[DEFEATED] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Ranchester]

If we are striving to make our nations free from government influence on this issue then just let a woman decide at her own disposal. I may be against abortion but who am I to force everyone else to have their child?

[United Massachusetts]

If we are striving to make our nations free from government influence on this issue then just let a woman decide at her own disposal. I may be against abortion but who am I to force everyone else to have their child?

Voting for this resolution wouldn't do that. What can't the WA understand?

[Staniel]

It has been defeated!

DEUS VULT!

(Although I am an atheist, lol).

[Araraukar]

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

OOC: Because if I spoke in IC, Janis would've called your ambassador an imbecile several times and tossed various people out the window, and that's not very constructive debating. Hence I'm staying in OOC mode for this topic. If you'd prefer, I could bring in one of my non-human nations to respond to you in IC, but I have a feeling based on past interactions that you'd be the one switching to OOC then instead. Also, you're the one that's responding to OOC things in IC.

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.

IC: Luckily, they aren't children as far as WA resolutions are concerned, hence not homicide. Are you really so stupid you don't understand that, despite it having been explained what, seven times at least by now?

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

OOC: You equated a fetus with a body part, not me. I simply explained to you what the medical approach would be to such a body part.

Ambassador, your thinking here is irrational.

Still OOC: Pot, meet kettle.

---

"Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"" was defeated 12,637 votes to 2,643.

That's 82.7% against.

[Tzorsland]

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?

OOC: Somehow Tzorsland agrees with CD again.

OOC: Whenever I hear arguments such as the above I keep thinking of Beethoven. No, I don't want children to be "anything." I want children "to be." (To be or not to be; that is the question.)

[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.

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.)

Again, you're acting as if you're ignorant of Resolution 128.

I may be against abortion but who am I to force everyone else to have their child?

Someone who recognizes that such a position is unreasonable . . . ?

"I may be against theft, but who am I to force everyone else to respect property rights?"
"I may be against rape, but who am I to force everyone else not to commit it?"
"I may be against wife-beating, but who am I to force everyone else to treat his wife well?"

Luckily, they aren't children as far as WA resolutions are concerned, hence not homicide.

Non sequitur. A homicide is the killing of a human.

Are you really so stupid you don't understand that, despite it having been explained what, seven times at least by now?

Are you really so careless that you can't make a one-sentence argument that isn't illogical?

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

OOC: You equated a fetus with a body part, not me. I simply explained to you what the medical approach would be to such a body part.

Either the unborn child is a person with independent existence, or the unborn child is a part of his mother's body. If he is a person with independent existence, then killing him is murder or manslaughter. If he is a part of his mother's body, then saying that his mother has a right to remove him is irrational because we ordinarily don't say that people have a right to remove their own internal organs -- i.e., to mutilate themselves. Your comparing the unborn child to cancer is abhorrent, and it is faulty because pregnancy is a sign that a woman's body is functioning healthily. Cancer, on the other hand, is an illness; it's a bodily defect.

Ambassador, your thinking here is irrational.

Still OOC: Pot, meet kettle.

Nice, you cut out the following sentence. I take it, then, that you're incapable of rebutting my point.

[Araraukar]

Are you really so stupid you don't understand that, despite it having been explained what, seven times at least by now?

Are you really so careless that you can't make a one-sentence argument that isn't illogical?

OOC: It was IC, but eh, I'll stick to OOC, since you seem to have trouble with the difference now.

Either the unborn child is a person with independent existence, or the unborn child is a part of his mother's body.

Or it is a foreign entity that is not yet sapient and does not have the permission to enslave the host's body to its own needs if the host doesn't want it there. The either/or there is like you saying that the only options are to be lying down or standing up, completely ignoring that you can also be sitting.

Your comparing the unborn child to cancer is abhorrent, and it is faulty because pregnancy is a sign that a woman's body is functioning healthily. Cancer, on the other hand, is an illness; it's a bodily defect.

You compared a fetus to a body part. I pointed out that if a body part worked the same way a fetus does, growing at that rate, taking up space from other organs, having DNA that's different from the rest of the body, then it would be called cancer (or at least aggressive tumour) and removed for the good of the rest of the body.

I take it, then, that you're incapable of rebutting my point.

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

[Christian Democrats]

Either the unborn child is a person with independent existence, or the unborn child is a part of his mother's body.

Or it is a foreign entity that is not yet sapient and does not have the permission to enslave the host's body to its own needs if the host doesn't want it there. The either/or there is like you saying that the only options are to be lying down or standing up, completely ignoring that you can also be sitting.

The unborn child cannot be a foreign entity because he originates inside his mother. Unborn children are indigenous to their mothers' reproductive systems. Essentially, you're arguing for the expulsion of people from their native environment because their presence is inconvenient to or unwanted by the expellers.

Your comparing the unborn child to cancer is abhorrent, and it is faulty because pregnancy is a sign that a woman's body is functioning healthily. Cancer, on the other hand, is an illness; it's a bodily defect.

You compared a fetus to a body part. I pointed out that if a body part worked the same way a fetus does, growing at that rate, taking up space from other organs, having DNA that's different from the rest of the body, then it would be called cancer (or at least aggressive tumour) and removed for the good of the rest of the body.

Except, as I said, "pregnancy is a sign that a woman's body is functioning healthily. Cancer, on the other hand, is an illness; it's a bodily defect." Your children-as-cancer analogy does not, therefore, make sense.

I take it, then, that you're incapable of rebutting my point.

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

I was responding to your post about homicide.

[Covenstone]

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.)

Again, you're acting as if you're ignorant of Resolution 128.

No, I was responding to the comments about D&X and other late term abortion methods that would apparently become outlawed if various nations in The WA have their way.

If the mother/parents do not discover this until the last trimester, or the last month, then banning abortions past a given time would force them to have a child who will spend its entire (mercifully short) life in agony. Something that I think is a bad thing and that no civilised person would want to subject a child to.

If we are striving to make our nations free from government influence on this issue then just let a woman decide at her own disposal. I may be against abortion but who am I to force everyone else to have their child?

Voting for this resolution wouldn't do that. What can't the WA understand?

Because we have the ability to use logic and reason.

1) A whole host of people have been saying abortion is essentially murder when arguing in support of this repeal.
2) Generally speaking the primary reasons to repeal resolutions is either a) to replace them with "better" ones or b) to reverse what the resolution contains. In this instance a "better" resolution would mean tighter restrictions on abortion throughout The WA (including on nations that voted against this repeal) and reversing this resolution would mean banning almost every reason for abortion other than those outlined in 128.
3) The vast majority of nations appear to be against either of those outcomes, and so rather than risk the chance of them occurring, they will keep this in place to prevent them.

It is all logical and reasonable, and given that this does NOT force anyone to have an abortion against their will (because it just doesn't) it is just there for people who need to take advantage of the freedoms it gives them. And it prevents the government from forcing moral codes that are not their own down the throats of their citizens.

Yes , it means citizens have to accept that they can have an abortion when they might be against it, but it doesn't put a gun to their head and say "WE ARE GOING TO MURDER YOUR UNBORN CHILD YOU FECKLESS BITCH."

Whereas repealing it means governments can say "Yeah, we know your husband is a rapist, a child abuse, a thief, a terrorist and a jaywalker, but guess what? You have to have his kid because our imaginary friend in the sky says killing that tiny clump of cells in your womb is wrong and we are going to force you to have the child of the most evil man in the country! Aren't you glad you live here?"

[United Massachusetts]

I think the ambassador from Covenstone is devaluing our primary point. It's not about God--it's about humanity. A fetus is alive, has its own cells, is human, and is an organism. To deny that is to deny basic biology. As such, we don't believe it is right to force my nation to legalize the destruction of said organism. The repeal would most likely be followed by a more rational legislation, or none at all.
PS: Abortion in the case of rape is already protected by GAR#128

[Covenstone]

I think the ambassador from Covenstone is devaluing our primary point. It's not about God--it's about humanity. A fetus is alive, has its own cells, is human, and is an organism. To deny that is to deny basic biology. As such, we don't believe it is right to force my nation to legalize the destruction of said organism. The repeal would most likely be followed by a more rational legislation, or none at all.
PS: Abortion in the case of rape is already protected by GAR#128

As I said about a zillion pages ago, I have made my feelings about your primary point very clear and do not wish to rehash them over and over again.

This is about ensuring that once a woman has made her decision, she is not subjected to abuse, intimidation, terror, threats and all sorts of other truly horrific behaviour just because she wishes to do something that is legal, wants to do it in the safest way possible and wants to get through what is probably going to be the single most traumatising experience in her life without adding any more trauma or heartbreak to it. Something that this resolution affords her the ability to do, and something that, for me, is worth protecting.

And yes, I know what #128 protects, but as I pointed out, if this resolution had been repealed, and the "picketers" were free to target providers and doctors and drive every single one out of their jobs doing what is legally permissible, what exactly would #128 be worth?

[Lutherene]

The continued existence of this resolution and the bullheadedness of its supporters are a primary expression of this body's supreme arrogance and utter contempt for common sense. Forced abortion? Sex-selective abortion? Partial-birth abortion? Late-term mandates bordering on infanticide? Who cares?? This is about "women's rights"! STFU, mansplainer!

The Federal Republic, as it always has, supports the repeal of Reproductive Freedoms.

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.

The good people of Lutherene wholeheartedly support this statement and have voted against the resolution accordingly,

[Fauxia]

Why does that not surprise me?

Probably because you and the ambassador from Christian Democrats live in the same echo chamber.

That's great. Maybe people in your nation believe in that right. But not in my nation and I shouldn't be forced to pass laws that allow abortion.

Why not? We force people to do the right thing all the time.

Oh so we should've forced all of you into voting for it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Probably because you and the ambassador from Christian Democrats live in the same echo chamber.


Why not? We force people to do the right thing all the time.

Oh so we should've forced all of you into voting for it.

"Enforcement follows democratic approval of the legislation. You have it backwards. That said, I'd rather like to see you try to force us into voting for. How would you do that without becoming a smoking crater?"

[Fauxia]

The continued existence of this resolution and the bullheadedness of its supporters are a primary expression of this body's supreme arrogance and utter contempt for common sense. Forced abortion? Sex-selective abortion? Partial-birth abortion? Late-term mandates bordering on infanticide? Who cares?? This is about "women's rights"! STFU, mansplainer!

The Federal Republic, as it always has, supports the repeal of Reproductive Freedoms.

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."

[Fauxia]

Oh so we should've forced all of you into voting for it.

"Enforcement follows democratic approval of the legislation. You have it backwards. That said, I'd rather like to see you try to force us into voting for. How would you do that without becoming a smoking crater?"

"Since when is the right thing decided by majority vote? Anyway, I was just saying that because the ambassador from Consular gave me an excuse. I do think nations have a right to resign from the WA (us, for example, we have satellite states do our bidding in the WA)"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Enforcement follows democratic approval of the legislation. You have it backwards. That said, I'd rather like to see you try to force us into voting for. How would you do that without becoming a smoking crater?"

"Since when is the right thing decided by majority vote? Anyway, I was just saying that because the ambassador from Consular gave me an excuse. I do think nations have a right to resign from the WA (us, for example, we have satellite states do our bidding in the WA)"

"In the WA, majority rules. I suppose a more accurate statement is that we force nations to follow the law all the time. Morality is irrelevant at that point, as a majority determines the law. I've always found it to be a secondary concern at best. So, whether it's right or not, your options are to obey or resign. And yes, resignation is a right. One we strongly suggest you use if this sticks in your craw. We will not lose sleep over it."

[Fauxia]

"Since when is the right thing decided by majority vote? Anyway, I was just saying that because the ambassador from Consular gave me an excuse. I do think nations have a right to resign from the WA (us, for example, we have satellite states do our bidding in the WA)"

"In the WA, majority rules. I suppose a more accurate statement is that we force nations to follow the law the time. Morality is irrelevant at that point, as a majority determines the law. I've always found it to be a secondary concern at best. So, whether it's right or not, your options are to obey or resign. And yes, resignation is a right. One we strongly suggest you use if this sticks in your craw. We will not lose sleep over it."

"I was really just addressing the ambassador from Consular, not you. I agree with this statement for the most part.

[Christian Democrats]

This is about ensuring that once a woman has made her decision, she is not subjected to abuse, intimidation, terror, threats and all sorts of other truly horrific behaviour just because she wishes to do something that is legal

This argument is circular.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The above is an unsupported assertion.

[Bakhton]

The above is an unsupported assertion.

"The above is a logical assertion," Lara covers her mouth. "Jeffrey, drive me to Abortions R Us I have a speech to give."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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)

So, in one breath, you defend RF by claiming PRA cements its protections, then you deliberately misread PRA - for whatever reason - then you imply you're going to repeal the very resolution you say cements RF's protections?

My God, you are a mess.

Fairburn: How is that not covered by Clause Four?

You don't think there are scores of girls out there agreeing to things they don't really want to do, just because a friend or family member thinks it's a good idea? Have you ever met a teenager?

How would your nation enforce a ban on sex-selective abortion?

The same way you'd prosecute a hate crime. You don't really need a culprit to openly declare he killed someone for being black to prove it's why he did it.

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

Of course not. It actively encourages it. And since RF legalizes all abortions up to the point of birth, and in some late-term cases the only feasible operation would be an IDX procedure, the state must allow it in those cases. No matter what some failed proposal on the subject has to say about it.

[United Massachusetts]

The above is an unsupported assertion.

Abortions R Us

Oh, expect protesters from all over Right to Life (peaceful, of course)

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

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)

So, in one breath, you defend RF by claiming PRA cements its protections

Fairburn: That was not in one breath, Ambassador; that was before. After your response to my initial point, I realised that both the guardian and the minor would count as patients for legal purposes. Am I no longer allowed to change my mind?

then you deliberately misread PRA - for whatever reason -

Fairburn: What do you mean 'deliberately'? Are you trying to test out your new mind-reading technology? It's not working, let me tell you that. If I have "misread" the resolution then I'd appreciate the aspect about the resolution that I have supposedly "misread".

then you imply you're going to repeal the very resolution you say cements RF's protections?

Fairburn: Correction, good sir: I formerly believed that it cemented the protections in Reproductive Freedoms. However, you have helped me discover a legal predicament and for that, I thank you.

My God, you are a mess.

Neville: At least someone finally said it.

Fairburn: How is that not covered by Clause Four?

You don't think there are scores of girls out there agreeing to things they don't really want to do, just because a friend or family member thinks it's a good idea? Have you ever met a teenager?

Fairburn: No. In all my years from the day I was born to the present time, I have never encountered a teenager. I have also never encountered puppies, kittens or unicorns.

Neville: Fairburn's "snark" aside, it is indeed unfortunate that such societal pressures exist. 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. Ensuring easy access to contraceptive services and reducing family pressures would be far more effective, though our Delegation unfortunately does not have the necessary experience or expertise to draft any meaningful legislation on those matters.

How would your nation enforce a ban on sex-selective abortion?

The same way you'd prosecute a hate crime. You don't really need a culprit to openly declare he killed someone for being black to prove it's why he did it.

Neville: See, the difference is that a hate crime would still be a crime even if you took away the motive while your arguments imply, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that in your nation at least, whether or not abortion is a crime would depend on the motive, or it would in a world without Reproductive Freedoms. You may take a risk with hate crimes because at least you know for a fact that they are crimes, but with abortions, the stakes are too high to rely on guesswork.

Also, once again, you need to address societal prejudices to make any meaningful progress in reducing hate crimes. Otherwise, hate criminals will simply use their inevitable convictions to rally against the "traitorous establishment".

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

It actively encourages it.

Neville: Wait, does it?

[Christian Democrats]

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.