(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

[Christian Democrats]

Just so we can get a handle on it... just how many times do you plan on submitting this? It has not reached queue twice now. resubmitting something which has not made queue several times does not show dogged perserverance, it shows a stubborn refusal to accept reality.

Only once has it not reached quorum.

[Mousebumples]

Just so we can get a handle on it... just how many times do you plan on submitting this? It has not reached queue twice now. resubmitting something which has not made queue several times does not show dogged perserverance, it shows a stubborn refusal to accept reality.

Only once has it not reached quorum.

So you plan on resubmitting this weekly for the end of time?

Good luck on that. Given the past precedent for your own submissions, I don't think that attaining quorum is likely.

[Grays Harbor]

Just so we can get a handle on it... just how many times do you plan on submitting this? It has not reached queue twice now. resubmitting something which has not made queue several times does not show dogged perserverance, it shows a stubborn refusal to accept reality.

Only once has it not reached quorum.

It has failed twice now.

[Philimbesi]

Three time if you count the amount of times it had to be removed from queue because the version submitted was patently illegal.

[Christian Democrats]

Only once has it not reached quorum.

So you plan on resubmitting this weekly for the end of time?

If "On Abortion" passes, this proposal is done.

[Christian Democrats]

Wow! I guess I opened a can of worms (which I do not regret). There currently are four abortion proposals, including mine, in the General Assembly.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Three time if you count the amount of times it had to be removed from queue because the version submitted was patently illegal.

I probably shouldn't be saying this, but considering one of those times was because he took bad advice from a Mod (who made an honest mistake) and several very loud individuals who wouldn't leave him alone, I don't think that was entirely his fault.

Thank you for your suggestions. I made most of the modifications that you recommended.

Ok, I know you've already submitted this, but I'm going to do a review between what you did and what I suggested anyway for kicks if nothing else.

1. Where I suggested quotation marks, you used italics. It accomplishes the same thing, and I actually like the appearance of your action better than a bunch of quotation marks all over the place. Well done.

2. You took my first suggestion of definition shortening, but not the second. If you have the time and inclination, I'd like to know your reasoning behind this just to satisfy my curiosity. For clarification, the definition in question is the definition of "late-term abortion", and the suggestion was to remove everything after "older than the limit of viability".

3. You didn't take my suggestion regarding line seven, but I can understand why.

4. You entirely accepted my shortening of the ACKNOWLEDGING line, which I especially think looks better now that I see it in the proposal. The original was a tad too wordy.

5. Since I wasn't certain about the lines referencing CoCR, I have no idea if maintaining them was good or not. I suppose we shall see.

6. I very much appreciate your specifying qualified physicians.

7. The line where I made a complaint about grammar is much better now that it's corrected. The line following it also makes more sense now that it's consistent.

8. That line, however, still might constitute a duplication. I'm considering asking for a ruling from the Secretariat in that regard. If I decide to go ahead with that request, I'll let you know.

9. I still object to the creation and purpose of IARB, and especially to the idea that the guidelines they create have to be uniform, even for a species or subspecies. I reiterate that no two pregnancies, even of the same species or subspecies, are alike. If I could have the time to discuss with you why you included it and hear your counter-arguments to my objections, I would appreciate it.

10. Rather than clarifying your "DISALLOWS" line, you removed it entirely. I suppose I can see the reasoning behind that.


Looking over the current proposal, I can see two possible legality problems. First, the following line:

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

...may be a duplication of one or more of the following three Charter Resolutions:

Freedom of Expression

Be it therefore resolved that the World Assembly:

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

Requires member states to respect and uphold this right in all available media to all individuals under their jurisdiction;

Freedom of Assembly

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

Charter of Civil Rights (relevant parts have been enlarged and emboldened for emphasis and ease of reference)

[Article 1]

c )All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

[Article 2]

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

Second, the strength may be too weak. I think this may actually be a Strong, but I'm not sure.

[Christian Democrats]

Intellect and the Arts,

I kept the late-term abortion definition the same because viability and brain activity occur at different points in the pregnancy. As you pointed out, brain activity begins around week 30, but viability occurs around week 24. I added the brain activity provision on the request of a delegate who wanted that to be used as the limit. To get to the point, the reason that both are there is because development in different NS species occurs at different rates, so, basically, this proposal only takes affect when all conditions have been met.

The uniform limit provision is in place because, without it, 'equality under the law' may be violated.

The protection clause is present because, while existing legislation protects freedom of conscience, a doctor may still be sued, etc. under existing legislation for medical malpractice if (s)he refuse to perform an abortion. I.e., you can have whatever beliefs you want, but inaction is a different thing. (^ Of course, this is only one interpretation of existing legislation.)

I did not make this proposal 'strong' because it does not affect a broad area of policy. It affects only one medical procedure, i.e., abortion. Also, the limit is very late in the pregnancy; in humans, the limit is around 30 weeks.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Intellect and the Arts,

I kept the late-term abortion definition the same because viability and brain activity occur at different points in the pregnancy. As you pointed out, brain activity begins around week 30, but viability occurs around week 24. I added the brain activity provision on the request of a delegate who wanted that to be used as the limit. To get to the point, the reason that both are there is because development in different NS species occurs at different rates, so, basically, this proposal only takes affect when all conditions have been met.

The uniform limit provision is in place because, without it, 'equality under the law' may be violated.

The protection clause is present because, while existing legislation protects freedom of conscience, a doctor may still be sued, etc. under existing legislation for medical malpractice if (s)he refuse to perform an abortion. I.e., you can have whatever beliefs you want, but inaction is a different thing. (^ Of course, this is only one interpretation of existing legislation.)

I did not make this proposal 'strong' because it does not affect a broad area of policy. It affects only one medical procedure, i.e., abortion. Also, the limit is very late in the pregnancy; in humans, the limit is around 30 weeks.

On the strength: Only one area of policy, yes, but it could be argued to "use very strong language and possibly detailed clauses to affect a policy area in a dramatic way". It could be argued either way, however, so I'll drop that one.

I now understand your reasoning behind the late-term abortion definition. Thank you for explaining.

I don't think that "equality under the law" is going to be violated if pregnancies are judged on a case-by-case basis. Determining individual viability of a developing prenate falls under "compelling practical purpose".

I didn't realize you were putting that line in there to protect the doctors. In any event, CoCR states that the doctor could only be sued if their refusal directly put someone's health in jeopardy, like if the parent/prenate was on death's door right then and they were literally the only doctor available.

[Christian Democrats]

Wow! There now are six abortion proposals in the General Assembly:

• Right to an Emergency Abortion - Nulono
• On Abortion - Charlotte Ryberg
• Defense of Life Act - Christian Democrats (me)
• Late-term Abortion - Keronians
• Ending the Abortion Discussion - Eireann Fae
• Ending The Abortion Debate - Ryouese Black Islands

I definitely did start something.

[Nulono]

Wow! There now are six abortion proposals in the General Assembly.

100% of them are abortion proposals.

There are so many discussions on abortion that the adds on the WA forum main page are all pregnancy-related.

[Christian Democrats]

All of the regional delegates should visit the GA considering the importance of this debate.

[Christian Democrats]

At the end of this debate, in my opinion, the moderators should combine all of the abortion-themed General Assembly threads from the last few weeks into one superthread and archive it. What do all of you think?

Also, someone needs to write an article on nswiki.net about this debate.

[Grays Harbor]

we think we are tired of hearing about it

[Intellect and the Arts]

At the end of this debate, in my opinion, the moderators should combine all of the abortion-themed General Assembly threads from the last few weeks into one superthread and archive it. What do all of you think?

I think I would like a response to my post, please.

[Nulono]

I think that would get confusing.

[Christian Democrats]

At the end of this debate, in my opinion, the moderators should combine all of the abortion-themed General Assembly threads from the last few weeks into one superthread and archive it. What do all of you think?

I think I would like a response to my post, please.

Which post?

You didn't ask me any questions in your last post.

[Intellect and the Arts]

I think I would like a response to my post, please.

Which post?

You didn't ask me any questions in your last post.

My apologies. I'm accustomed to people who counter my arguments against them and don't require that I ask a question first; hence my asking for a response instead of an answer. What I'd like is a response to my arguments here:

I don't think that "equality under the law" is going to be violated if pregnancies are judged on a case-by-case basis. Determining individual viability of a developing prenate falls under "compelling practical purpose".

I didn't realize you were putting that line in there to protect the doctors. In any event, CoCR states that the doctor could only be sued if their refusal directly put someone's health in jeopardy, like if the parent/prenate was on death's door right then and they were literally the only doctor available.

[Flibbleites]

At the end of this debate, in my opinion, the moderators should combine all of the abortion-themed General Assembly threads from the last few weeks into one superthread and archive it. What do all of you think?

No.

[Christian Democrats]

Which post?

You didn't ask me any questions in your last post.

My apologies. I'm accustomed to people who counter my arguments against them and don't require that I ask a question first; hence my asking for a response instead of an answer. What I'd like is a response to my arguments here:

I don't think that "equality under the law" is going to be violated if pregnancies are judged on a case-by-case basis. Determining individual viability of a developing prenate falls under "compelling practical purpose".

I didn't realize you were putting that line in there to protect the doctors. In any event, CoCR states that the doctor could only be sued if their refusal directly put someone's health in jeopardy, like if the parent/prenate was on death's door right then and they were literally the only doctor available.

Equality under the law usually means that similar people in similar circumstances are treated the same way. So, in my opinion, if one woman is 25 weeks pregnant and is allowed to have an abortion and another woman is 25 weeks pregnant and isn't allowed to have an abortion, then that is unfair. Both women are 25 weeks pregnant, and the same standard should apply to each woman. Also, it is nearly impossible to determine the development of any given fetus; what we know is pretty much based on averages, and such information usually is gathered from abortions and preterm births.

Concerning doctors, that's the point. Even if someone's health is in jeopardy, I do not believe a doctor should be compelled to perform an abortion against his/her beliefs. When it comes to life and death, that is a more complex matter. Earlier in this debate, I have stated that I want to confine the scope of this proposal to abortion limitations. I highly doubt that any doctor would let a patient die, and there are very few circumstances under which such an abortion is needed, e.g., ectopic pregnancy removal.

[Christian Democrats]

Seven Abortion Proposals:

• Right to an Emergency Abortion - Nulono
• On Abortion - Charlotte Ryberg
• Defense of Life Act - Christian Democrats (me)
• Late-term Abortion - Keronians
• Ending the Abortion Discussion - Eireann Fae
• Ending The Abortion Debate - Ryouese Black Islands
• Abortion Rights Convention - An Empty Mop Bucket

[Teshuva]

Wow! There now are six abortion proposals in the General Assembly.

100% of them are abortion proposals.

There are so many discussions on abortion that the adds on the WA forum main page are all pregnancy-related.

OOC:If this was Facebook, we would like to "like" this coment.

[Intellect and the Arts]

-snip!-

Ok then. On that note, I'm fairly certain I'll have nothing more to say until the ultimate fate of this proposal is decided.

[Christian Democrats]

100% of them are abortion proposals.

There are so many discussions on abortion that the adds on the WA forum main page are all pregnancy-related.

OOC:If this was Facebook, we would like to "like" this coment.

I pretty much already can predict the outcome of this debate . . .

Multiple proposals reach quorum; the first proposal that reaches quorum passes; this invalidates each of the other six proposals; everyone leaves angry, including many of those who voted for the original proposal to reach quorum because they didn't know that something better was coming

-OR-

Every proposal fails because member states are waiting to vote on another proposal that will come up later even though most of these proposals probably have majority support

If the other six nations want to withdraw their proposals, then I'll withdraw this proposal . . . in moderation, all seven of us can make a joint request to have our proposals withdrawn . . . REASON: Maybe it would be best to construct a compromise proposal that combines the existing proposals . . . I know that there shouldn't be any more than two authors for a proposal, but maybe moderation would make an exception and allow an abortion proposal with seven authors.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

OOC:If this was Facebook, we would like to "like" this coment.

I pretty much already can predict the outcome of this debate . . .

Multiple proposals reach quorum; the first proposal that reaches quorum passes; this invalidates each of the other six proposals; everyone leaves angry, including many of those who voted for the original proposal to reach quorum because they didn't know that something better was coming

-OR-

Every proposal fails because member states are waiting to vote on another proposal that will come up later even though most of these proposals probably have majority support

If the other six nations want to withdraw their proposals, then I'll withdraw this proposal . . . in moderation, all seven of us can make a joint request to have our proposals withdrawn . . . REASON: Maybe it would be best to construct a compromise proposal that combines the existing proposals . . . I know that there shouldn't be any more than two authors for a proposal, but maybe moderation would make an exception and allow an abortion proposal with seven authors.

I'll wait for others to reply, honoured ambassador, but I am not quite convinced because previously you kept insisting in introducing restrictions against abortion against progressive member states where the popular opinion is "leave it alone", until I found out why abortion should be legal for cases of rape et. al.