[PULLED] Repeal "On Abortion"

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This suffers from an Honest Mistake violation, and is therefore illegal.

Recollecting that GA #128 universally legalises the abortion of embryos that would otherwise not cause more physical harm as can be expected with normal pregnancy,

GAR#128 does not universally legalize abortion. Reproductive Freedoms does. GAR#128 legalizes abortion in a very narrow band of medically and morally necessary situations, such as when the life of the mother is in danger or when the fetus is the product of rape. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the target resolution.

That said, it's an easy fix. This clause might be redeemable simply without the term "universally," but I think you'd do better to rewrite it entirely to be more accurate.

[Unitum Provincias]

"You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus." By this, I assume you mean Catholics. I would hardly say Catholics lack a firm grasp on morality.


A quote from the BBC: "Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life." You can read the whole article here.

You respond to an ingame argument with two OOC comments. Why?
Oh well. First, I would say Catholics lack a firm grasp on morality - there's nothing in Catholicism that allows you to arrive at moral choices, and plenty to force you to arrive at immoral ones, so it's not just irrelevant to morality, it's actually counterproductive - and furthermore that the degree to which Catholics can make moral choices, is the degree to which they've left bronze age superstition behind them. This, however, is a personal, RL evaluation of RL Catholicism, and so is not really relevant in a NationStates setting. If you want to argue this, start a thread in General and PM me the link.
Second, the only knowledge theologians can give us concerns works of fiction and the history of people believing in it. That's hardly qualified input in this debate.
The problem with a medical, or biological, definition is that personhood is essentially a legal and social construct. A simplistic definition, such as "human cells/DNA", would give skin cells personhood as well, which is patently absurd. A medical standard, like "able to live outside the womb", is always dependent on medical technology available, support structures and individual health, which would result in foetuses becoming human at different times in different countries and different periods. There's no real way out of this. Science and philosophy should inform laws, also to a larger degree than currently, but you can't take a legal and social term and ask medical researchers to get to a consensus on what it is. They will have to ground their definition in something outside their field.
However, regarding philosphy, personhood is better defined as sentience (In gradients). It is also neat in the more abstract sense that we should care about the experiences (In a sense, the pain and pleasure to the degree they experience it) of animals currently living, potential future generations, potential future species or even aliens if they exist. It also means that we can ask what person deserves more consideration, the few cells that aren't sentient and can't experience, or the mother? I realise that RL philosophy isn't settled on this yet, but I think it's clear which way the wind is blowing. The best way to avoid that, for you, is to give IC responses to a claim like that.
Using sentience as a criterion also works in other discussions, such as euthanasia, and is easier transferable to medicine and other fields of science. It will mean that, as we deepen our exploration into animal sentience, we can discover that we have been acting monstrous in the present, and need to reevaluate our future stances towards other humans and other species. Personally, I look forward to that.

Most scientists would agree that babies do not become consciously aware until months after birth. Human babies have been found to become self-aware between the ages of 18-24 months. To define a person's right to life as starting when they become "sentient" would possibly allow for the "abortion" of a baby after it has left the mother's womb. Unfortunately, there is no definitive way to determine when a baby gets the right to live that would satisfy everyone.

[Unitum Provincias]

OOC: I'm pulling this proposal. It has no chance of passing and is only creating bad vibes.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm pulling this proposal. It has no chance of passing and is only creating bad vibes.

Ooc: I'm so sorry, but yes. If you personally disagree with abortions, you can simply not get one, but the WA on the whole has taken a radically libertarian approach to the individual right by preventing the state from interfering nearly at all. That's not liable to change.

[Tzorsland]

"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."

"First of all, Ambassador," a man in black who somehow appeared out of nowhere (or was that from a decorative column in the corner) calmly replies while tapping one of his hand with a large thick rod with a round ending with his other hand, "consensus is no guarantee of correctness, either on a scientific or moral basis. Was relativity not correct before a majority of scientists were convinced of it? What about the death penalty? Was it a moral good when a majority thought so and then a moral evil when a later majority thought otherwise?"

He pauses and continues. "You mention something about groups 'without firm grasps on morality.' I find this fascinating. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. A vague notion, I will admit, but like morals, there is a reasonable argument to ask what is 'proper?' Is there some 'consensus' on what is proper?"

He then puts the rod into his pocket. "Did you know that in the not so recent past, the consensus was that defenestration was a moral good? A pity really that such things got changed. So please tell me when something becomes a 'living person?' Obviously, you have be be living in order to be a living person, although I do recall some discussion on non living persons, although it might have been tongue in cheek, How ironic that the people who are so insistent that a life form is not a 'person' at one point in its existence is a non person at any point in its existence if it benefits them. What is the morality of placing the interest of the self above all other things. Science and morality; I question whether you have either."

[Tzorsland]

Ooc: I'm so sorry, but yes. If you personally disagree with abortions, you can simply not get one

Ooc: By the same token, if you disagree with genocide, then don't commit genocide. The general libertarian argument is binary and doesn't concern a three person scenario where person A goes against the liberties of person B and person C sees that person B is powerless to secure his own inalienable rights. IN fact this sort of argument pops up in a significant number of resolutions up for debate here. One could even argue that this is the bulk of the GA work.

[Pinguist Antarctica]

Recognizing that there exists a conflicting scientific, as well as moralistic, consensus as to whether or not an embryo constitutes a living person,

Ambassador Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum stops reading at the first line.
"Uh, Ambassador, I think there's a problem with your base premise here. There's scientific and moral consensus that embryos are not living persons. You may be able to find, as you later refer to, groups without firm grasps on morality who think otherwise, but we conveniently discard insane people when checking the boxes for scientific or moral consensus."
"Any definition of person-hood that would apply equally to my skincells, myself and my offspring, is simply ludicrous. When your first premise is an erroneous postulation, you may wish to review the entire draft."

Such a statements reveals issues in your grasp of human biology Ambassador. Unlike your skin cells of which some have the potential to divide into other skin cells, embryonic cells are pluripotent, giving them the ability to divide and grow into an entire organism, as such, whether or not you agree that an embryo is a person, embryos contain potential for human life whilst the cells in your hand do not and any comparison between the two is ludicrous.

[Covenstone]

Ooc: I'm so sorry, but yes. If you personally disagree with abortions, you can simply not get one

Ooc: By the same token, if you disagree with genocide, then don't commit genocide. The general libertarian argument is binary and doesn't concern a three person scenario where person A goes against the liberties of person B and person C sees that person B is powerless to secure his own inalienable rights. IN fact this sort of argument pops up in a significant number of resolutions up for debate here. One could even argue that this is the bulk of the GA work.

<ooc>The vast majority of people affected by genocide are not perpetrators. So I think that your argument is somewhat misleading and nonsense.</ooc>

[Tzorsland]

Such a statements reveals issues in your grasp of human biology Ambassador. Unlike your skin cells of which some have the potential to divide into other skin cells, embryonic cells are pluripotent, giving them the ability to divide and grow into an entire organism, as such, whether or not you agree that an embryo is a person, embryos contain potential for human life whilst the cells in your hand do not and any comparison between the two is ludicrous.

"Let's not disparage the noble skin cell too far. While pluripotent cells have the ability to become any type of specific cell, given the proper environmental conditions, in the human body, the skin cell is one of the few cells that can perform systematic organ regeneration. They are, in fact a limited form of stem cells. In fact with a little encouragement they can become pluripotent."

OOC: Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS)

"I don't think that one should consider a person who was created somehow by reestablishing the full pluripotent potential of skin cells into a full person any less a person than the person from whom the skin cells derived from. Whether through the traditional genetic sharing process of creation or a regenerating process of existing cells, a person is a person and that is at the cellular level."

[Tzorsland]

<ooc>The vast majority of people affected by genocide are not perpetrators. So I think that your argument is somewhat misleading and nonsense.</ooc>

[OOC] And last time I checked, abortionists aren't dying as a result of abortions. The vast number of people affected by abortions are not perpetrators either.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I'm so sorry, but yes. If you personally disagree with abortions, you can simply not get one

Ooc: By the same token, if you disagree with genocide, then don't commit genocide. The general libertarian argument is binary and doesn't concern a three person scenario where person A goes against the liberties of person B and person C sees that person B is powerless to secure his own inalienable rights. IN fact this sort of argument pops up in a significant number of resolutions up for debate here. One could even argue that this is the bulk of the GA work.

OOC: That assumes that person B is considered a person in the first place. Legally, WA nations cannot. You can make whatever pitch you want morally, but that isn't the legal landscape. At it's core, the abortion argument doesn't hinge on personhood, so its irrelevant outside the context of the GA.

[Wallenburg]

Ooc: I'm so sorry, but yes. If you personally disagree with abortions, you can simply not get one

Ooc: By the same token, if you disagree with genocide, then don't commit genocide. The general libertarian argument is binary and doesn't concern a three person scenario where person A goes against the liberties of person B and person C sees that person B is powerless to secure his own inalienable rights. IN fact this sort of argument pops up in a significant number of resolutions up for debate here. One could even argue that this is the bulk of the GA work.

That's a mighty fine false equivalence.