Advertisement
by Bananaistan » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:25 pm
by Marxist Germany » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:30 pm
Bananaistan wrote:"This idea that foetuses are people too but if they're medically banjaxed or their father was a rapist then it's perfectly acceptable to murder them is offensive. It is a logically and morally unsound position to take. Can anyone on the so-called pro-life side explain this to me? Why is it ok for the children of rapists to be murdered?"
- Ted
by Kenmoria » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:30 pm
Bananaistan wrote:"I'd love to know what all these easy loopholes in GAR#286 are. Can someone outline them please?"
- Ted
by Araraukar » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:35 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"I'd love to know what all these easy loopholes in GAR#286 are. Can someone outline them please?"
“Since natural birth terminates a pregnancy, by the strict definition, some members view allowing the birth process as sufficient compliance with the relevant clauses of 286.”
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Attempted Socialism » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:36 pm
If you ask RL me, I don't have any justification. IRL, I support freely accessible elective abortion up to 24-30th week (And note that basically all elective abortions happen before the 16th week; after, almost only medically necessary ones), since it leaves ample time for a woman to choose whether to remain pregnant and squares with my personal notions of gradient personhood. Attempted Socialism is slightly less willing to compromise on this and many other issues.Losthaven wrote:I've never heard a very convincing logical argument for why it should be permissible to kill the fetus through abortion once the fetus is viable. Most resort to some kind of argument from tribalism: my side likes this, yours doesn't; your side sucks so my side is going to pursue this as far as possible. That kind of blind loyalty to permitting abortion as an end in and of itself loses sight of the fact that abortion ought to be properly viewed as a means to protect rights, not as a right itself. Arguing that a woman's bodily sovereignty extends to killing a fetus that no longer needs access to her body to survive goes a step beyond reason, at least on the surface.Grays Harbor wrote:“Because not everybody on either the pro-choice or pro-life sides are dogmatic ideologues incapable of coming to an agreement which may not be 100% absolutely what they demand, and who may well be reasonable folks?”
... Attempted Socialisms IC response is so aggressive. Yeah, the RL me recognise that the mere mention of abstinence is not evil - the IC ambassador doesn't deal in nuances.
- reworking the language of the educational provision to provide for general education regarding the many ways to avoid STDs without using the apparently highly-charged term abstinence (please note, I didn't say anything about the distasteful "abstinence-only" education sometimes promoted by religious groups, and any doctor will tell you that even while there are reliable measures to take to avoid STDs the most reliable way is by not engaging in risky sexual behavior), or
I share that suspicion, yes. I have no reason to suspect that giving a finger will be perceived as an opportunity for a loud anti-choice minority to take the whole arm here. As you note yourself, this is for a good reason, in part direct statements by the OOC and IC statements by the advocates for regression themselves.But sadly it does seem that there is no real political appetite for correcting the overreaches of RF. The pro-life lobby apparently won't support because, despite helping them protect viable babies, this still going too far for them in recognizing the legitimate bodily sovereignty rights of women. That supports my suspicion that that retreating even from the absurdities of RF would only encourage pro-lifers to target legitimate grounds for abortion. The pro-choice lobby won't join me either because they share that same suspicion (which is probably a good reason) or they have reached a point where they've lost sight of the reasons why a sad practice like abortion must be solemnly permitted and are advocating, as pro-lifers often accuse, a pro-abortion view no longer tethered to legitimate bodily sovereignty principles.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Kenmoria » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:40 pm
Araraukar wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“Since natural birth terminates a pregnancy, by the strict definition, some members view allowing the birth process as sufficient compliance with the relevant clauses of 286.”
"And chemically induced "natural birth" is indeed one way to have an abortion, whether or not the fetus is viable. And anyone trying to say it's not natural birth if it needs to be induced, needs to read up on reproductive biology as live births often need to be induced for a variety of reasons as well. And what about Cesarean sections then? They're not natural births either, yet I don't think anyone would claim that a baby born through one would not be a baby, so clearly the whole concept of natural birth is a throwback to the medical dark ages when pregnancy and birth were considered to be mysteries beyond the understanding of mortal minds."
by Araraukar » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:43 pm
Kenmoria wrote:“It’s not my logic, it’s the logic of those who noncomply with 286.”
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bananaistan » Wed Aug 21, 2019 1:43 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"This idea that foetuses are people too but if they're medically banjaxed or their father was a rapist then it's perfectly acceptable to murder them is offensive. It is a logically and morally unsound position to take. Can anyone on the so-called pro-life side explain this to me? Why is it ok for the children of rapists to be murdered?"
- Ted
"Ambassador, I do not believe that rape is justifiable grounds for abortion, ideally, the only circumstance that abortion should be legal in is if the pregnant woman is going to die, alas, the majority of the World Assembly does not share such ideas and we will have to settle with a compromise."
Kenmoria wrote:Bananaistan wrote:"I'd love to know what all these easy loopholes in GAR#286 are. Can someone outline them please?"
- Ted
“Since natural birth terminates a pregnancy, by the strict definition, some members view allowing the birth process as sufficient compliance with the relevant clauses of 286.”
by The New Bluestocking Homeland » Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:12 am
Kenmoria wrote:Losthaven wrote:I would work on this further to address some of the comments like:
- that abortion should be made even more accessible than in the current draft, or , or
- reworking the language of the educational provision to provide for general education regarding the many ways to avoid STDs without using the apparently highly-charged term abstinence (please note, I didn't say anything about the distasteful "abstinence-only" education sometimes promoted by religious groups, and any doctor will tell you that even while there are reliable measures to take to avoid STDs the most reliable way is by not engaging in risky sexual behavior), or
- clarifying the many references to "adults" with the substantially less-reasonable conventions that somehow became permanent staples of this assembly from long before I ever joined, or
- adding additional circumstances that would justify aborting a viable fetus, like fatal deformity or rape (with apparently very late notice that the rape had resulted in pregnancy).
(OOC: I would like to add the protections afforded by RF to abortion providers and patients against harassment to be included in this. Perhaps also with exceptions for when the parent or parents would be unable to provide for the child; it’s cruel to force one into the social system in a lot of RL nations.)
by Old Hope » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:30 am
(Sec. 1) The World Assembly, and each of its member nations, will make no law prohibiting an adult individual from procreating, reproducing, or begetting offspring.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Losthaven » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:58 am
Old Hope wrote:OOC:Possible legality problems:(Sec. 1) The World Assembly, and each of its member nations, will make no law prohibiting an adult individual from procreating, reproducing, or begetting offspring.
Clean Prostitute Act:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=178
by Wallenburg » Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:03 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Abortionplexes for all.
by Old Hope » Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:24 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"Against, we will not accept such compromise that's massively in favour of the pro choice side. The most I will accept is 1st trimester on demand abortions and later dates for cases of rape, or life threatening conditions."
"Why would anybody on the pro-choice side make that compromise?"
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:55 pm
Old Hope wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why would anybody on the pro-choice side make that compromise?"
Indeed, they shouldn't accept it as compromise; however, if the unborn is past the point of viability, then this circumstance exists because of willful non- action, reckless non- action(failure to test for pregnancy) or illegal actions of others. If the reason isn't illegal actions of others, then the pregnant person had time enough to abort the unborn according to their right of bodily integrity, and they allowed the unborn to compromise that bodily integrity. And despite of that, you want to allow the pregnant person to abort even if neither medical emergencies nor illegal prevention of abortion are reasons for the late date of the abortion procedure?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:02 pm
Old Hope wrote:OOC:Possible legality problems:(Sec. 1) The World Assembly, and each of its member nations, will make no law prohibiting an adult individual from procreating, reproducing, or begetting offspring.
Clean Prostitute Act:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=178
by Marxist Germany » Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:11 pm
OOC:Possible legality problems:(Sec. 1) The World Assembly, and each of its member nations, will make no law prohibiting an adult individual from procreating, reproducing, or begetting offspring.
Clean Prostitute Act:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolutions/council=1/start=178
by Araraukar » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:33 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Legalising abortion=/= mandatory abortion for everyone. This law isn't prohibiting procreation but rather giving women the choice to abort a foetus.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The New Bluestocking Homeland » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:52 pm
Losthaven wrote:I am heartened to see some pro-choice nations finding the bravery to speak up to the rest of the lobby and recognize that it is hard to morally justify on-demand abortion past the point of viability. I'll let what has been said simmer for a bit and welcome additional comments before attempting a revision.
Old Hope wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why would anybody on the pro-choice side make that compromise?"
Indeed, they shouldn't accept it as compromise; however, if the unborn is past the point of viability, then this circumstance exists because of willful non- action, reckless non- action(failure to test for pregnancy) or illegal actions of others. If the reason isn't illegal actions of others, then the pregnant person had time enough to abort the unborn according to their right of bodily integrity, and they allowed the unborn to compromise that bodily integrity. And despite of that, you want to allow the pregnant person to abort even if neither medical emergencies nor illegal prevention of abortion are reasons for the late date of the abortion procedure?
by Kenmoria » Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:20 am
The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:Despite all these possibilities, the only things I absolutely need to see in order to even consider a proposal are allowing post-viability abortion for: risk to mother's life or health, rape, foetal abnormality, or if the pregnancy risks causing the mother mental or physical hardship or distress.
by The New Bluestocking Homeland » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:52 am
Kenmoria wrote:The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:Despite all these possibilities, the only things I absolutely need to see in order to even consider a proposal are allowing post-viability abortion for: risk to mother's life or health, rape, foetal abnormality, or if the pregnancy risks causing the mother mental or physical hardship or distress.
(OOC: Of course, since any human pregnancy carries an intrinsic risk to the mother due to the complexity of the situation, that should allow abortion in at least every pregnancies of Homo sapiens.)
by Araraukar » Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:18 am
The New Bluestocking Homeland wrote:(OOC: I apologise if I'm completely off-base with the finer points of my feedback. I'm new at this.)
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Marxist Germany » Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:03 pm
by Araraukar » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:53 am
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Because Foetus Lives Matter
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:13 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement