[DRAFT] Convention on Reproductive Rights

[Bananaistan]

"I'd love to know what all these easy loopholes in GAR#286 are. Can someone outline them please?

"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?"

"I was involved in the drafting of GAR#286. This idea that there are hordes of women going around aborting healthy foetuses "as the brat is sliding down the birth canal" is as offensive now as it was then. This is a red herring argument and an international law specifically restricting late term abortions would be a solution in search of a non-existent problem. Although I do wonder where the voiceless rapist's "child" fits into this."

- Ted

[Marxist Germany]

"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]

"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.”

[Araraukar]

"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.”

"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."

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC:

“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?”

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.

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.
That's also why...

• 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

... 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.

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.

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.

[Kenmoria]

“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."

“It’s not my logic, it’s the logic of those who noncomply with 286. Those nations often feign compliance with Reproductive Freedoms by saying that they allow somebody to terminate a pregnancy, once it has reached the age at which it would normally end and only through the method of birth. Of course this is a silly argument, and one that the Kenmorian WA Mission does not practice in its interpretation of the legislation.”

[Araraukar]

“It’s not my logic, it’s the logic of those who noncomply with 286.”

"Fair enough, it just appeared that you were an apologist for, rather than opposing such nonsense."

[Bananaistan]

"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."

"Your compromise is cruel and illogical."

"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.”

"This is a mangling of the text of the law not backed up by any reasonable interpretation. Not a loophole just plain old non-compliance from people who won't get a hearing from me or my government until they actually comply with international law."

- Ted

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

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.)

In the event that a replacement for Reproductive Freedoms becomes needed, I would also like to see protections for abortion providers and patients guaranteed.

While I could potentially be persuaded to vote for a bill that restricted abortion once the foetus is viable, I would also like post-viability abortion rights protected in circumstances of: rape, foetal abnormality and if continuing with the pregnancy would cause pregnant individuals mental or physical hardship (as is often the case IRL, where there are post-viability restrictions).

And I really don't think abstinence education can count as fulfilling an individual's rights to sex education.

[Old Hope]

We generally support the abortions provisions. The tragedy of RF is the unconditional allowance of abortion. It has skewed the balance of rights too much. An early abortion is still permissible. If the pregnant person recklessly or willfully allows that time to go past they are responsible for their own displeasure of having to carry the unborn to term(save for medical issues). Those who never wanted the child can abort it unless they are recklessly ignoring the signs of the body(there are exceptions, but these people mostly notice the problem at birth anyways, not earlier). Those who decide to keep the child are bound by their own decision about their body because... well the unborn's right to life.

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

[Losthaven]

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.

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

Ah yes; that rarest of birds: the prostitute who seeks to have children with the customer!

[Wallenburg]

Abortionplexes for all.

Get rid of Section 5 and we can talk.

[Old Hope]

"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?"

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?

[Separatist Peoples]

"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?

"Yes. I've been nothing but clear on my absolutism when it comes to controlling medical treatments and one's reproduction. Besides, its more economically useful to permit abortions. Individuals who abort an unwanted offspring are more productive than those who keep unwanted offspring."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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

OOC: No.

[Marxist Germany]

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

OOC:Legalising abortion=/= mandatory abortion for everyone. This law isn't prohibiting procreation but rather giving women the choice to abort a foetus.

[Araraukar]

OOC:Legalising abortion=/= mandatory abortion for everyone. This law isn't prohibiting procreation but rather giving women the choice to abort a foetus.

OOC: That's exactly what RF already does, so why do you want to repeal it?

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

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.

It appears, however, that much theoretical potential support received from pro-choice nations depends on certain alterations to the current version.

My support certainly does. I'd be more inclined to support "Abortoramas for All" than the current proposal, despite any feelings about late-term abortion, without the previous discussed amendments.

"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?

I do.

Finances can prevent pregnant individuals getting the procedure when any payment is due, some foetal abnormalities can not be discovered until later; pregnancies can remain undetected until later (some pregnant people don't even realise they're pregnant until they give birth -- so not realising until later can hardly be called "reckless"; not everyone has classic -- or any -- signs); circumstances may change; a pregnant individual's health or mental status may change.

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.

[Kenmoria]

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.)

“In article III, section 2, ‘out side’ should be ‘outside’. Also, your definition of viability is extremely vague, as ‘a degree of medical certainty’ doesn’t explain what degree you’re looking for.”

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

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.)

(OOC: On advice of my lawyers, no comment...)

As others have said, in Article III, all references to "pregnant adult" should probably be changed to "pregnant mentally competent individual" -- as all nations define the age of majority differently. Also, to restrict abortion rights to adults prevents mentally competent minors obtaining abortions, which could prevent them obtaining life-preserving treatment.

Article V. Section 2, I'd strike the reference to "abstinence education", which seems outside of best practise. Article V. Section 3, "need not be pleasant" seems open to vague interpretations. I'd leave it as "Treatment for STDs must conform to best practice."

(OOC: I apologise if I'm completely off-base with the finer points of my feedback. I'm new at this.)

[Araraukar]

(OOC: I apologise if I'm completely off-base with the finer points of my feedback. I'm new at this.)

OOC: You're doing fine, don't worry.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Legalising abortion=/= mandatory abortion for everyone. This law isn't prohibiting procreation but rather giving women the choice to abort a foetus.

OOC: That's exactly what RF already does, so why do you want to repeal it?

OOC: Because Foetus Lives Matter

[Araraukar]

OOC: Because Foetus Lives Matter

OOC: Go get pregnant and then we can talk...

[Kenmoria]

“With clause 1 of article 3, how early? It is almost impossible to detect a human pregnancy before at least a few days after conception have elapsed, and some member nations may not have the facilities to carry out widespread ultrasounds.”

OOC: Because Foetus Lives Matter

OOC: Go get pregnant and then we can talk...

(OOC: Without any context, that would be one of the strangest things said in these forums. )