NationStates

If I may ask... what is exactly being proposed as a measure of combating sex-selective abortion? It's not like you can verify the reasons why woman may want an abortion. If abortion on demand is legal, then any reason for wanting an abortion is legal.

Furbystan wrote:If I may ask... what is exactly being proposed as a measure of combating sex-selective abortion? It's not like you can verify the reasons why woman may want an abortion. If abortion on demand is legal, then any reason for wanting an abortion is legal.

"The author has no intention of permitting abortion, ambassador."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Furbystan wrote:If I may ask... what is exactly being proposed as a measure of combating sex-selective abortion? It's not like you can verify the reasons why woman may want an abortion. If abortion on demand is legal, then any reason for wanting an abortion is legal.

"The author has no intention of permitting abortion, ambassador."

Zladny: "It is apparent to us that this is true, hence the principal reason we oppose. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme."

Podrovny wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"The author has no intention of permitting abortion, ambassador."

Zladny: "It is apparent to us that this is true, hence the principal reason we oppose. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme."

"Bodily sovereignty is great," Zahl said angrily, "Or would be if these irresponsible and heartless women were only affecting their bodies in having an abortion. They're not though: in all countries abortion is legal, their is one person who is not consulted. The victim of the murder that these women are committing."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Podrovny wrote:Zladny: "It is apparent to us that this is true, hence the principal reason we oppose. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme."

"Bodily sovereignty is great," Zahl said angrily, "Or would be if these irresponsible and heartless women were only affecting their bodies in having an abortion. They're not though: in all countries abortion is legal, their is one person who is not consulted. The victim of the murder that these women are committing."

"A fetus cannot be a person under extant WA law. It isn't murder in those nations."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Podrovny wrote:Zladny: "It is apparent to us that this is true, hence the principal reason we oppose. Bodily sovereignty reigns supreme."

"Bodily sovereignty is great," Zahl said angrily, "Or would be if these irresponsible and heartless women were only affecting their bodies in having an abortion. They're not though: in all countries abortion is legal, their is one person who is not consulted. The victim of the murder that these women are committing."

"Mr Ambassador, considering the fact that you call a fetus a person, allow me to ask you the following. Imagine being in a medical clinic that is on fire. You have 2 options: saving the 5 year old crying kid in the corner, or a storage with 100 fetuses of each around 10 weeks old. Which of the two do you save?

Mr Ambassador, when removing a baby during abortion, the mother simply stops providing the baby with the substances it needs. If that is considered murder, than would a person, who normally gives to a certain begger, stops with it, after which the begger dies also be considered a murderer, right? In both cases someone stopped supplying someone who depends on them."

New Min wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"Bodily sovereignty is great," Zahl said angrily, "Or would be if these irresponsible and heartless women were only affecting their bodies in having an abortion. They're not though: in all countries abortion is legal, their is one person who is not consulted. The victim of the murder that these women are committing."

"Mr Ambassador, considering the fact that you call a fetus a person, allow me to ask you the following. Imagine being in a medical clinic that is on fire. You have 2 options: saving the 5 year old crying kid in the corner, or a storage with 100 fetuses of each around 10 weeks old. Which of the two do you save?

Mr Ambassador, when removing a baby during abortion, the mother simply stops providing the baby with the substances it needs. If that is considered murder, than would a person, who normally gives to a certain begger, stops with it, after which the begger dies also be considered a murderer, right? In both cases someone stopped supplying someone who depends on them."

"Sir, in my country your second example would simply not happen," Zahl smiled triumphantly. "Our welfare state is such that beggers are rare, and when they do exist they are certainly not left to die by the Havenic state or public. In your first example, I would of course save the highest number of people; if the foetuses would grow in the tank and it could be transported in a state ensuring their viability, I would of course save the 100 over the 1."

Prydania wrote:

Auze wrote:For, time to put an end to this.

It’s hilarious, because that’s what most of the WA says about attempts to repeal Reproductive Freedoms.

Hey, what's wrong with wanting this law to be aborted?

Auze wrote:

Prydania wrote:It’s hilarious, because that’s what most of the WA says about attempts to repeal Reproductive Freedoms.

Hey, what's wrong with wanting this law to be aborted?

The New Minian ambassador laughs out loud

I want to make something clear, because I feel all too often everyone in this debate runs the risk of being pidegon-holed.

I’m pro-choice. That being said? I hate abortion. Of course I hate it. Regardless of what you (a general “you”) consider human life? At the very least abortion snuffs out the potential for human life and that is tragic.

Like I said though, I’m pro-choice. For two reasons.
The first is practical. Making something illegal does not put an end to the activity. Abortion will happen regardless of my personal feelings on the matter. If it’s going to happen? I want it to happen in a clean, professional, and certified environment, done by trained doctors and nurses. It’s going to happen so it should be safe.

The second reason is a matter of idealism. I tend to skew towards the notion of personal liberty. And while I don’t like abortion for various ethical and moral reasons? I don’t believe I have any right to impose my own moral values on people who do not share them. My own reasons and just that- my own. My convictions, as strong as they are, don’t give me the right to dictate the lives of other people.

I say that to hopefully convince the Assembly of my sincerity when I say I am switching positions on this repeal.
I have been harsh towards the pro-life crowd and their non-stop attempts to repeal Reproductive Freedoms. Very harsh at times.

That said? I’ve spoken to UM on the intended replacement. I’ve informerd him of my concerns and he appears genuine in considering them and amending the proposal to reflect them.
I didn’t suggest much, but what I did (and what UM seemed open to including) was enough to make me comfortable in the intended replacement to support it as a compromise in this ongoing debate.

So I support this repeal if it means a compromise built on mutal respect and equal understanding between everyone is possible. And I believe such compromise is merely waiting in the wings.

Reminder: this is not an abortion thread. Arguments over the merits or problems with abortion do not belong here.

This is not a Resolution SIlverfalls can support. The people of Silverfalls believe everyone should have the choice to do what they want with their own body.

@ Zone 71

• The poll in RtL is entirely relevant. The question was whether pro-lifers comply with GA 286, giving it an actual effect; it makes sense that we should ask pro-lifers. If a moderate resolution that still pushes their laws towards the pro-choice side would be more complied with. At present, for instance, UM does not comply with all aspects of our proposed replacement. We would choose to be should this proposal pass.
• The argument isn't a "NatSov" argument. It's the argument that the resolution is ineffective in realistically achieving its goals because of widespread non-compliance within the pro-life community. If you all consider abortion to be a human right, GA 286 does a bad job at enforcing it because the resolution is far too expansive to ensure compliance.
• Member nations have interpreted termination of pregnancy to apply only to birth before, and will do so again.
• Parental consent laws aren't ideal, particularly because when teens don't include parents in their decision, they have good reason to do so. Per the ACLU:

  The minority of teens who do not voluntarily consult a parent generally have good reasons not to. Many come from families where such an announcement would only exacerbate an already volatile or dysfunctional family situation. One study showed that 22% of teens who did not tell a parent about their abortion decision feared that, if they told their parents, they would be kicked out of the house. More than 8% feared that they would be physically abused because their parents had beaten them before. Of those who did not tell a parent, 12% did not live with either parent and 14% had parents who abused drugs or alcohol. (Henshaw & Kost.)
  
  Experience shows that teens' fears are well-founded. For example, one of the very first teens who was forced to notify a parent under Colorado's parental notice law was kicked out of her home when her mother learned of the pregnancy. Her mother took the money the teen had saved for the abortion and threatened to disown her if she went through with the procedure. When the teen called the clinic to reschedule her appointment, she was living in a friend's car. Far from strengthening her family and helping her make an informed decision, the law ruined her relationship with her mother and left her homeless with an unwanted pregnancy. Her experience is far from unique.

United Massachusetts wrote:@ Zone 71

• The poll in RtL is entirely relevant. The question was whether pro-lifers comply with GA 286, giving it an actual effect; it makes sense that we should ask pro-lifers. If a moderate resolution that still pushes their laws towards the pro-choice side would be more complied with. At present, for instance, UM does not comply with all aspects of our proposed replacement. We would choose to be should this proposal pass.
• The argument isn't a "NatSov" argument. It's the argument that the resolution is ineffective in realistically achieving its goals because of widespread non-compliance within the pro-life community. If you all consider abortion to be a human right, GA 286 does a bad job at enforcing it because the resolution is far too expansive to ensure compliance.

"Mr Ambassador, if people don't abide to the speed limit, would you abolish it, or enforce it? The United Socialist States Of New Min is against! If people join, they should abide. Simple as that."

New Min wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:@ Zone 71

• The poll in RtL is entirely relevant. The question was whether pro-lifers comply with GA 286, giving it an actual effect; it makes sense that we should ask pro-lifers. If a moderate resolution that still pushes their laws towards the pro-choice side would be more complied with. At present, for instance, UM does not comply with all aspects of our proposed replacement. We would choose to be should this proposal pass.
• The argument isn't a "NatSov" argument. It's the argument that the resolution is ineffective in realistically achieving its goals because of widespread non-compliance within the pro-life community. If you all consider abortion to be a human right, GA 286 does a bad job at enforcing it because the resolution is far too expansive to ensure compliance.

"Mr Ambassador, if people don't abide to the speed limit, would you abolish it, or enforce it? The United Socialist States Of New Min is against! If people join, they should abide. Simple as that."

"You make a point we have faced ourself in the Haven," Zahl told him happily. "The speed limit was routinely ignored, so we held a referencum and abolished it. If it's what the people want, they get it."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

New Min wrote:"Mr Ambassador, if people don't abide to the speed limit, would you abolish it, or enforce it? The United Socialist States Of New Min is against! If people join, they should abide. Simple as that."

"You make a point we have faced ourself in the Haven," Zahl told him happily. "The speed limit was routinely ignored, so we held a referencum and abolished it. If it's what the people want, they get it."

"Ahem - who says the people want this?"

"Categorically opposed. The law is fine, and we stand against any effort to repeal it."

New Min wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"You make a point we have faced ourself in the Haven," Zahl told him happily. "The speed limit was routinely ignored, so we held a referencum and abolished it. If it's what the people want, they get it."

"Ahem - who says the people want this?"

"The people of different nations want abortion in there nation, they can keep abortion. They don't need to force their view on other nation's peoples. That is what I understand of it."

Auze wrote:

New Min wrote:"Ahem - who says the people want this?"

"The people of different nations want abortion in there nation, they can keep abortion. They don't need to force their view on other nation's peoples. That is what I understand of it."

“I fully agree. Personally, I am very much for on-demand abortion for all people seeking it, as is the situation in Kenmoria. However, I recognise that it can be a contentious topic and one on which there are numerous moral stances, so each nation should be free to choose. Though national sovereignty is generally a poor reason to repeal resolutions, this is one of the few good examples of such.”

“On the subject of the draft, in the ‘Concerned’ clause, the words ‘often times’ are redundant and could be removed.’

Kenmoria wrote:...However, I recognise that it can be a contentious topic and one on which there are numerous moral stances, so each nation should be free to choose. Though national sovereignty is generally a poor reason to repeal resolutions, this is one of the few good examples of such.”

"Ambassador, you're neglecting an important factor, although you're hardly alone in doing so. Nations can't exercise choice; nations can only exercise power. Only people can exercise choice, and depriving people of choice because of some asserted 'national right' is the height of despotism, and the perfect realization of the fascist myth of the totality of the state. I urge your government to rethink its arguments, lest your people suddenly find themselves under the thumb of a tyranny masquerading as some horrific zombie of 'freedom.'"

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:...However, I recognise that it can be a contentious topic and one on which there are numerous moral stances, so each nation should be free to choose. Though national sovereignty is generally a poor reason to repeal resolutions, this is one of the few good examples of such.”

"Ambassador, you're neglecting an important factor, although you're hardly alone in doing so. Nations can't exercise choice; nations can only exercise power. Only people can exercise choice, and depriving people of choice because of some asserted 'national right' is the height of despotism, and the perfect realization of the fascist myth of the totality of the state. I urge your government to rethink its arguments, lest your people suddenly find themselves under the thumb of a tyranny masquerading as some horrific zombie of 'freedom.'"

"The Haven chooses to grant not only its people but its provinces choice," Zahl's voice was deep and thunderous in the quiet that followed the ambassador's comment. "Freedom to live, freedom to grow up without an abusive mother having life or death power over you before you were even born. If you want to get an abortion, you can go to one of the few places that get it; however personally, it is my belief that this is right...something so terrible as that should be hard to procure."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
"Ambassador, you're neglecting an important factor, although you're hardly alone in doing so. Nations can't exercise choice; nations can only exercise power. Only people can exercise choice, and depriving people of choice because of some asserted 'national right' is the height of despotism, and the perfect realization of the fascist myth of the totality of the state. I urge your government to rethink its arguments, lest your people suddenly find themselves under the thumb of a tyranny masquerading as some horrific zombie of 'freedom.'"

"The Haven chooses to grant not only its people but its provinces choice," Zahl's voice was deep and thunderous in the quiet that followed the ambassador's comment. "Freedom to live, freedom to grow up without an abusive mother having life or death power over you before you were even born. If you want to get an abortion, you can go to one of the few places that get it; however personally, it is my belief that this is right...something so terrible as that should be hard to procure."

"Loud, immature tirades aside," Ambassador Rooke chuckled after the ambassador of Greater Vakolicci Haven's speech, "Zone 71 still remains opposed to this repeal. While I do not wish to argue the topic of abortions like a blabbering fool, it is the belief of this nation that women should have access to this vital medical procedure, especially in circumstances where the child may be born with damaging afflictions or birth defects, or the mother's health is at severe risk. To outlaw abortion would mean women having to resort to more dangerous and unsanitary measures, or, should the woman decide to have the baby, the child may have to cope in unsafe living conditions. And while Zone 71 has striven to prevent unwanted pregnancy through proper education on sex and pregnancy and the availability of protection, as with all nations, there will inevitably be people neglecting birth control or proper protection, or those without access to this sort of education, and because of this, abortions in Zone 71 will be open to all pregnant women."

Zone 71 wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"The Haven chooses to grant not only its people but its provinces choice," Zahl's voice was deep and thunderous in the quiet that followed the ambassador's comment. "Freedom to live, freedom to grow up without an abusive mother having life or death power over you before you were even born. If you want to get an abortion, you can go to one of the few places that get it; however personally, it is my belief that this is right...something so terrible as that should be hard to procure."

"Loud, immature tirades aside," Ambassador Rooke chuckled after the ambassador of Greater Vakolicci Haven's speech, "Zone 71 still remains opposed to this repeal. While I do not wish to argue the topic of abortions like a blabbering fool, it is the belief of this nation that women should have access to this vital medical procedure, especially in circumstances where the child may be born with damaging afflictions or birth defects, or the mother's health is at severe risk. To outlaw abortion would mean women having to resort to more dangerous and unsanitary measures, or, should the woman decide to have the baby, the child may have to cope in unsafe living conditions. And while Zone 71 has striven to prevent unwanted pregnancy through proper education on sex and pregnancy and the availability of protection, as with all nations, there will inevitably be people neglecting birth control or proper protection, or those without access to this sort of education, and because of this, abortions in Zone 71 will be open to all pregnant women."

"I have two children with serious disabilities," the ambassador informed him calmly, "So you'd have killed them then?"

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Zone 71 wrote:"Loud, immature tirades aside," Ambassador Rooke chuckled after the ambassador of Greater Vakolicci Haven's speech, "Zone 71 still remains opposed to this repeal. While I do not wish to argue the topic of abortions like a blabbering fool, it is the belief of this nation that women should have access to this vital medical procedure, especially in circumstances where the child may be born with damaging afflictions or birth defects, or the mother's health is at severe risk. To outlaw abortion would mean women having to resort to more dangerous and unsanitary measures, or, should the woman decide to have the baby, the child may have to cope in unsafe living conditions. And while Zone 71 has striven to prevent unwanted pregnancy through proper education on sex and pregnancy and the availability of protection, as with all nations, there will inevitably be people neglecting birth control or proper protection, or those without access to this sort of education, and because of this, abortions in Zone 71 will be open to all pregnant women."

"I have two children with serious disabilities," the ambassador informed him calmly, "So you'd have killed them then?"

Bell nods. "In the C.D.S.P., we offer free screening for fetal defects and tax incentives for self-selecting against allowing such defective fetuses to develop. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that, and our healthcare and education expenditure improvements demonstrate as much."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"I have two children with serious disabilities," the ambassador informed him calmly, "So you'd have killed them then?"

Bell nods. "In the C.D.S.P., we offer free screening for fetal defects and tax incentives for self-selecting against allowing such defective fetuses to develop. Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and all that, and our healthcare and education expenditure improvements demonstrate as much."

"Disgusting," Zahl shook his head. "Your government is responsible for a genocide, it seems. Destroying it would be the least worst option, it seems."