[DEFEATED] Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms

[Godular]

The repeal vote suggests otherwise.

"Ambassador, you may have an argument. The ambassador from Thyerata does not. Just insults."

*Alexis shrugs noncommittally, and returns to work on her origami cherry tree*

[Searnoemno]

Support, because I will have one of my puppets defy it even if it fails.

[Fauxia]

Support, because I will have one of my puppets defy it even if it fails.

Not surprising, non-WA nations don't have to comply with WA legislation.

[Christian Democrats]

If you are a person, have personhood, you have the right to decide what happens with your body. Whether that is drugs, pregnancy, tattoos and more, as long as you do not harm someone else by your actions, your body is your own.

That's the very point at issue.

You said that abortion is the lesser of two evils in this situation: a woman gets tipsy, has consensual sexual intercourse without contraception, and becomes pregnant. My question: How is it evil to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term?

"Even this attempt at empty rhetoric and quotemining is silly. The argument has never been that it is evil for a woman to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. The argument, as you well know, has always been that it is evil to force her to do so.

If abortion is evil (as Calladan says) and if giving birth is good, how can it be evil to encourage (by protests) or require (by law) a woman to choose the latter option? Is the premise for "abortion rights" that people should have a right to commit evil acts?

I disagree with the Ambassador from Calladan in wording, abortion is not the lesser of two evils because it is not evil

At least someone here has the courage not to obfuscate his support for legalized abortion.

If you have the strength of your convictions, you will be able to present an argument in support of reducing the access to or outlawing abortions, without erecting strawmen, without having to use nightmarish stories without hold in reality

"Nightmarish stories without hold in reality" has been the strategy of so-called "pro-choicers" in this debate. Every direction you turn, you hear one ambassador or another crying out rape, maternal health, or contraception failure, all of which are extremely rare.

If you think abortion should be legally accessible because the sorts of people who usually become unintentionally pregnant are "just plain stupid" (see Calladan's post above), own up to it. Say that you support abortion because it's "helpful" to people who are "stupid," "forgetful," etc.

[North Arkana]

I take it the "esteemed" delegate from the Christian Democrats will continue to ignore that our statement regarding the very problem regarding an attempt to control abortion from a view which solely defined by his narrow vision of the sheer scope of nations covered by the WA's laws.

This is NS. Your "supposedly real" statistics regarding contraceptive use mean either nothing, or only exist in YOUR nation. Chances are that there are WA nations where the species LITERALLY has a life-threatening parasite when they get pregnant, and that in other nations your statistics don't even apply. If your claims can't find some way to relevant across the entire mildly insane spectrum of NS nations within the WA, then kindly leave them out. Hell, I wouldn't put it beyond NS to have WA nations where pregnancy by demons is possible, and I'm sure the Church there is real fine with the idea of aborting those, unless they can see past their own dogma and value every potential birth equally. Or are we to assume that you only support the HUMAN fetuses and zygotes of the WA nations?

[Willania Imperium]

"Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"" was defeated 12,038 votes to 2,578.

[Attempted Socialism]

(...)

"We normally do not regard disturbing your sensitive emotions to be actual harm, Ambassador. Not even when it comes to abortion. The Ambassador also seems to lack awareness of the concept of consent, which is disturbing. Further troubling is that the Ambassador seems perfectly able to reply to a statement of ours without having at least heard and understood enough to make that reply coherent to our statement."
With a raised eyebrow, the Socialist Ambassador lifts a piece of paper and reads in a flat voice: "Out of all abortions carried out on citizens in twerlve thousand and sixteen, thirty-five percent were due to IUD malfunction. Nineteen were due to 'Contraceptive Failure', a broad category that includes IUD failures. Eleven percent were due to changed economic or social circumstance. Eight percent were due to birth defects. Six percent were due to maternal health. Of the rest group, twenty-one percent, most chose not to answer. For non-citizens, see Appendix 5, On Medical Refugees."
She puts down the paper.
"This was part of a larger report on how to minimise unwanted pregnancies. It goes through our history, from having usual amounts of unwanted pregnancies, to the IUD programme, and the results we got from there. Furthermore, it sets out a plan for further reducing the amount, mostly by further development of IUDs, better information about it, more widespread coverage, better IUD malfunction screening and automatic prenatal orientation upon IUD removal. If the Ambassador from Christian Democrats wants to reduce the number of abortions, we will translate and print a copy of this report for your office."
Illum takes a sip of water.

"Now, more generally, we would like to applaud the World Assembly for voting against evil and oppression. Twelve thousand and thirty-eight votes cast against the repeal, while only two thousand five hundred and seventy-eight for the repeal. Of fourteen thousand, six hundred and sixteen votes, a total of eighty-two point three six percent were cast for womens rights to bodily autonomy and self determination. For the anti-choice bloc this is yet another defeat, cementing their failure to repress women. While no doubt in a few months time another religiously motivated misogynist shall step up and draft a repeal, we now have another vote to show that, after all arguments were heard, anti-choice policies were about as popular as head lice, stubbing your toe on furniture at night and slavery."
Illum looks up from her prepared remarks to let her gaze fall across the deliberative chamber.
"We do not know whether the anti-choice bloc will also take up the mantle of repealing our resolution against slavery and trafficking, but we hope that y now, they will come to realise that their position is as much a minority as that. Any talk of 'compromise'", the Ambassador mockingly said in a high pitch voice, "should consider whether a pro-slavery Ambassador would have any time getting to the floor with a compromise on slavery. We are approximately equally likely to compromise on both issues, and it seems over four fifths of the World Assembly agree."
A deep sigh, another look at the assembled delegations.
"For our part, we hope that the anti-choice bloc will now acknowledge the vote outcome, and either come to terms with it, or decide that attacking womens rights is more important than membership of this hallowed Assembly. While we hope you come to terms with it, this debate does not leave us with high hopes, and we will not hold our breath while you decide. Thank you for your time."

OOC: Edit: Quotes are hard to get right, it seems.

[Calladan]

As we asked Calladan above, what are your thoughts on the average case? More than 90% of abortions are performed for social or economic reasons, and more than 90% of abortions are performed on children whose mothers don't use contraception regularly.

The question of rape is irrelevant in this debate because this repeal proposal would not eliminate abortion in cases of rape.

"We would like to note, for the record, that those numbers are not true for the Solidarity Movement. Perhaps if the Christian Democrats took a look at their sexual education, and offered every woman a free IUD around the onset of sexual activity, they would see a drop in those numbers.
However, even if those numbers are true somewhere, that does not change our opinion, since our opinion is simply based on the bodily autonomy of persons. If you are a person, have personhood, you have the right to decide what happens with your body. Whether that is drugs, pregnancy, tattoos and more, as long as you do not harm someone else by your actions, your body is your own. Incidentally, this is the same basic principle that leads us to oppose slavery, and one of the principles against exploitation in general."

You said that abortion is the lesser of two evils in this situation: a woman gets tipsy, has consensual sexual intercourse without contraception, and becomes pregnant. My question: How is it evil to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term?

"Even this attempt at empty rhetoric and quotemining is silly. The argument has never been that it is evil for a woman to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. The argument, as you well know, has always been that it is evil to force her to do so. You are muddying the water and moving the goalposts, Ambassador, and it is clear that it is an attempt to score points for the casual onlooker rather than engaging in honest debate. You know too well that you are fabricating an argument, indeed, a strawman, that was never there. Abortion is not wanted, insofar that in the best world, all women who become pregnant want exactly that, but we do clearly not live in a perfect world. I disagree with the Ambassador from Calladan in wording, abortion is not the lesser of two evils because it is not evil, but the sentiment is pretty clear, and it is a sign of dishonesty or stupidity to pretend otherwise. I have conversed enough with you, Ambassador, to know that you are not stupid. Please stop being dishonest."

'MacBeth' Illum takes a deep breath before returning to the microphone.

"You clearly have arguments, in your mind, against abortion. These are not your arguments, they are just attempts of rhetorical workarounds, so you can demolish a strawman of your opponents without ever supplying your own argument. If you have the strength of your convictions, you will be able to present an argument in support of reducing the access to or outlawing abortions, without erecting strawmen, without having to use nightmarish stories without hold in reality, and without redefining abortion to be about, say, babies or children. You may have different premises, and we may never come to agreement, but at least it would be clear why we are in disagreement."

Can I just clarify something very important?

"I disagree with the Ambassador from Calladan in wording, abortion is not the lesser of two evils because it is not evil"

I have not said, and NEVER said, that abortion is evil.

The context in which I said "abortion is the lesser of two evils" was this :-

If ensuring women who are in the unfortunate situation where their contraception fails can get an abortion ALSO MEANS that other women are able to use abortion a primary means of birth control, then I consider that to be the lesser of two evils (where the greater of two evils would be outlawing abortion altogether and forcing women to go through with pregnancies against their will).

My words are being twisted and warped until my meaning is being lost and my position is being distorted beyond recognition, to the point where I am close to being defamed - something I find somewhat offensive.

I don't blame you for this - you are just taking what other delegates are saying I said, and assuming that is what I said. But it wasn't, and I just wanted that to make perfectly clear.

[Christian Democrats]

"We would like to note, for the record, that those numbers are not true for the Solidarity Movement. Perhaps if the Christian Democrats took a look at their sexual education, and offered every woman a free IUD around the onset of sexual activity, they would see a drop in those numbers.
However, even if those numbers are true somewhere, that does not change our opinion, since our opinion is simply based on the bodily autonomy of persons. If you are a person, have personhood, you have the right to decide what happens with your body. Whether that is drugs, pregnancy, tattoos and more, as long as you do not harm someone else by your actions, your body is your own. Incidentally, this is the same basic principle that leads us to oppose slavery, and one of the principles against exploitation in general."

"Even this attempt at empty rhetoric and quotemining is silly. The argument has never been that it is evil for a woman to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. The argument, as you well know, has always been that it is evil to force her to do so. You are muddying the water and moving the goalposts, Ambassador, and it is clear that it is an attempt to score points for the casual onlooker rather than engaging in honest debate. You know too well that you are fabricating an argument, indeed, a strawman, that was never there. Abortion is not wanted, insofar that in the best world, all women who become pregnant want exactly that, but we do clearly not live in a perfect world. I disagree with the Ambassador from Calladan in wording, abortion is not the lesser of two evils because it is not evil, but the sentiment is pretty clear, and it is a sign of dishonesty or stupidity to pretend otherwise. I have conversed enough with you, Ambassador, to know that you are not stupid. Please stop being dishonest."

'MacBeth' Illum takes a deep breath before returning to the microphone.

"You clearly have arguments, in your mind, against abortion. These are not your arguments, they are just attempts of rhetorical workarounds, so you can demolish a strawman of your opponents without ever supplying your own argument. If you have the strength of your convictions, you will be able to present an argument in support of reducing the access to or outlawing abortions, without erecting strawmen, without having to use nightmarish stories without hold in reality, and without redefining abortion to be about, say, babies or children. You may have different premises, and we may never come to agreement, but at least it would be clear why we are in disagreement."

Can I just clarify something very important?

"I disagree with the Ambassador from Calladan in wording, abortion is not the lesser of two evils because it is not evil"

I have not said, and NEVER said, that abortion is evil.

The context in which I said "abortion is the lesser of two evils" was this :-

If ensuring women who are in the unfortunate situation where their contraception fails can get an abortion ALSO MEANS that other women are able to use abortion a primary means of birth control, then I consider that to be the lesser of two evils (where the greater of two evils would be outlawing abortion altogether and forcing women to go through with pregnancies against their will).

My words are being twisted and warped until my meaning is being lost and my position is being distorted beyond recognition, to the point where I am close to being defamed - something I find somewhat offensive.

I don't blame you for this - you are just taking what other delegates are saying I said, and assuming that is what I said. But it wasn't, and I just wanted that to make perfectly clear.

I don't believe I've twisted your words, and my comments are hardly defamatory. You said that it's evil for women to be "able to use abortion [as] a primary means of birth control." That covers 90-95% of cases. Thus, my paraphrase above (Calladan sees abortion as an evil) is accurate. And where you said, "to go through with pregnancies," I said, "to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term." Later, I asked: "how can it be evil to encourage (by protests) or require (by law) a woman to choose [to give birth]?"

My question still hasn't been answered.

[Furbystan]

If I may add to this already withering discussion, I'd say that keeping pregnancy to the term is indeed a pretty problematic thing to do, if not really evil. It involves huge life risks for women, the tremendous pain of childbirth, moderate possibility of health complications (greatly exceeding this of legal abortion) and a great deal of stress and trauma. The necessity of feeding the growing thing inside with your own body notwithstanding.

Naturally, I'm vehemently opposed to any and all attempts to force women into this nasty experience, or to allow WA member states to do so. Anti-choicers, however, are welcome to implant the extracted fetuses into themselves, if their ""humanist"" worldviews are so command.

[Attempted Socialism]

My question still hasn't been answered.

"Your questions have been answered, several times over. Your strawmen have not been answered, true, but that is because they are being exposed as strawmen. I am unaware of any obligation on us to take ownership of your mischaracterisations or strawmen, so I have been unwilling to do so. You have plenty of material you could engage with, were you seeking an honest debate, but so far your main arguments have been attempts at rhetorical tricks. If your only strategy is to make strawmen, quotemines and JAQing off, that is a clear signal that you do not have a positive argument for your own case. That is why I appealed to your honesty and the strength of your convictions, but I guess one of them must be lacking, because rhetorical games are not ways to be honest or argue from convictions."

[Araraukar]

In your opinion, does the mother have ownership over the child in her uterus?

OOC: No, but she does of her uterus, thus she can remove anything in it at will. That the thing doesn't survive the process (or survive outside of her) is not her problem nor fault.

Look, if there was a magical way to let someone else take the thing over, then I'd be all for removing it intact and letting it live in someone else. As there isn't, or until there is, abortions need to be allowed. At least in real life there's some kind of viability trigger to them.

[Greater Gilead]

Well, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" Don't give up, let go at it again!

[Araraukar]

More than 90% of abortions are performed for social or economic reasons, and more than 90% of abortions are performed on children whose mothers don't use contraception regularly.

OOC: Since we're down to NSG level now... source?

[Ventlimer]

Well, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" Don't give up, let go at it again!

Hear hear!

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Well, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" Don't give up, let go at it again!

Hear hear!

At what point does this become barratry?

[Ventlimer]

Hear hear!

At what point does this become barratry?

The point at which it ceases to attain a quorum

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

At what point does this become barratry?

The point at which it ceases to attain a quorum

A quorum for anything can be bought, a fine example being Bitely and "World Space Administration".

[New Bohdi]

I can't believe this is happening again, immediately after it was utterly defeated. I'm losing my faith in the progress of the General Assembly.

[Greater Gilead]

I can't believe this is happening again, immediately after it was utterly defeated. I'm losing my faith in the progress of the General Assembly.

I am too. Gat this horrible bill repealed now. Who even wrote this in the first place?

[Christian Democrats]

My question still hasn't been answered.

"Your questions have been answered, several times over. Your strawmen have not been answered, true, but that is because they are being exposed as strawmen. I am unaware of any obligation on us to take ownership of your mischaracterisations or strawmen, so I have been unwilling to do so. You have plenty of material you could engage with, were you seeking an honest debate, but so far your main arguments have been attempts at rhetorical tricks. If your only strategy is to make strawmen, quotemines and JAQing off, that is a clear signal that you do not have a positive argument for your own case. That is why I appealed to your honesty and the strength of your convictions, but I guess one of them must be lacking, because rhetorical games are not ways to be honest or argue from convictions."

Amazing! Poking holes in a person's logic is rhetorical trickery, and honest questions regarding logical inconsistencies are strawmen. Reason is not what matters; what matters are "your honesty and the strength of your convictions." The will determines truth! As if nobody has ever honestly and strongly believed in a moral falsehood.

In your opinion, does the mother have ownership over the child in her uterus?

OOC: No, but she does of her uterus, thus she can remove anything in it at will. That the thing doesn't survive the process (or survive outside of her) is not her problem nor fault.

Would you apply this principle in other areas?

"A person has ownership over his home. Thus, if he wants to expel his minor son or daughter, he should be allowed to do so at will. That the child might not survive the process (or survive outside the home) is not his problem or his fault."

"A landlord has ownership over the property that he rents out. Thus, he can remove anything or anyone in it at will. That the tenant might object to the removal of his belongings or that the tenant might not survive the process is not his problem or his fault."

More than 90% of abortions are performed for social or economic reasons, and more than 90% of abortions are performed on children whose mothers don't use contraception regularly.

OOC: Since we're down to NSG level now... soure?

Regarding non-use or irregular use of contraception: viewtopic.php?p=32313528#p32313528

Regarding the reasons for abortion: see virtually any study. Maternal health, eugenics, and rape/incest are the reasons for abortion in fewer than one in ten cases, whereas social and economic reasons predominate in the vast majority of cases (90% or more).

[Manaime]

"Repeal "Reproductive Freedoms"" was defeated 12,038 votes to 2,578. Guess you need to work on your proposals, Dorobyt.

[North Arkana]

OOC: Since we're down to NSG level now... soure?

Regarding non-use or irregular use of contraception: viewtopic.php?p=32313528#p32313528

Regarding the reasons for abortion: see virtually any study. Maternal health, eugenics, and rape/incest are the reasons for abortion in fewer than one in ten cases, whereas social and economic reasons predominate in the vast majority of cases (90% or more).

This is NS. Your "supposedly real" statistics regarding contraceptive use mean either nothing, or only exist in YOUR nation. Chances are that there are WA nations where the species LITERALLY has a life-threatening parasite when they get pregnant, and that in other nations your statistics don't even apply. If your claims can't find some way to relevant across the entire mildly insane spectrum of NS nations within the WA, then kindly leave them out. Hell, I wouldn't put it beyond NS to have WA nations where pregnancy by demons is possible, and I'm sure the Church there is real fine with the idea of aborting those, unless they can see past their own dogma and value every potential birth equally. Or are we to assume that you only support the HUMAN fetuses and zygotes of the WA nations?

[Araraukar]

Would you apply this principle in other areas?

OOC: Are you sure you want to do this with someone who generally speaking dislikes the human species?

"A person has ownership over his home. Thus, if he wants to expel his minor son or daughter, he should be allowed to do so at will. That the child might not survive the process (or survive outside the home) is not his problem or his fault."

If we're talking in NS context, I think the ban on child abuse has a bit about abandonment counting as child abuse, so the child would be better off becoming a ward of the state anyway.

But jumping from bodily autonomy to property ownership is quite a leap. I'd have thought that a better simile would've been a drug mule getting rid of the drug package for their own health's sake, and the druglord being unhappy with them.

"A landlord has ownership over the property that he rents out. Thus, he can remove anything or anyone in it at will. That the tenant might object to the removal of his belongings or that the tenant might not survive the process is not his problem or his fault."

See, now you're going somewhere else entirely. Tenants have a contract with the landlord. If the landlord breaks the contract, they should face the consequences. Pregnancy-related simile would probably be someone renting their uterus to a couple to have their child, but then wanting to get rid of it for some reason. In such a case it would, again, come down to what was written in the contract. I mean, sure, in NSWA you couldn't stop her from having an abortion anyway, but I'm fairly sure you could have her in trouble for breaking the contract.

Regarding non-use or irregular use of contraception: viewtopic.php?p=32313528#p32313528

Regarding the reasons for abortion: see virtually any study. Maternal health, eugenics, and rape/incest are the reasons for abortion in fewer than one in ten cases, whereas social and economic reasons predominate in the vast majority of cases (90% or more).

OOC: Do you have any statistics that aren't skewed by USA and other such religious nations not having comprehensive sex education in schools?

[Sardennoi]

I can't believe this is happening again, immediately after it was utterly defeated. I'm losing my faith in the progress of the General Assembly.

I'm surprised you had any in the GA.