[DRAFT] Repeal Reproductive Freedoms

[Ovybia]

OOC: First, that was an ambassador that no longer represents Wallenburg.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.

OOC: Nice dodge but you didn't say whether you agreed with your character on personhood when the brain sparks.

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

The Ovybian ambassador looks at you very quizzically. "I never said you did. I did say 'if you did' then you are free to legalize it when RF is repealed as it should be."

OOC: So do unborn children.

OOC: Prove it.

OOC: I'd be happy to.
http://tobelieveistobe.com/articles/how ... ilds-life/
http://www.parenting.com/article/what-b ... n-the-womb

http://getfitforbirth.com/a-mothers-emotions-affect-her-unborn-child/
http://www.expectantmothersguide.com/ar ... pregnancy/
https://biologyofbelief.wordpress.com/2 ... ally-know/

It's medically proven that unborn children can hear, feel, respond to sound, react to pain, and all sorts of other human reactions. Obviously medical science doesn't have a "think-detector" but an unborn child reacts just like every other human being when we do or feel those things although he obviously hasn't learned as much as us so perhaps he will kick his mother a little too hard in an attempt to understand his interesting home or maybe suck his thumb.

So now do you see why Reproductive Freedoms should be repealed?

[Railana]

((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: ...really? I remember reading studies that stated that many animals are smarter than the average infant. Infants really don't display the characteristics we associate with human personhood -- intelligence, ingenuity, imagination, that sort of thing.))

[Wallenburg]

OOC: First, that was an ambassador that no longer represents Wallenburg.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.

OOC: Nice dodge but you didn't say whether you agreed with your character on personhood when the brain sparks.

OOC: It isn't a dodge to explain that IC =/= OOC.

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

The Ovybian ambassador looks at you very quizzically. "I never said you did. I did say 'if you did' then you are free to legalize it when RF is repealed as it should be."

IC: "Do not play dumb, Ambassador. You know exactly what you were implying."

OOC: Prove it.

OOC: I'd be happy to.
http://tobelieveistobe.com/articles/how ... ilds-life/

OOC: Sounds like bullshit. You cannot absorb emotions. However, the hormones your body produces, such as those related to stress, can influence the development of different areas of the brain in the fetus, in order to prepare it better for the environment it might enter into.

http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babies-learn-in-the-womb

This, however, is interesting. I'm going to see if I can find some more on this. However, I'd appreciate it if we at least pretended we were talking about the proposal, rather than just creating a new NSG abortion thread. There's a reason I have decided to stop going to that forum.

It's medically proven that unborn children can hear, feel, respond to sound, react to pain, and all sorts of other human reactions. Obviously medical science doesn't have a "think-detector" but an unborn child reacts just like every other human being when we do or feel those things although he obviously hasn't learned as much as us so perhaps he will kick his mother a little too hard in an attempt to understand his interesting home or maybe suck his thumb.

So now do you see why Reproductive Freedoms should be repealed?

OOC: Nope. I see why you think it should be, but I don't see any objective reason.

[Ovybia]

OOC: Nope. I see why you think it should be, but I don't see any objective reason.

No objective reasoning? Everything in that post was objective reasoning sourcing medically proven facts. In the interest of avoiding possible threadjacking, would you like to continue this discussion by tg?

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: Nice dodge but you didn't say whether you agreed with your character on personhood when the brain sparks.

OOC: It isn't a dodge to explain that IC =/= OOC.

The Ovybian ambassador looks at you very quizzically. "I never said you did. I did say 'if you did' then you are free to legalize it when RF is repealed as it should be."

IC: "Do not play dumb, Ambassador. You know exactly what you were implying."

OOC: I'd be happy to.
http://tobelieveistobe.com/articles/how ... ilds-life/

OOC: Sounds like bullshit. You cannot absorb emotions. However, the hormones your body produces, such as those related to stress, can influence the development of different areas of the brain in the fetus, in order to prepare it better for the environment it might enter into.

http://www.parenting.com/article/what-babies-learn-in-the-womb

This, however, is interesting. I'm going to see if I can find some more on this. However, I'd appreciate it if we at least pretended we were talking about the proposal, rather than just creating a new NSG abortion thread. There's a reason I have decided to stop going to that forum.

It's medically proven that unborn children can hear, feel, respond to sound, react to pain, and all sorts of other human reactions. Obviously medical science doesn't have a "think-detector" but an unborn child reacts just like every other human being when we do or feel those things although he obviously hasn't learned as much as us so perhaps he will kick his mother a little too hard in an attempt to understand his interesting home or maybe suck his thumb.

So now do you see why Reproductive Freedoms should be repealed?

OOC: Nope. I see why you think it should be, but I don't see any objective reason.

"Excuse me, Ambassador. Are you wishing to suggest that infants a week before they are born are not human, either? Currently, WA law mandates abortions be legal at any time, on demand, even a week before birth, even though the child is fully developed. Furthermore, if Wallenburg wishes to legalize abortion under all circumstances, fine, but don't force the rest of the world to follow suit."

(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.)

"Excuse me, sir.
1.) Reproductive Freedoms legalizes abortion up to the hour of birth, under any and all circumstances, no matter what. Explain to me please how that is "compromise".
2.) I'm willing to consider changing that, but a fetus is most certainly a child. It is sapient, alive, and has a parent.

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

Please explain to me how this is relevant

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

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

You see, here. There is very possibly contradictory, as fetuses are undoubtedly individuals
[quote=definition of individual]a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.[/quote]
If we can agree on the following points then their is no dispute that RF is illegal:
1.) Fetuses are humans with their own DNA. This is scientifically indisputable, even if they are undeveloped. Just because someone full body is not developed does not take away their personhood. For example, amputees are still people.
2.) Fetuses are below the legal age of majority.

Even if we say that during the first two trimesters a child is not alive (PS: it is), we can certainly all agree that a third trimester child is fully alive, and as such, is an individual under the threshold of majority, which deserves legal protection.

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.

Well, it isn't exactly roleplay wanking, but the point is irrelevant.

[Wallenburg]

"Excuse me, Ambassador. Are you wishing to suggest that infants a week before they are born are not human, either?

"First, 'infants a week before they are born' is a contradictory statement. Infants are inherently already born. Second, I have made no such implication whatsoever. Third, infants have nothing to do with Reproductive Freedoms."

Currently, WA law mandates abortions be legal at any time, on demand, even a week before birth, even though the child is fully developed. Furthermore, if Wallenburg wishes to legalize abortion under all circumstances, fine, but don't force the rest of the world to follow suit."

"A NatSov plea is insufficient argument against standing law."

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.

Well, it isn't exactly roleplay wanking, but the point is irrelevant.

OOC: Yes, Ovybia's claim is irrelevant.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Nope. I see why you think it should be, but I don't see any objective reason.

No objective reasoning? Everything in that post was objective reasoning sourcing medically proven facts. In the interest of avoiding possible threadjacking, would you like to continue this discussion by tg?

OOC: It is more appropriate for the abortion megathread, but if it is necessary to retain the context of the IC discussion here, we can move over to telegrams.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Reproductive Freedoms legalizes abortion up to the hour of birth, under any and all circumstances, no matter what. Explain to me please how that is "compromise".

TY: We never used the word "compromise". What we said is, people who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, don't have to have an abortion or even perform an abortion. People who are not opposed to abortion on moral grounds, are free to get one.

[Separatist Peoples]

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

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

You see, here. There is very possibly contradictory, as fetuses are undoubtedly individuals
[quote=definition of individual]a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.[/quote
If we can agree on the following points then their is no dispute that RF is illegal:
1.) Fetuses are humans with their own DNA. This is scientifically indisputable, even if they are undeveloped. Just because someone full body is not developed does not take away their personhood. For example, amputees are still people.
2.) Fetuses are below the legal age of majority.

Even if we say that during the first two trimesters a child is not alive (PS: it is), we can certainly all agree that a third trimester child is fully alive, and as such, is an individual under the threshold of majority, which deserves legal protection.

OOC: Jesus fucking Christ. Stop deforming my argument.
RF cannot be illegal. No proposal that passes can be. It was not illegal before it was passed, as there was an interpretation that made it legal, i.e., that fetuses were not individuals with personhood.

The argument is that it is not possible to legally consider fetuses as persons. You cannot claim that that proves RF was illegal because using an interpretation that fetuses aren't people eliminates all contradiction.

Whether you buy that morally or not, that is the WA position as a result of the fact pattern. Any claim that abortion kills unborn children is inherently disingenuous as a result, as the WA cannot consider fetuses children. Further, and such claim in a repeal constitutes a factual error as per the Honest Mistakes rule, as it fundamentally misunderstands RF if it claims RF allows killing children, as I have pointed out.

[United Massachusetts]

Reproductive Freedoms legalizes abortion up to the hour of birth, under any and all circumstances, no matter what. Explain to me please how that is "compromise".

TY: We never used the word "compromise". What we said is, people who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, don't have to have an abortion or even perform an abortion. People who are not opposed to abortion on moral grounds, are free to get one.

The idea that anyone, for any reason, no matter what, can get an abortion whenever they like is what RF does.It is like saying that if one finds it morally permissible to kill someone, the state must permit them do so.

"Excuse me, Ambassador. Are you wishing to suggest that infants a week before they are born are not human, either?

"First, 'infants a week before they are born' is a contradictory statement. Infants are inherently already born. Second, I have made no such implication whatsoever. Third, infants have nothing to do with Reproductive Freedoms."

Currently, WA law mandates abortions be legal at any time, on demand, even a week before birth, even though the child is fully developed. Furthermore, if Wallenburg wishes to legalize abortion under all circumstances, fine, but don't force the rest of the world to follow suit."

"A NatSov plea is insufficient argument against standing law."

Well, it isn't exactly roleplay wanking, but the point is irrelevant.

OOC: Yes, Ovybia's claim is irrelevant.

Very well. My use of the word infant was perhaps incorrect, but I think you understand the main point as well as I do.
The "NatSov" plea is out of the belief that people have the right to legislate based on the moral values (or sapience for that matter), of their own citizens. I think a "NatSov" plea is important here since a one-size-fits-all approach to this won't work

[United Massachusetts]

You see, here. There is very possibly contradictory, as fetuses are undoubtedly individuals
[quote=definition of individual]a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family.[/quote
If we can agree on the following points then their is no dispute that RF is illegal:
1.) Fetuses are humans with their own DNA. This is scientifically indisputable, even if they are undeveloped. Just because someone full body is not developed does not take away their personhood. For example, amputees are still people.
2.) Fetuses are below the legal age of majority.

Even if we say that during the first two trimesters a child is not alive (PS: it is), we can certainly all agree that a third trimester child is fully alive, and as such, is an individual under the threshold of majority, which deserves legal protection.

OOC: Jesus fucking Christ. Stop deforming my argument.
RF cannot be illegal. No proposal that passes can be. It was not illegal before it was passed, as there was an interpretation that made it legal, i.e., that fetuses were not individuals with personhood.

The argument is that it is not possible to legally consider fetuses as persons. You cannot claim that that proves RF was illegal because using an interpretation that fetuses aren't people eliminates all contradiction.

Whether you buy that morally or not, that is the WA position as a result of the fact pattern. Any claim that abortion kills unborn children is inherently disingenuous as a result, as the WA cannot consider fetuses children. Further, and such claim in a repeal constitutes a factual error as per the Honest Mistakes rule, as it fundamentally misunderstands RF if it claims RF allows killing children, as I have pointed out.

I'm sorry for misinterpreting what you said. I just saw this pop up in the discussion and thought I'd way in.
Very well, I will make edits to the word "child". I still think that the vagueness of both resolutions could be used to make a case.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

TY: We never used the word "compromise". What we said is, people who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds, don't have to have an abortion or even perform an abortion. People who are not opposed to abortion on moral grounds, are free to get one.

The idea that anyone, for any reason, no matter what, can get an abortion whenever they like is what RF does.It is like saying that if one finds it morally permissible to kill someone, the state must permit them do so.

TY: Nonsense. Abortion is a bona fide medical procedure. Murder is not. You cannot compare the two.

[Ovybia]

"I think it's also important to note that for something to be repealed in the WA I believe one shouldn't necessarily have to present arguments that prove his point but only that his point is a reasonable possibility. So even if one doesn't think that it has been proven that an unborn child is a person, most certainly it is a reasonable possibility as I have shown and the WA should not force nations who hold this reasonable viewpoint to legalize the killing of unborn children."

[Ovybia]

The idea that anyone, for any reason, no matter what, can get an abortion whenever they like is what RF does.It is like saying that if one finds it morally permissible to kill someone, the state must permit them do so.

TY: Nonsense. Abortion is a bona fide medical procedure. Murder is not. You cannot compare the two.

OOC: Killing an innocent person is never a medical procedure unless one adopts Hitler's world view

[United Massachusetts]

"I think it's also important to note that for something to be repealed in the WA I believe one shouldn't necessarily have to present arguments that prove his point but only that his point is a reasonable possibility. So even if one doesn't think that it has been proven that an unborn child is a person, most certainly it is a reasonable possibility as I have shown and the WA should not force nations who hold this reasonable viewpoint to legalize the killing of unborn children."

Worded well.
True.

The idea that anyone, for any reason, no matter what, can get an abortion whenever they like is what RF does.It is like saying that if one finds it morally permissible to kill someone, the state must permit them do so.

TY: Nonsense. Abortion is a bona fide medical procedure. Murder is not. You cannot compare the two.

I can compare the two. Abortion is the killing of a clearly living creature, and so is murder.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

TY: Nonsense. Abortion is a bona fide medical procedure. Murder is not. You cannot compare the two.

OOC: Killing an innocent person is never a medical procedure unless one adopts Hitler's world view

OOC: Please tell me you aren't comparing abortions to the Holocaust. And cut it out with the fetus-is-a-person argument. It does not hold water under WA law.

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: Killing an innocent person is never a medical procedure unless one adopts Hitler's world view

OOC: Please tell me you aren't comparing abortions to the Holocaust. And cut it out with the fetus-is-a-person argument. It does not hold water under WA law.

1.) We stopped referring to fetuses as children.
2.) Yes, Ovybia, this may have gotten out of hand.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

TY: Nonsense. Abortion is a bona fide medical procedure. Murder is not. You cannot compare the two.

I can compare the two. Abortion is the killing of a clearly living creature, and so is murder.

TY: We reject the notion that "killing of a clearly living creature" is murder. Disease-carrying rodents and insects and other deadly pests are clearly living creatures, does that make applying pesticide murder? What about euthanasia of our pets? Or even treating a virus? That's killing a clearly living thing. None of these are comparable to murder. And neither is abortion.

[United Massachusetts]

I can compare the two. Abortion is the killing of a clearly living creature, and so is murder.

TY: We reject the notion that "killing of a clearly living creature" is murder. Disease-carrying rodents and insects and other deadly pests are clearly living creatures, does that make applying pesticide murder? What about euthanasia of our pets? Or even treating a virus? That's killing a clearly living thing. None of these are comparable to murder. And neither is abortion.

Fine. Clearly alive human being.

[United Massachusetts]

I can compare the two. Abortion is the killing of a clearly living creature, and so is murder.

TY: We reject the notion that "killing of a clearly living creature" is murder. Disease-carrying rodents and insects and other deadly pests are clearly living creatures, does that make applying pesticide murder? What about euthanasia of our pets? Or even treating a virus? That's killing a clearly living thing. None of these are comparable to murder. And neither is abortion.

OOC (as is most of what I do): What is TY?

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

TY: We reject the notion that "killing of a clearly living creature" is murder. Disease-carrying rodents and insects and other deadly pests are clearly living creatures, does that make applying pesticide murder? What about euthanasia of our pets? Or even treating a virus? That's killing a clearly living thing. None of these are comparable to murder. And neither is abortion.

OOC (as is most of what I do): What is TY?

OOC: Check my sig. Wad Ty Mizzit, Interim Intern.

[Kelinfort]

Good luck, pal, but I vote Nay

[Ovybia]

1.) We stopped referring to fetuses as children.

Why? I've already posted the dictionary definition before and I'll post it again. Unborn children is a totally appropriate description.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
child definition: "an unborn or recently born person"

I understand that many find this definition disruptive to their agenda so they would prefer we use the word "fetus" which is Latin for "offspring" which means "child." So it sounds much better for them to say "kill the fetus" than "kill the child" although they both mean exactly the same thing.

2.) Yes, Ovybia, this may have gotten out of hand.

Please explain. I don't believe anything is out of hand. I am trying to be careful to stay on topic because there is an invisible line, so to speak, on where RF discussion ends and turns into solely abortion discussion. It is a very intertwined issue so it's hard to be sure where that line is.

Please tell me you aren't comparing abortions to the Holocaust. And cut it out with the fetus-is-a-person argument. It does not hold water under WA law.

I am well aware that it doesn't "hold water" under WA law and that is exactly why we want Reproductive Freedoms repealed. People should not be able to go around WA nations killing children and getting away with it because the WA doesn't considered unborn children children.

[Separatist Peoples]

TY: We reject the notion that "killing of a clearly living creature" is murder. Disease-carrying rodents and insects and other deadly pests are clearly living creatures, does that make applying pesticide murder? What about euthanasia of our pets? Or even treating a virus? That's killing a clearly living thing. None of these are comparable to murder. And neither is abortion.

Fine. Clearly alive human being.

"One can kill sapient individuals without it being murder, ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

1.) We stopped referring to fetuses as children.

Why? I've already posted the dictionary definition before and I'll post it again. Unborn children is a totally appropriate description.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
child definition: "an unborn or recently born person"

I understand that many find this definition disruptive to their agenda so they would prefer we use the word "fetus" which is Latin for "offspring" which means "child." So it sounds much better for them to say "kill the fetus" than "kill the child" although they both mean exactly the same thing.

OOC: Yes, that is why my 15-year old brother is constantly called a fetus.