NATION

PASSWORD

(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

When should elective abortion be legal? (excluding rape, incest, fetal defects, etc.)

Never
90
31%
1st trimester
32
11%
1st & 2nd trimesters
28
10%
Always
136
48%
 
Total votes : 286

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:29 pm

Defense of Life Act

Council: General Assembly
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

----------------------------
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

DEFINING pregnancy as the condition of carrying a developing offspring within the body,

DEFINING viability as a developing offspring's ability to survive outside of the body of another living organism,

DEFINING limit of viability as the gestational age at which a developing offspring has a fifty percent chance of being viable,

DEFINING abortion as the intentional termination of a pregnancy resulting in the end of biological functions in a developing offspring,

DEFINING late-term abortion as abortion that occurs when a developing offspring is older than the limit of viability, is able to feel pain, has substantial mental activity, and has consciousness of existence,

RECOGNIZING that many World Assembly member states have legalized abortion and that many nations neglect to regulate abortion,

ENCOURAGING those pregnant carefully to consider decisions related to their reproductive health,

ACKNOWLEDGING that some abortions are not covered by existing legislation protecting patients' access to necessary and beneficial medical procedures,

BELIEVING there is a "compelling practical purpose" in protecting developing offspring late in pregnancies, and

BELIEVING there is a "compelling practical puropose" to regulate late-term abortions because of grave risks posed to the life and health of those undergoing such procedures,

HEREBY

DIRECTS member states to prohibit late-term abortion, except when such an abortion is performed because a pregnancy itself or continuance of a pregnancy poses an immediate and significant threat to a pregnant individual's life or health, there is a severe abnormality in a pregnancy, a developing offspring is believed to have severe defects, or a developing offspring provably was conceived because of illegal sexual activity,

REQUIRES surgical abortions to be performed by qualified physicians,

RECOGNIZES an individual's right to refuse to perform or participate in abortions because of personal beliefs,

PROTECTS such individuals, as mentioned in the preceding clause, from being penalized in any way for their beliefs,

ESTABLISHES the International Abortion Regulatory Board (IARB) to determine when a developing offspring must receive protection under the provisions of this resolution, to provide oversight and ensure that legal abortions are performed safely, and to collect and report to member states data about abortion,

AFFIRMS that the time during which a developing offspring must receive protection, as determined by IARB, must be uniform internationally for a given species or subspecies,

DISCOURAGES sex-selective abortion,

DISCOURAGES intact dilation and extraction, sometimes called partial birth abortion,

ALLOWS those pregnant to induce labor unless such induction is part of an attempted illegal abortion,

AFFIRMS that the definitions of this resolution are only for the purposes of this resolution,

AFFIRMS that this resolution creates only minimal restrictions and does not prevent member states from imposing additional or stronger restrictions on abortion so long as such restrictions comply with other World Assembly resolutions, and

AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent the World Assembly from further leglislating with regard to abortion.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:02 am, edited 121 times in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:32 pm

Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.

Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18120
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:33 pm

Abortion should be legal until the 72nd trimester. Gives parents an opportunity to make a truly informed decision by that time.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:35 pm

Flibbleites wrote:Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.

Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.

In an official capacity, which is better?

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:36 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.

Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.

In an official capacity, which is better?

Officially, Moral Decency, the government is banning a practice.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18120
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:37 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Flibbleites wrote:Considering that this is an attempt to ban a particular activity I think the "Moral Decency" category would be more appropriate.

Having said that, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites does not consider abortion to be an international issue and must therefore oppose this proposal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.

In an official capacity, which is better?


The bit highlighted in red is the correct choice.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:40 pm

Flibbleites wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Also, the right to life can be considered a human right, but I think either category is appropriate.

In an official capacity, which is better?

Officially, Moral Decency, the government is banning a practice.


Okay. I'll change it.

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

(DRAFT) Beginning of Life Act

Postby Darenjo » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:44 pm

Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18120
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:46 pm

Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.


Do you have some heretofore hidden prejudice against neanderthals? Is racism rearing its ugly head here in the WA now?
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Kryozerkia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 11096
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Kryozerkia » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:50 pm

How wonderful. It doesn't affect any species whose incubation period is less than that. Congratulations, it applies only to a selective group of member nations.

For example, if we did retain our membership in the WA, which we haven't as we prefer to exist as a renegade state, if this were to come into power, we would not be bound to it in any way shape or form. You see, we are weasels. I believe the hoo-muns call our variety "the least weasel" . *whisker twitch* As a result, we could terminate up to the time of delivery since incubation for our species is twenty-three and a half weeks. I shudder to think how this would affect species with intolerably long incubation periods. Further, how does this even begin to address the issue of sapient species who procreate in the manner that the Eireann Fae do? Or even any egg-laying sapient members of the WA.

It's utterly adorable that your nation only wishes to regulate hoo-mun procreation. In this way, all sapient, and sentient non-hoo-muns are unaffected by this twaddle.

~ Lady Ellismere the Grand Magistrate Weasel, First Minister of Kryozerkia
Problem to Report?
Game-side: Getting Help
Forum-side: Moderation
Technical issue/suggestion: Technical
A-well-a, don't you know about the bird
♦ Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word ♦
♦ A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word

Get the cheese to Sickbay

"Ok folks, show's over... Nothing to see here... Show's OH MY GOD! A horrible plane crash! Hey everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage! Come on, crowd around, crowd around, don't be shy, crowd around!" -- Chief Wiggum

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:50 pm

Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.


Homo sapiens is a species

Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies.

I also want this proposal to apply to those oddball nations that have "superhuman" populations ( :palm: - dumb nations).

User avatar
Darenjo
Minister
 
Posts: 2178
Founded: Mar 31, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjo » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:54 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.


Do you have some heretofore hidden prejudice against neanderthals? Is racism rearing its ugly head here in the WA now?


Haha. No, just, as of now, I've never come across a nation of neanderthals, and I was under the assumption (until reading Christian Democrats' last post), that he wanted this to apply to the RL modern human race.

By all means, if you can think of a nation of neanderthals, please provide me with the name :lol:
Dr. Park Si-Jung, Ambassador to the World Assembly for The People's Democracy of Darenjo

Proud Member of Eastern Islands of Dharma!

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18120
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:57 pm

Darenjo wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
Do you have some heretofore hidden prejudice against neanderthals? Is racism rearing its ugly head here in the WA now?


Haha. No, just, as of now, I've never come across a nation of neanderthals, and I was under the assumption (until reading Christian Democrats' last post), that he wanted this to apply to the RL modern human race.

By all means, if you can think of a nation of neanderthals, please provide me with the name :lol:


We had a nation in my region, unfortunately CTE now, that went by the name "Neanderland", and was populated solely by neanderthals.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18120
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:58 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.


Homo sapiens is a species

Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies.

I also want this proposal to apply to those oddball nations that have "superhuman" populations ( :palm: - dumb nations).


Insults and flames are not welcome here.
I am The Grumpy Old Man. A True Curmudgeon.

And, oh yeah, ... You kids get off my lawn. Seriously. Off. Now.

User avatar
Darenjon WA Embassy
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 23
Founded: Nov 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Darenjon WA Embassy » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:59 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Darenjo wrote:
Haha. No, just, as of now, I've never come across a nation of neanderthals, and I was under the assumption (until reading Christian Democrats' last post), that he wanted this to apply to the RL modern human race.

By all means, if you can think of a nation of neanderthals, please provide me with the name :lol:


We had a nation in my region, unfortunately CTE now, that went by the name "Neanderland", and was populated solely by neanderthals.


Very interesting.
Former Official Embassy to the World Assembly of The People's Democracy of Darenjo

User avatar
Cinistra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 863
Founded: Oct 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Cinistra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:09 pm

Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.

The Homo sapiens neanderthalensis became extinct during the last ice age. As there is only one living species of the genus Homo at present, the term human being should suffice.
Last edited by Cinistra on Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Send forth all legions! Do not stop the attack until the city is taken! Slay them all!"
>Can I invade other people's regions?

Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.
>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?

You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:10 pm

Cinistra wrote:
Darenjo wrote:Well <ignoring the NatSov peoples' arguments>, Darenjo would support this, but we also feel that Moral Decency would be a better category - human rights is about giving people more rights, while this takes one away.


Also, taxonomically, the RL human race is know as Homo sapiens sapiens - if you don't have the second "sapiens" in there then you include Neanderthals - their DNA is 99.9% similar and they're basically subspecies of the same overall species.

The Homo sapiens neanderthalensis became extinct during the last ice age. As there is only one living species of the genus at present Homo, the term human being should suffice.

Not on NS.

User avatar
Warzone Codger
Diplomat
 
Posts: 834
Founded: Oct 30, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Warzone Codger » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:11 pm

Tell that to the former ambassador (and actual passed resolution author!) of G l o g :P
Warwick Z Codger the Warzone Codger. Space Commandant of Warzone Airspace.
GA #121: Medical Facilities Protection | SC #183: Commend Haiku | Commended by SC #87: Commend Warzone Codger

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:12 pm

ASIDE: I enjoy how all of you mods have Christmas-themed flags (i.e., santa hats).

User avatar
Cinistra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 863
Founded: Oct 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Cinistra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:15 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Cinistra wrote:The Homo sapiens neanderthalensis became extinct during the last ice age. As there is only one living species of the genus at present Homo, the term human being should suffice.

Not on NS.

"Not on NS"??? :rofl:
Are you serious? If you really want this resolution to get off the ground, you should end such nonsense.
"Send forth all legions! Do not stop the attack until the city is taken! Slay them all!"
>Can I invade other people's regions?

Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.
>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?

You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:17 pm

Cinistra wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Not on NS.

"Not on NS"??? :rofl:
Are you serious? If you really want this resolution to get off the ground, you should end such nonsense.

I ran into this non-human junk on my last proposal, and the mods acknowledged that there are "non-human" nations ( :palm: ) on the game.

User avatar
Cinistra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 863
Founded: Oct 13, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Cinistra » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:22 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Cinistra wrote:"Not on NS"??? :rofl:
Are you serious? If you really want this resolution to get off the ground, you should end such nonsense.

I ran into this non-human junk on my last proposal, and the mods acknowledged that there are "non-human" nations ( :palm: ) on the game.

Well, if so...can't you just restrict the resolution to fit humans? How many such non-human nations could it possibly be?
"Send forth all legions! Do not stop the attack until the city is taken! Slay them all!"
>Can I invade other people's regions?

Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.
>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?

You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:24 pm

Cinistra wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I ran into this non-human junk on my last proposal, and the mods acknowledged that there are "non-human" nations ( :palm: ) on the game.

Well, if so...can't you just restrict the resolution to fit humans? How many such non-human nations could it possibly be?

This proposal is restricted to humans (i.e., Homo sapiens; cf., last provision).

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:57 pm

Ms. Harper does not consider the outright restriction of abortion to be an international issue. Also,
Christian Democrats wrote:This proposal is restricted to humans (i.e., Homo sapiens; cf., last provision).

That is a bit like "non-human species can ignore this resolution", which might not satisfy WA proposal rules.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:12 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Ms. Harper does not consider the outright restriction of abortion to be an international issue. Also,
Christian Democrats wrote:This proposal is restricted to humans (i.e., Homo sapiens; cf., last provision).

That is a bit like "non-human species can ignore this resolution", which might not satisfy WA proposal rules.

That's one of my worries, but a lot of resolutions are like that.

E.g., "Female Genital Mutilation" couldn't apply to a nation of hermaphrodites. Or could it?
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads