NationStates

I recently just added the 'No Abortion' policy to my nation. However, my social conservatism index went down 3.4%. This makes no sense given that abortion restriction is very much socially conservative. Maybe just a fix in the future for other nations.

Social Conservatism isn't directly related to things that people find "conservative" or "liberal", as those definitions can change over time. It's merely an inverse to Civil Rights. Whenever Civil Rights goes up, Social Conservatism goes down, and vice versa.

As for "why does banning abortion increase my civil rights?":

The Free Joy State wrote:Awhile back, the team (aware of the deep and personal feelings around the sensitive issue of abortion) took the -- perhaps controversial decision -- to (generally speaking, allowing for individual stats) programme a civil rights rise for both banning and allowing abortion.

Due to the strength of emotion it raises, we felt it inappropriate to come down on either side of this debate.

SherpDaWerp wrote:Social Conservatism isn't directly related to things that people find "conservative" or "liberal", as those definitions can change over time. It's merely an inverse to Civil Rights. Whenever Civil Rights goes up, Social Conservatism goes down, and vice versa.

As for "why does banning abortion increase my civil rights?":

The Free Joy State wrote:Awhile back, the team (aware of the deep and personal feelings around the sensitive issue of abortion) took the -- perhaps controversial decision -- to (generally speaking, allowing for individual stats) programme a civil rights rise for both banning and allowing abortion.

Due to the strength of emotion it raises, we felt it inappropriate to come down on either side of this debate.

While I'm not necessarily saying the UN is an authority on what is or what is not moral, but I think when it comes to what should generally be considered "universal human rights," their stance should be considered.

In this case, the United Nations does indeed consider access to abortion a human right. I think moderation should look beyond merely the sentiments of the forum or America when determining the true controversy of an issue: https://reproductiverights.org/press-ro ... tality-are

So, in this context, I think the issue should be changed. The notion that restricting one's reproductive choices is a plus to their "civil rights" is patently absurd. Civil rights concerns the individual in question. Legalizing abortion is not pro-natal, pro-fetus, or pro-life in the strictest definition, but it is pro-freedom for the woman who is pregnant.

Anyway, I don't feel strongly one way or another on this issue technically, or even morally for that matter. Just offering my take.

Dolgo wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:Social Conservatism isn't directly related to things that people find "conservative" or "liberal", as those definitions can change over time. It's merely an inverse to Civil Rights. Whenever Civil Rights goes up, Social Conservatism goes down, and vice versa.

As for "why does banning abortion increase my civil rights?": see here

While I'm not necessarily saying the UN is an authority on what is or what is not moral, but I think when it comes to what should generally be considered "universal human rights," their stance should be considered.

In this case, the United Nations does indeed consider access to abortion a human right. I think moderation should look beyond merely the sentiments of the forum or America when determining the true controversy of an issue: https://reproductiverights.org/press-ro ... tality-are

So, in this context, I think the issue should be changed. The notion that restricting one's reproductive choices is a plus to their "civil rights" is patently absurd. Civil rights concerns the individual in question. Legalizing abortion is not pro-natal, pro-fetus, or pro-life in the strictest definition, but it is pro-freedom for the woman who is pregnant.

Anyway, I don't feel strongly one way or another on this issue technically, or even morally for that matter. Just offering my take.

Personally; I'm of the pro-choice side. But the actual game - the core of the game, the issues - tries to be apolitical. It's possible to have a strong economy with both socialism and capitalism, for instance, which is a deliberate design decision.

There are civil rights on both side - the right to life of the unborn child vs the right to reproductive freedom of the mother. It's not as clear-cut as "restricting reproductive choices = +civil rights". For the game to essentially "pick a side" - to choose between mother and fetus, even if it's on the side of the international organisation-that-shall-not-be-named, would be a significant break in policy. Plus, there would be infinite complaints from which ever side wasn't picked - people would say "but what about the rights of the [mother|child]". It's a strong debate, with strong opinions on both sides, and picking a side would be somewhat out-of-character for NS.

I would also note that the change in civil rights that results from making this decision is not a big one. Hedging a guess based off this stat archive, options that allow/ban abortion (without any weird riders like "compulsory childbearing") change civil rights by generally <5 points, although that number will vary based on your nation's original position.

Given the tone of FJS's post, I would assume that there's already been significant discussion on this issue, which means that position is unlikely to change anytime soon.