidedly not covered by PRA's allowance for refusal of treatment.

Fairburn: How is that not covered by Clause Four?

Fairburn: How would that be enforced? Ask the physician? What if they're mistaken or lying? Ask the person seeking an abortion? What motivation do they have to tell the truth if they wish to abort based on sex? Mind-reading technology? If your nation possesses such technology then it would be much appreciated if you raise the quality of life in member nations by sharing it.

We know it happens in certain societies. Your demonstrated indifference to the practice doesn't really indict us for our desire to prevent it.

Fairburn: You're dodging the question. How would your nation enforce a ban on sex-selective abortion?

Fairburn: If Reproductive Freedoms prevents member states from banning partial-birth abortions then how on Earth did Protection of Partially Born make it to vote?

We really don't know. It's not as if the sorry state of moderation in this assembly could possibly be faulted for consistency these past 7-8 years.

Fairburn: So...does Reproductive Freedoms prevent partial-birth abortion or not?