[DEFEATED] Repeal of Reproductive Freedoms

[Gagium]

Um... can there be some respect here please? This is just utter disgusting, the way you are acting.

Also, religious or not, preventing a new life is WRONG. It just is. If you don't think so, fine, make a law allowing murder throughout your nation and see what happens.

Respect? I thought when you respected someone, you didn't force him or her to do something. For example, to have a child and pay for everything that child needs. That is disgusting. Spare me your moralistic nonsense.

Plus, I see you're opposed to welfare. I suppose that extends to the woman you forced into poverty by adding a second mouth to feed to her paycheck without any help. It's funny the way opposition to abortion and welfare always seem to dovetail, isn't it?

So forcing a woman not to murder their child is disgusting to you, but the actual killing of the child isn't...?

[Dobrobyt]

Um... can there be some respect here please? This is just utter disgusting, the way you are acting.

Also, religious or not, preventing a new life is WRONG. It just is. If you don't think so, fine, make a law allowing murder throughout your nation and see what happens.

Respect? I thought when you respected someone, you didn't force him or her to do something. For example, to have a child and pay for everything that child needs. That is disgusting. Spare me your moralistic nonsense.

Plus, I see you're opposed to welfare. I suppose that extends to the woman you forced into poverty by adding a second mouth to feed to her paycheck without any help. It's funny the way opposition to abortion and welfare always seem to dovetail, isn't it?

My beliefs on the subject are much more specific, which I cannot fit in the description. Either way, you are being irrelevant to the conversation right now.

[Chus Kruthe]

Respect? I thought when you respected someone, you didn't force him or her to do something. For example, to have a child and pay for everything that child needs. That is disgusting. Spare me your moralistic nonsense.

Plus, I see you're opposed to welfare. I suppose that extends to the woman you forced into poverty by adding a second mouth to feed to her paycheck without any help. It's funny the way opposition to abortion and welfare always seem to dovetail, isn't it?

My beliefs on the subject are much more specific, which I cannot fit in the description. Either way, you are being irrelevant to the conversation right now.

I'd say the degree to which one supports welfare is very relevant to an abortion debate. No politician has the right to legislate a woman's body and to condemn her to motherhood.

[Montchevre]

Respect? I thought when you respected someone, you didn't force him or her to do something. For example, to have a child and pay for everything that child needs. That is disgusting. Spare me your moralistic nonsense.

Plus, I see you're opposed to welfare. I suppose that extends to the woman you forced into poverty by adding a second mouth to feed to her paycheck without any help. It's funny the way opposition to abortion and welfare always seem to dovetail, isn't it?

My beliefs on the subject are much more specific, which I cannot fit in the description. Either way, you are being irrelevant to the conversation right now.

"Irrelevant" because you cannot address the concern I have raised. How can a poor, single woman survive if she suddenly has two people to pay for?

[Montchevre]

My beliefs on the subject are much more specific, which I cannot fit in the description. Either way, you are being irrelevant to the conversation right now.

I'd say the degree to which one supports welfare is very relevant to an abortion debate. No politician has the right to legislate a woman's body and to condemn her to motherhood.

Thank you; that is very well put.

[Gagium]

My beliefs on the subject are much more specific, which I cannot fit in the description. Either way, you are being irrelevant to the conversation right now.

I'd say the degree to which one supports welfare is very relevant to an abortion debate. No politician has the right to legislate a woman's body and to condemn her to motherhood.

If they don't want their child, then they could just put them up for adoption. Or they could just take a birth control pill before, you know..

[Chus Kruthe]

I'd say the degree to which one supports welfare is very relevant to an abortion debate. No politician has the right to legislate a woman's body and to condemn her to motherhood.

If they don't want their child, then they could just put them up for adoption. Or they could just take a birth control pill before, you know..

Sure they could do that, or they could choose to have an abortion. I support a woman's right to decide which option is better for her, I don't support legislating the issue and limiting the choices available to a woman.

[Dobrobyt]

My beliefs on the subject are much more specific, which I cannot fit in the description. Either way, you are being irrelevant to the conversation right now.

I'd say the degree to which one supports welfare is very relevant to an abortion debate. No politician has the right to legislate a woman's body and to condemn her to motherhood.

Alright, fine, I will be more descriptive.

I do NOT support welfare in the case that an individual simply does not work or contribute(without a disability). I DO support welfare for an individual for the first couple months of their employment, in case employment does not pay enough. This, however, can be avoided by the individual moving to a cheaper, more-affordable area depending on their job, and minimum wages that add up to a life in a cheaper location(enough to survive). With a minimum wage to support someone to live in a cheap area of a country or nation, welfare can be almost rid of.

Sorry for going off-topic.

[Greifenburg]

Well, to murder a person is a choice also, but murder's illegal in most, if not all, nations, right..?

"That is a very good point. Murdering a person is indeed illegal in most nations. However, most nations, and I dare say people within a nation, also have different definitions when personhood actually begins. Some say with conception, some say with birth. In Greifenburg, general consensus is that it starts after the first trimester. It is one of those definite questions without definite answers."

[Dobrobyt]

Another addition will be made to the repeal:

RECOGNIZING that there are other alternatives, such as birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[Chus Kruthe]

Well, to murder a person is a choice also, but murder's illegal in most, if not all, nations, right..?

"That is a very good point. Murdering a person is indeed illegal in most nations. However, most nations, and I dare say people within a nation, also have different definitions when personhood actually begins. Some say with conception, some say with birth. In Greifenburg, general consensus is that it starts after the first trimester. It is one of those definite questions without definite answers."

That's another issue with regulating abortion via the world assembly, not all members are humans. Meaning putting trimester restrictions into legislation which would be impossible.

[Dobrobyt]

Well, to murder a person is a choice also, but murder's illegal in most, if not all, nations, right..?

"That is a very good point. Murdering a person is indeed illegal in most nations. However, most nations, and I dare say people within a nation, also have different definitions when personhood actually begins. Some say with conception, some say with birth. In Greifenburg, general consensus is that it starts after the first trimester. It is one of those definite questions without definite answers."

Whatever you believe, that stage will result in birth most likely, therefore it's prevention.

Another point: not all nations believe or have same definitions of life, therefore this option will not majorly affect your side(would you actually LIKE to abort a baby?), but it would benefit the pro-life side.

[Atkemri]

I support this bill completely. Fetuses are humans too.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Comparing coffee to preventing a life(murder)? That is one low bar.

ARI: Ah, no, no, see, you're wrong there, we would never compare coffee to murder. Although we did once compare a particular concoction in the Strangers' Bar to death itself; alas, we digress. By the way, we wish you would stop comparing abortion to murder, as one is perfectly legal in WA nations -- even if you repeal this resolution -- and one most certainly is not.

[New Waldensia]

That's another issue with regulating abortion via the world assembly, not all members are humans.

Looks like you helped discover another reason to Repeal!

[Chus Kruthe]

That's another issue with regulating abortion via the world assembly, not all members are humans.

Looks like you helped discover another reason to Repeal!

That's no reason to repeal, its a reason regulation of abortion won't work. Any time frame you put into a replacement must account for the fact that the different species will have different periods of maternity, when do you make abortion illegal? When is the cutoff for that and how do you make that cutoff when not all members are the same species?

[Dobrobyt]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... mission=ok

That is the bill submitted. We need to put this in action, give it the approval it needs, WA Delegates.

[Old Hope]

Looks like you helped discover another reason to Repeal!

That's no reason to repeal, its a reason regulation of abortion won't work. Any time frame you put into a replacement must account for the fact that the different species will have different periods of maternity, when do you make abortion illegal? When is the cutoff for that and how do you make that cutoff when not all members are the same species?

Hmm no. Thats not true. The viability criterion would still work.

[Greifenburg]

Another point: not all nations believe or have same definitions of life, therefore this option will not majorly affect your side(would you actually LIKE to abort a baby?), but it would benefit the pro-life side.

"Yes, it would benefit the pro-life side in your nation, but not the pro-choice side. Or are you telling me that the pro-life part of your population feels compelled to get an abortion because they have the choice? I doubt it. As I said, again and again, the existing resolution doesn't make abortion compulsive and does not forbid promoting the pro-life choice. Essentially, it allows both sides to be heard and get their will in their specific situations. What your repeal and eventuel replacement seeks is to essentielly outlaw the means of the pro-choice side to get their choice, and force the pro-life view on them.

As for me personally, no, I would not like to abort a baby. Which is why the Greifenburg government heavily discourages abortions after the first trimester, offers counsel for woman who aren't sure what to do and researches on alternative means of abortion that don't result in a fetus death, the aforementioned transfer into an artificial womb to be more precise. Nevertheless, I also believe that both sides should have the choice in what they want, believe and get, and not just one side because I think they are closer to my point of view."

[Separatist Peoples]

"If a hitchhiker refuses to leave your car, their refusal is itself a trespass."

"even if you had agreed to carry them through, and now wish to dump them in, an area where they could not survive outside the car?!"

"Unless there was a contract to refrain from otherwise, or they are a common carrier, one can insist that an individual vacate. It is, after all, their property, and they are entitled to use force to defend it. Lethal if necessary. Again, what measures come in between of lethal force and the trespass are a question of jurisdiction, but where there is no option for an intermediary step, yes."

"I wasn't the person who started the body/car comparison..."

Urrna Silvertrees,
Apprentice Voice, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

"My comparison was not of a body to a car, but of the use of force, ambassador. A dangerous mischaractarization that I didn't expect from the Bears."

[Separatist Peoples]

ARI: That's irrelevant. Coffee is sickening to many, including myself. Does that mean we should outlaw coffee? No, we should allow people to drink the beverage of their choice. Can't you see why your argument is not persuasive?

Comparing coffee to preventing a life(murder)? That is one low bar.

"Some of us value coffee over lives, ambassador." Bell says, sipping delicately at a medium roast tropical blend fresh from the press.

OOC: Sorry for the double post

[Grays Harbor]

No. We supported the resolution you wish to repeal. We will not support a repeal. Ever. Period. End of statement.

[Vassalized Countries]

I apprpve in the name of Slavic Lechia.

[Calladan]

While it would be helpful to have the current draft of the repeal in the first post, I am pretty sure I would oppose it, because it seems to think this is a moral issue, and that that appealing to my moral values is going to win the day.

Which is clearly insane.

Anyway - there are three clear problems with this repeal.

1. There are more circumstances than rape, foetal anomaly and risk to the mother where an abortion could be warranted. Limiting it to just those turns a woman into a baby making machine - essentially an incubator to a microscopic piece of DNA. To me, to my government and to most of my people that is entirely unacceptable - no one would ever dare suggest doing that to a man, and yet they don't think twice about suggesting doing it to a woman. We use the basis that if a woman took every precaution, and every step to ensure she did not get pregnant, and still somehow ended up so, then she has the right to deal with her body as she sees fit. And keeping this resolution ensures that we can keep that law, and that no moralistic busy body tries to interfere with that because they think they know best.

2. This resolution enacts a LOT of protections for women who have chosen to have abortions. It is one of the hardest decisions they will make, and it does not need to be made harder by protesters and picketers waving their placards and signs about saying "GOD SAYS YOU WILL BURN IN HELL YOU BABY KILLING SLUT" while she is walking towards the abortion clinic. It also enacts the same protections for doctors, surgeons, nurses and other staff who take the time to provide this service to the women of Calladan who require it. We believe that these protections are important, and that the torch-wielding lynch mobs can fuck off.

3. It enshrines abortion as a medical procedure, with all the protections that entails, including the protections covering Patients Rights. Something else we do not think our people should have to give up.

So unless you can rewrite it to not repeal those three parts (which would be very hard indeed) I can see no way of supporting it.

Also, I would suggest putting a copy of the current draft in the first post, because scrolling through five or six pages trying to find the current one is really quite aggravating, and given how little I was inclined to support this gods-awful abomination of a repeal in the first place, it just made me even less so.

[Christian Democrats]

While it would be helpful to have the current draft of the repeal in the first post, I am pretty sure I would oppose it, because it seems to think this is a moral issue

Abortion is a moral issue.