[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Ovybia]

-snip-

OOC: Your interpretation is poor faith unless you change the English language. I've already pointed out the definition of the word "child" and, whether you like it or not, it includes the unborn.

The interpretation I presented is not poor faith because it uses the English language properly and the word "safe" as it is stated in RF. Killing a child is not "safe." And that's the only possible interpretation that is consistent as you have proven.

[Imperium Anglorum]

-snip-

OOC: Your interpretation is poor faith unless you change the English language. I've already pointed out the definition of the word "child" and, whether you like it or not, it includes the unborn.

The interpretation I presented is not poor faith because it uses the English language properly and the word "safe" as it is stated in RF. Killing a child is not "safe." And that's the only possible interpretation that is consistent as you have proven.

"If a fetus was a child, OA and and RF would have run afoul of Preventing Child Abuse, as abortions would constitute a malicious harm to a child. Since that was not the case and all three are legal, clearly the WA does not consider fetuses to be children, and therefore people. As such, it is disingenuous and an emotional appeal to claim that they are when the law clearly holds them not to be. The Ovybian ambassador would do well to note this."

[Linux and the X]

"I'll personally file the GHR to get such an argument pulled. There is no legal conflict. There cannot be. All resolutions that pass are, by definition, legal. Making the point that there is a Contradiction issue is grounds for removal. It's been tried by better authors than you, ambassador."

Has it been tried since the Secretariat lifted the rule on lying?

[Imperium Anglorum]

"I'll personally file the GHR to get such an argument pulled. There is no legal conflict. There cannot be. All resolutions that pass are, by definition, legal. Making the point that there is a Contradiction issue is grounds for removal. It's been tried by better authors than you, ambassador."

Has it been tried since the Secretariat lifted the rule on lying?

The honest mistake rule is still being enforced.

[Separatist Peoples]

-snip-

OOC: Your interpretation is poor faith unless you change the English language. I've already pointed out the definition of the word "child" and, whether you like it or not, it includes the unborn.

The interpretation I presented is not poor faith because it uses the English language properly and the word "safe" as it is stated in RF. Killing a child is not "safe." And that's the only possible interpretation that is consistent as you have proven.

OOC: Its like you don't even know what constitutes a good faith interpretation. The regular English language definition is not necessarily important here as the use of the word in context. Prevention of Child Abuse defines children.

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

It uses the term individual, which is roughly analogous to person in abortion debates. The implication is clearly the same: the child is a person, having personhood, and, as such, deserving of rights.

Reproductive Freedoms builds off of On Abortion, which uses the term fetus. It is, in fact, impossible to consider Reproductive Freedom without considering the subject: the fetus in the womb. For the sake of argument, we can put aside whether a fetus is an individual at the moment; a fetus is what is developing in the womb prior to birth or an abortion. This is the scientific term outside of any other assertions, and we are simply establishing terminology at this point.

Reproductive Freedom allows for the termination of pregnancy, essentially at any time. That pretty undeniably means killing the fetus if it is not viable outside the womb, considering even the most loose interpretation of RF's termination terminology.

So, if you hold that a fetus IS a person, that it has personhood, and is deserving of rights, one cannot allow abortion, for fear of committing child abuse, one part of the definition reads:

ii. the causing of excessive physical pain, injury or harm with a malicious intent, or through negligence, outside that which may occur from peer-to-peer bullying,

However, this puts you at odds with Reproductive Freedoms, which does not allow for restrictions placed on termination of pregnancy. If you chose to allow Reproductive Freedom, you necessarily have to be at odds with PoCA.

However, if we assume that a child does not have personhood while it is in the womb, and that there is a distinct difference between a fetus and an individual, the conundrum is solved. Abortion doesn't harm a child, because it is not yet an individual, and termination of pregnancy is not hindered. This is an interpretation that is A: valid, and B: doesn't create a Contradiction between WA laws, which we cannot violate. As such, there is no legal basis for a Contradiction challenge.

There is also no bad faith arguing. The term "child" is already defined in other legislation. That is the definition I am using to make my point. Any common usage is irrelevant, because the definition has already been established.

IF we consider that a child, which we have established is an individual, and therefore with personhood

[Ovybia]

The regular English language definition is not necessarily important here as the use of the word in context. Prevention of Child Abuse defines children.

Ok, just stop right there. The entire reason you started this line of discussion was in response to my saying that abortion kills an unborn child. If the regular English language definition of child is not the same as that used in Prevention of Child Abuse then there was absolutely no reason for you to bring it up.

Since you have just admitted this is a non sequitur discussion, I hope it is now over and we can go back to my original question directed at the Wallenburg ambassdor on why we want RF repealled.

"You have proved yourself at least partially incorrect. In my own species and in many others, the fetus is not a person. I had assumed that fetuses were not sapient in your own species as well. I am sorry for the confusion. As to my language, you can go--" The translator malfunctions, as it fails to find a proper translation for Ogenbond's curse.

"So now do you understand why we want Reproductive Freedoms repealed? Your species may not be sapient before birth but ours is and RF is forcing all WA nations to legalize abortion. Repealing RF will allow each nation to set their own laws regulating abortion according to their own species, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, of course. In fact, once RF is repealed, I would support WA legislation specifically stating the abortion issue is up to each individual nation."

[Devernia]

"Limiting knowledge on growing students should not ever happen in public education. That is all I have to say in this matter."

[Tinfect]

The regular English language definition is not necessarily important here as the use of the word in context. Prevention of Child Abuse defines children.

Ok, just stop right there. The entire reason you started this line of discussion was in response to my saying that abortion kills an unborn child. If the regular English language definition of child is not the same as that used in Prevention of Child Abuse then there was absolutely no reason for you to bring it up.

Since you have just admitted this is a non sequitur discussion, I hope it is now over and we can go back to my original question directed at the Wallenburg ambassdor on why we want RF repealled.

"So now do you understand why we want Reproductive Freedoms repealed? Your species may not be sapient before birth but ours is and RF is forcing all WA nations to legalize abortion. Repealing RF will allow each nation to set their own laws regulating abortion according to their own species, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, of course. In fact, once RF is repealed, I would support WA legislation specifically stating the abortion issue is up to each individual nation."

OOC:
You know, this is the kind of RP-Wank that gives any non-standard RP here in the GA a poor reputation.

[Separatist Peoples]

The regular English language definition is not necessarily important here as the use of the word in context. Prevention of Child Abuse defines children.

Ok, just stop right there. The entire reason you started this line of discussion was in response to my saying that abortion kills an unborn child. If the regular English language definition of child is not the same as that used in Prevention of Child Abuse then there was absolutely no reason for you to bring it up.

Since you have just admitted this is a non sequitur discussion, I hope it is now over and we can go back to my original question directed at the Wallenburg ambassdor on why we want RF repealled.

"So now do you understand why we want Reproductive Freedoms repealed? Your species may not be sapient before birth but ours is and RF is forcing all WA nations to legalize abortion. Repealing RF will allow each nation to set their own laws regulating abortion according to their own species, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, of course. In fact, once RF is repealed, I would support WA legislation specifically stating the abortion issue is up to each individual nation."

Ooc: sure there was. It proved that your interpretation was not only wrong, it was unjustifiable. Considering you're pushing that interpretation to make a political point, publicly discrediting it on your draft thread has value.

It's also a point I plan to include in counter campaigns and in GHRs, as needed.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

(Ty walks warily into the debate chamber. Had to leave the hardest one for last, didn't I, he thinks as he tries to project an air of confidence. He places his tablet down on a nearby surface and begins to speak.)

TY: Opposed.

(He glances down at the tablet. A flamboyantly dressed elderly lady looks back at him expectantly and tilts her head as if she's waiting for more.)

TY: Firstly, you note that many have a moral objection to the practice of abortions. This is greatly outweighed by the clear majority who have a moral objection to the prohibition of the practice. What we have in place right now perfectly suits both. Not only are persons whose morality is aligned against the practice of abortions free not to have one, but doctors whose morality is so aligned cannot be compelled to perform one either, under clause five of GAR#128.

Secondly, until and unless we hear otherwise from the Secretariat on the proposal to ban partial birth abortions, your contention that member nations are required to permit partial birth abortions is hogwash. Yes, nations right now are free to permit that procedure, but they are not required to do so. As long as other safer procedures are available, the requirements of OA and RF will be met by performing those procedures. There's no reasonable nor medical reason to wait until partial delivery to perform an abortion.

Thirdly, as already mentioned, the fetus is not a child, and your referring to it as one in the "Noting" and "Shocked" clauses is appalling. Children are protected under international law. Fetuses are not. You would do well not to make that mistake in the future.

As stated -- (Ty stands up straighter) -- we, the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, are and will always be opposed to any repeal of Reproductive Freedoms.

(After a confident nod, his eyes dart down toward the tablet; he briefly catches a glimpse of the elderly lady before the video feed cuts out.)

[Percussionland]

"As usual, we intend to use every ounce of political clout we have to oppose this."

Audience applauds. This draft reads like a Carly Fiorina speech on her Planned Parenthood conspiracy theories crossed with conservative "but we only want big government on what women do with their bodies, nothing else, we swear!" hand wringing. Strongly opposed.

[Ovybia]

"So now do you understand why we want Reproductive Freedoms repealed? Your species may not be sapient before birth but ours is and RF is forcing all WA nations to legalize abortion. Repealing RF will allow each nation to set their own laws regulating abortion according to their own species, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, of course. In fact, once RF is repealed, I would support WA legislation specifically stating the abortion issue is up to each individual nation."

OOC:
You know, this is the kind of RP-Wank that gives any non-standard RP here in the GA a poor reputation.[/quote]
Ovybia is populated with humans who are obviously fully persons before birth. According to Wallenburg, his species is not sapient before birth and hence my statement. If anything, you should be accusing Wallenburg of RP-wanking for saying my statement was incorrect based on his non-real species.

Ok, just stop right there. The entire reason you started this line of discussion was in response to my saying that abortion kills an unborn child. If the regular English language definition of child is not the same as that used in Prevention of Child Abuse then there was absolutely no reason for you to bring it up.

Since you have just admitted this is a non sequitur discussion, I hope it is now over and we can go back to my original question directed at the Wallenburg ambassdor on why we want RF repealled.

Ooc: sure there was. It proved that your interpretation was not only wrong, it was unjustifiable. Considering you're pushing that interpretation to make a political point, publicly discrediting it on your draft thread has value.

It's also a point I plan to include in counter campaigns and in GHRs, as needed.

Once again you are confusing the law with reality. My statement ("abortion kills innocent unborn children") was completely factually true. And that statement is a very good reason to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. Killing innocent children is a horrible thing that the WA should not be promoting.

(Ty walks warily into the debate chamber. Had to leave the hardest one for last, didn't I, he thinks as he tries to project an air of confidence. He places his tablet down on a nearby surface and begins to speak.)

TY: Opposed.

(He glances down at the tablet. A flamboyantly dressed elderly lady looks back at him expectantly and tilts her head as if she's waiting for more.)

TY: Firstly, you note that many have a moral objection to the practice of abortions. This is greatly outweighed by the clear majority who have a moral objection to the prohibition of the practice.

"Mr. Ty, the number of people who support or oppose something has absolutely no moral weight. Your argument could be used to justify any other evil too. For example, let's take slavery which was once legal long ago in Ovybia. At that time in our history, would you argue the moral objections to slavery were greatly outweighed by the clear majority who had objections to the prohibition of the practice? I would certainly hope not."

[Wallenburg]

OOC:
You know, this is the kind of RP-Wank that gives any non-standard RP here in the GA a poor reputation.

Ovybia is populated with humans who are obviously fully persons before birth. According to Wallenburg, his species is not sapient before birth and hence my statement. If anything, you should be accusing Wallenburg of RP-wanking for saying my statement was incorrect based on his non-real species.

OOC: My nation's species's lack of sapience before birth is modeled directly off of human biology. I see no way how that is RP-wanking.

[Tinfect]

Ovybia is populated with humans who are obviously fully persons before birth. According to Wallenburg, his species is not sapient before birth and hence my statement. If anything, you should be accusing Wallenburg of RP-wanking for saying my statement was incorrect based on his non-real species.

OOC:
If you want to criticize Wallenburg's use of a, from what I've seen, rather reasonably RPed Human-based species, try not pulling one out of your ass for the sake of an argument.

Once again you are confusing the law with reality. My statement ("abortion kills innocent unborn children") was completely factually true. And that statement is a very good reason to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. Killing innocent children is a horrible thing that the WA should not be promoting.

Ideology does not make fact.

[Percussionland]

Ovybia is populated with humans who are obviously fully persons before birth. According to Wallenburg, his species is not sapient before birth and hence my statement. If anything, you should be accusing Wallenburg of RP-wanking for saying my statement was incorrect based on his non-real species.

OOC: My nation's species's lack of sapience before birth is modeled directly off of human biology. I see no way how that is RP-wanking.

You assume that all nations are populated by humans. Also, in regards to human biology, you are ignoring science and calling a unicellular fetus a child. You need to be a while down the road before it is a semi-independent organism. You are using personal moral convictions to justifying ignoring science and forcing your personal belief that you can tell women what to do with their bodies on WA nations who want nothing to do with this proposal or the half-baked half-born insanity you co-authored. Also, explain half born if you are trying to justify this with human biology.

[Ovybia]

OOC:
If you want to criticize Wallenburg's use of a, from what I've seen, rather reasonably RPed Human-based species, try not pulling one out of your for the sake of an argument.

I'll repeat my post with added emphasis since you didn't read it:

Ovybia is populated with humans

OOC: My nation's species's lack of sapience before birth is modeled directly off of human biology. I see no way how that is RP-wanking.

OOC: Biologically speaking, human beings are clearly persons before birth. We've already discussed this before and you agreed.

And as I've explained many times this is the reason RF should be repealed.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: My nation's species's lack of sapience before birth is modeled directly off of human biology. I see no way how that is RP-wanking.

You assume that all nations are populated by humans. Also, in regards to human biology, you are ignoring science and calling a unicellular fetus a child. You need to be a while down the road before it is a semi-independent organism. You are using personal moral convictions to justifying ignoring science and force your personal belief that you can tell women what to do with their bodies on WA nations who want nothing to do with this proposal or the half-baked half-born insanity you co-authored. Also, explain half born if you are trying to justify this with human biology.

OOC: Um...I'm not the coauthor, and I never said or suggested any of those things.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Biologically speaking, human beings are clearly persons before birth. We've already discussed this before and you agreed.

OOC: No, we didn't. And scientific findings clearly demonstrate that fetuses are not sapient before birth.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
If you want to criticize Wallenburg's use of a, from what I've seen, rather reasonably RPed Human-based species, try not pulling one out of your for the sake of an argument.

I'll repeat my post with added emphasis since you didn't read it:

Ovybia is populated with humans

OOC:
And since you've clearly missed mine, let's go back one step;

Ideology does not make fact.

Either they're not quite Human in the RL sense, and you're pulling some Alt-Humans out of your ass to make an argument, or you are mistaken on the science here.

[Separatist Peoples]

Once again you are confusing the law with reality. My statement ("abortion kills innocent unborn children") was completely factually true. And that statement is a very good reason to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. Killing innocent children is a horrible thing that the WA should not be promoting.

Ideology does not make fact.

OOC: Thank you. That Ovybia is associating my name with what is starting to look like a malicious misinterpretation of my argument to make it look Pro-Life is frustrating enough without this drivel. Much appreciated

[Railana]

OOC: Biologically speaking, human beings are clearly persons before birth. We've already discussed this before and you agreed.

OOC: No, we didn't. And scientific findings clearly demonstrate that fetuses are not sapient before birth.

((Infants arguably aren't sapient either. They're sentient, yes, but not sapient. Yet most people -- though not all -- consider infants to be human persons.))

[Ovybia]

OOC: Biologically speaking, human beings are clearly persons before birth. We've already discussed this before and you agreed.

OOC: No, we didn't. And scientific findings clearly demonstrate that fetuses are not sapient before birth.

It may not have been this nation specifically but I was involved in the discussion. Your quote was:

Wallenburg: "My definition of a person is a human body with a soul. The fetus has no such thing until its brain sparks. . . . I am willing to concede that fetuses of the race Homo sapiens develop brain activity--however nominal--at an earlier stage. Now, I shall assert that personhood is irrelevant in the face of the host woman's right to bodily sovereignty."

I am aware that these posts are IC but I assume your character usually is in alignment with your moral opinions in these discussions.

IC: "I believe that personhood is not irrelevant and all persons have an equal right to life. That is why I think RF should be repealed. If you think otherwise, you are free to legalize it in your country but you shouldn't force inequality on other countries."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: No, we didn't. And scientific findings clearly demonstrate that fetuses are not sapient before birth.

((Infants arguably aren't sapient either. They're sentient, yes, but not sapient. Yet most people -- though not all -- consider infants to be human persons.))

OOC: Infants are self aware and have the capacity to think and reason.

[Ovybia]

((Infants arguably aren't sapient either. They're sentient, yes, but not sapient. Yet most people -- though not all -- consider infants to be human persons.))

OOC: Infants are self aware and have the capacity to think and reason.

OOC: So do unborn children.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: No, we didn't. And scientific findings clearly demonstrate that fetuses are not sapient before birth.

It may not have been this nation specifically but I was involved in the discussion. Your quote was:

Wallenburg: "My definition of a person is a human body with a soul. The fetus has no such thing until its brain sparks. . . . I am willing to concede that fetuses of the race Homo sapiens develop brain activity--however nominal--at an earlier stage. Now, I shall assert that personhood is irrelevant in the face of the host woman's right to bodily sovereignty."

I am aware that these posts are IC but I assume your character usually is in alignment with your moral opinions in these discussions.

IC: "I believe that personhood is not irrelevant and all persons have an equal right to life. That is why I think RF should be repealed. If you think otherwise, you are free to legalize it in your country but you shouldn't force inequality on other countries."

OOC: First, that was an ambassador that no longer represents Wallenburg. Second, no, my ambassadors do not always align with my views, especially when it comes to specifics. For instance, Trevanyika had a great sense of nativism and a distaste for immigrants of any kind, whereas I do not. Ogenbond considers several groups within the LGBT demographic mentally ill, whereas I do not. This is highly intentional, and is meant both to guarantee that Wallenburg is not my idea of a utopia, and to better simulate a society far more conservative than that of current day.

IC: "Ambassador, I never said personhood was irrelevant. Next time, try not putting words in my mouth."

OOC: Infants are self aware and have the capacity to think and reason.

OOC: So do unborn children.

OOC: Prove it.