NATION

PASSWORD

(SUBMITTED) Defense of Life Act

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

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

Never
89
31%
1st trimester
32
11%
1st & 2nd trimesters
28
10%
Always
136
48%
 
Total votes : 285

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:56 am

Christian Democrats wrote:Addressing concerns about the 24th week of pregnancy, a nation, under this proposal, could recognize fetal personhood as late as the end of the last day of the 24th week of pregnancy; hence, this proposal would prohibit all abortions AFTER the 24th week of pregnancy.


But the proposal itself doesn't say AFTER. It says "BEFORE or DURING" the 24th of pregnancy! :palm:
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:57 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:1) In response to The Cat-Tribe, laws criminalizing abortion do reduce the number of abortions. Even though I realize there is much hostility to real world examples, the U.S. is a great example of the number of abortions increasing with abortion's legalization.

2) If a woman has become pregnant because of rape or incest and wants an abortion, then she would have procured an abortion long before week 24 of the pregnancy.

3) Depite the definition of fetal personhood, the reason there is an exception for fetal abnormalities is if the fetus dies or is near death in the womb and may cause irreparable harm to the mother.

Even though the physical health exception could be stretched to cover this, usually "physical health" exceptions encompass situations only when the pregnancy is actively causing harm to the mother. The defective fetus provision allows doctors to anticipate threats to maternal health.


1. I laid out about 11 points or sets of questions and you make an half-assed attempt to "answer" 3 of them. That won't cut it. At least try to answer the other points and/or questions.

2. Your first point is empirically wrong. This is why the Reduction of Abortion Act is far, far, far more effective (if implemented) than any ban on abortion. Plus bans on abortion kill women.
OCC/RL US statistics:
Official legal abortion rates in 1973 in the U.S. were 196 per 1,000 live births. In 2005, the abortion ratio was 233 per 1,000. The national legal induced abortion rate was 14 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years in 1973. In 2005, the abortion rate was 15 per 1,000. (CDC source) Abortions are now at the lowest rate since 1973.
OCC/RL World statistics and studies:
The short version is that making abortion illegal has little or no impact on the number of abortions that occur (in fact, countries allowing abortions have decreasing abortion rates), but severly impacts the safety of the abortions that women obtain. Some 80,000 women die every year from unsafe, illegal abortions. Here are links to the longer version:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301359,00.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html
http://www.iwhc.org/storage/iwhc/docUploads/BethAbortionComment10.17.07.pdf?documentID=414 (pdf, starts at bottom of page)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61575-X/fulltext
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/id21.pdf
http://www.medicalabortionconsortium.org/news/yes-legalizing-abortion-does-save-women-s-lives-1072.html

3. You are making assumptions that may not be true. A 13-year victim of incestual rape may not necessarily be timely in seeking an abortion. I guess she "deserves" to be punished for being scared, ashamed, etc.

4. There is no reason why your definition of ELECTIVE ABORTIONS couldn't exclude those involving severly defective or abnormal fetuses in the first place. That would make sense on multiple levels. If, on the other hand, you are saying fetal abnomalies only justify abortion when they threaten the life or health of the mother your provision about fetal defects and abnormalities is duplicative and unnecesary (and IMHO, deliberately disingenuous).

Concerning your statistics, which I accept as valid, I was refering to the time immediately after Roe v. Wade.

Abortions decreased slightly after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (United States) was enacted.

You statistics are good only until 2008.

Since the recession began, the number of abortions has once again increased.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:59 am

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Addressing concerns about the 24th week of pregnancy, a nation, under this proposal, could recognize fetal personhood as late as the end of the last day of the 24th week of pregnancy; hence, this proposal would prohibit all abortions AFTER the 24th week of pregnancy.


But the proposal itself doesn't say AFTER. It says "BEFORE or DURING" the 24th of pregnancy! :palm:

Week 24, Day 7, 11:59.99 p.m.: a nation recognizes personhood.

Week 25, Day 1, 12:00.00 a.m.: abortion ban takes affect.

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:00 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Why would a woman have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy?

Why wouldn't she just induce pregnancy (i.e., have the child, or give birth, early)?



This is an entirely irrelevant question, your Excellency is perfectly aware that forcing whole groups of people, in this case human females, to endure abrogations of their rights, in this case being forced to bear unwanted offspring, is discriminatory and therefore illegal under the terms of the Charter of Civil Rights.

You cannot force men to bear unwanted offspring therefore you cannot force women to bear unwanted offspring, as though women had less right to control their own bodies or their own reproductive self-determination than men.


Yours,
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

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

Postby Cinistra » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:02 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Cinistra wrote:OK, let's make a deal here, shall we? If you and your region support the "Repeal "Prevention of Torture"" resolution, the Cinistran government will campaign your resolution in its own region.

I am not acquainted with any of the various objections to this resolution. What number is this resolution, and why do you oppose it and seek its repeal?

The resolution is #9. The reason for the repeal is expressed in the first post. Do you want a deal, or not?
"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
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:07 pm

Grays Harbor wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I didn't realize abortion was a funny topic.


Abotion is not the "funny topic". Your continued pressing of irrelevent and bad arguments in favour of this fluff, however, are amusing.

So the abortion issue is an irrelevant one?

User avatar
Rutianas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Aug 23, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:07 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Why would a woman have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy?

Why wouldn't she just induce pregnancy (i.e., have the child, or give birth, early)?


I've already answered why a woman would want to have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy. At least in certain cases. I can answer for other cases. Some complications arise after the 24th week that mean if she goes through labor and delivery she will die. In that situation, who are we to determine who lives and dies. At that point, it's up to the parents of the unborn child. It is not up to this assembly to make that determination.

Rutianas wrote:Also, there are no exceptions for late term abortions. You may feel that a woman who has been raped should have already had the abortion. What occurs when a woman does not know she is pregnant? It can and does happen. Also, what about cases where a kidnapped woman is raped and released at the 24th week of pregnancy? She could not have made the choice before then. I would see that as a valid reason for abortion. Same with cases of incest where the father of the unborn child kept the woman from making her own choice through threats. Again, it can and does happen. You'd be creating a horrible loophole here for rapists to kidnap their targets, impregnate them, then release them when they can no longer have an abortion.


Inducing labor would cause a live birth that the woman may not want. Giving up parental rights is fine, but you're still forcing a woman to do something she may not want to do, which is having giving birth to a child she'd rather see dead due to the paternity of said child.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador
Last edited by Rutianas on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:08 pm

Rutianas wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Allow me to point out that viability in 1973 began at 28 weeks.

Today, there seems to be a consensus for 24 weeks.

SCOTUS did not give an actual number (i.e., of weeks); rather, it just said that personhood constitutionally begins at viability.


1973? Really? In 1973 we were just discovering psionics. We have no mention of any kind of viability being decided or even a consensus of 28 weeks. It was conception. As for today, in 2401 in the Imperial Republic, our consensus is still conception, however, we do have laws that lay down when abortion is allowed. We are not willing to force those laws on another nation that may not want it. We respect that other nations have differing views from ours on this. This is not an international issue and you have not convinced me that it is.

Again, your point? And why are you ignoring my legitimate concern? Afraid to tackle it? For reference:

Rutianas wrote:Also, there are no exceptions for late term abortions. You may feel that a woman who has been raped should have already had the abortion. What occurs when a woman does not know she is pregnant? It can and does happen. Also, what about cases where a kidnapped woman is raped and released at the 24th week of pregnancy? She could not have made the choice before then. I would see that as a valid reason for abortion. Same with cases of incest where the father of the unborn child kept the woman from making her own choice through threats. Again, it can and does happen. You'd be creating a horrible loophole here for rapists to kidnap their targets, impregnate them, then release them when they can no longer have an abortion.


Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

If personhood has begun, then, no, she can't obtain an abortion.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:13 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Allow me to point out that viability in 1973 began at 28 weeks.

Today, there seems to be a consensus for 24 weeks.

SCOTUS did not give an actual number (i.e., of weeks); rather, it just said that personhood constitutionally begins at viability.


OCC:

This should be entirely irrelevant to our discussion, but the U.S. Supreme Court said no such thing in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). To the contrary, the Court strongly suggested one was not a person until one was born. Id. at 157. You appear to confuse the concept of viability with personhood -- concepts the Court clearly distinguished.

I would add that no subsequent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an unborn at any stage of development is a "person."

In Section VII, the Court describes the interests that could be cited to justify criminalizing abortion:

1.an interest in discouraging women from engaging in "illicit sexual conduct", which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available;
2.an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and
3.an interest in protecting prenatal life.
-Wikipedia


Prenatal life is life, though, I guess all judicial opinions can be left up to interpretation.

I don't feel it necessary to read the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade to find a direct quote since this debate is not about how to interpret this landmark case. The purpose of this thread is to debate my proposal.

User avatar
Rutianas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Aug 23, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:15 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:If personhood has begun, then, no, she can't obtain an abortion.


So you're forcing a woman to carry a child that she would rather see dead? You may think you're being all noble, but you're forcing women to accept something that's painful. If a woman is forcibly held against her will, impregnated, then released at the 24th week and can no longer receive an abortion, I'd like to see you look her straight in the eyes and tell her she cannot receive an abortion. If you come out of it with your balls still attached to your body, I'll be impressed enough to approve of this tripe.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:17 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:I can virtually guarantee they [abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy] are all due to medical necessity . . .

Then you should have nothing to worry about.

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Ignoring that you won't stop abortion, but will kill women

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:20 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
1. I laid out about 11 points or sets of questions and you make an half-assed attempt to "answer" 3 of them. That won't cut it. At least try to answer the other points and/or questions.

2. Your first point is empirically wrong. This is why the Reduction of Abortion Act is far, far, far more effective (if implemented) than any ban on abortion. Plus bans on abortion kill women.
OCC/RL US statistics:
Official legal abortion rates in 1973 in the U.S. were 196 per 1,000 live births. In 2005, the abortion ratio was 233 per 1,000. The national legal induced abortion rate was 14 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years in 1973. In 2005, the abortion rate was 15 per 1,000. (CDC source) Abortions are now at the lowest rate since 1973.
OCC/RL World statistics and studies:
The short version is that making abortion illegal has little or no impact on the number of abortions that occur (in fact, countries allowing abortions have decreasing abortion rates), but severly impacts the safety of the abortions that women obtain. Some 80,000 women die every year from unsafe, illegal abortions. Here are links to the longer version:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21255186/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301359,00.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html
http://www.iwhc.org/storage/iwhc/docUploads/BethAbortionComment10.17.07.pdf?documentID=414 (pdf, starts at bottom of page)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61575-X/fulltext
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/id21.pdf
http://www.medicalabortionconsortium.org/news/yes-legalizing-abortion-does-save-women-s-lives-1072.html

3. You are making assumptions that may not be true. A 13-year victim of incestual rape may not necessarily be timely in seeking an abortion. I guess she "deserves" to be punished for being scared, ashamed, etc.

4. There is no reason why your definition of ELECTIVE ABORTIONS couldn't exclude those involving severly defective or abnormal fetuses in the first place. That would make sense on multiple levels. If, on the other hand, you are saying fetal abnomalies only justify abortion when they threaten the life or health of the mother your provision about fetal defects and abnormalities is duplicative and unnecesary (and IMHO, deliberately disingenuous).

Concerning your statistics, which I accept as valid, I was refering to the time immediately after Roe v. Wade.

Abortions decreased slightly after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (United States) was enacted.

You statistics are good only until 2008.

Since the recession began, the number of abortions has once again increased.


Again, you aren't responding to most of what I post.

Particularly telling is you completely ignore the copious evidence that abortion bans don't actually reduce abortions, but do kill women through unsafe abortions.

On the on thing you do address, U.S. statistics, your response is laughable. I give you reputable figures from the Centers for Disease Control from 1973 to 2008. You give ... no actual numbers.

You cherry-pick imaginary statitics for "immediately after Roe v. Wade" (whatever that means), after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and "since the recession began."

You give no reason why these alleged numbers for temporary periods would be relevant, let alone more relevant than my long-term statistics OR my worldwide studies.

This is just sad.
Last edited by The Cat-Tribe on Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:23 pm

Urgench wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:
Why would a woman have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy?

Why wouldn't she just induce pregnancy (i.e., have the child, or give birth, early)?



This is an entirely irrelevant question, your Excellency is perfectly aware that forcing whole groups of people, in this case human females, to endure abrogations of their rights, in this case being forced to bear unwanted offspring, is discriminatory and therefore illegal under the terms of the Charter of Civil Rights.

You cannot force men to bear unwanted offspring therefore you cannot force women to bear unwanted offspring, as though women had less right to control their own bodies or their own reproductive self-determination than men.


Yours,

Men can also become pregnant. :eek: :eyebrow: :blink: :( :palm: :lol2:

If personhood is extended to late-term fetuses, then such rights equally apply to fetuses, and, once again, couldn't a woman just choose to induce labor (not procure an abortion)?

Cf. male abortions?

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:27 pm

Cinistra wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I am not acquainted with any of the various objections to this resolution. What number is this resolution, and why do you oppose it and seek its repeal?

The resolution is #9. The reason for the repeal is expressed in the first post. Do you want a deal, or not?

I can post on the Regional Message Board, but I cannot ensure my region's support.

Secondly, your attempt of repeal would fail miserably.

Finally, I personally support GA #9.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:29 pm

Rutianas wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Why would a woman have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy?

Why wouldn't she just induce pregnancy (i.e., have the child, or give birth, early)?


I've already answered why a woman would want to have an abortion after the 24th week of pregnancy. At least in certain cases. I can answer for other cases. Some complications arise after the 24th week that mean if she goes through labor and delivery she will die. In that situation, who are we to determine who lives and dies. At that point, it's up to the parents of the unborn child. It is not up to this assembly to make that determination.

Rutianas wrote:Also, there are no exceptions for late term abortions. You may feel that a woman who has been raped should have already had the abortion. What occurs when a woman does not know she is pregnant? It can and does happen. Also, what about cases where a kidnapped woman is raped and released at the 24th week of pregnancy? She could not have made the choice before then. I would see that as a valid reason for abortion. Same with cases of incest where the father of the unborn child kept the woman from making her own choice through threats. Again, it can and does happen. You'd be creating a horrible loophole here for rapists to kidnap their targets, impregnate them, then release them when they can no longer have an abortion.


Inducing labor would cause a live birth that the woman may not want. Giving up parental rights is fine, but you're still forcing a woman to do something she may not want to do, which is having giving birth to a child she'd rather see dead due to the paternity of said child.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

Hence there is an exception for "severe abnormalities in the pregnancy."

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:30 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:
OCC:

This should be entirely irrelevant to our discussion, but the U.S. Supreme Court said no such thing in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). To the contrary, the Court strongly suggested one was not a person until one was born. Id. at 157. You appear to confuse the concept of viability with personhood -- concepts the Court clearly distinguished.

I would add that no subsequent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an unborn at any stage of development is a "person."

In Section VII, the Court describes the interests that could be cited to justify criminalizing abortion:

1.an interest in discouraging women from engaging in "illicit sexual conduct", which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available;
2.an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and
3.an interest in protecting prenatal life.
-Wikipedia


Prenatal life is life, though, I guess all judicial opinions can be left up to interpretation.

I don't feel it necessary to read the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade to find a direct quote since this debate is not about how to interpret this landmark case. The purpose of this thread is to debate my proposal.


You cited the SCOTUS case as supporting your proposal. It isn't relevant, but you were wrong regardless.

Wilkipedia is NOT a SCOTUS case, AND not even the Wikipedia summary says anything about a fetus/unborn being a person.

Just admit you made an error and move on.
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:31 pm

Rutianas wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:If personhood has begun, then, no, she can't obtain an abortion.


So you're forcing a woman to carry a child that she would rather see dead? You may think you're being all noble, but you're forcing women to accept something that's painful. If a woman is forcibly held against her will, impregnated, then released at the 24th week and can no longer receive an abortion, I'd like to see you look her straight in the eyes and tell her she cannot receive an abortion. If you come out of it with your balls still attached to your body, I'll be impressed enough to approve of this tripe.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

Easily.

"You cannot be allowed to murder your child."

User avatar
The Cat-Tribe
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5548
Founded: Jan 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:32 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:I can virtually guarantee they [abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy] are all due to medical necessity . . .

Then you should have nothing to worry about.


Are you admitting that you are (a) completely wasting our time and/or (b) trying to force through a wedge issue?
I quit (again).
The Altani Confederacy wrote:
The Cat-Tribe wrote:With that, I am done with these shenanigans. Do as thou wilt.

Can't miss you until you're gone, Ambassador. Seriously, your delegation is like one of those stores that has a "Going Out Of Business" sale for twenty years. Stay or go, already.*snip*
"Don't give me no shit because . . . I've been Tired . . ." ~ Pixies
With that, "he put his boots on, he took a face from the Ancient Gallery, and he walked on down the Hall . . ."

User avatar
Rutianas
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 479
Founded: Aug 23, 2007
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:33 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Easily.

"You cannot be allowed to murder your child."


You missed my point entirely.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

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

Postby Flibbleites » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:34 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Then you should have nothing to worry about.


Are you admitting that you are (a) completely wasting our time and/or (b) trying to force through a wedge issue?

Anyone who commented on his last proposal knows perfectly well that the answer is both.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Meekinos » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:38 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Some of you accused my previous proposal of not being straightforward enough. You said that I was trying to "backdoor" abortion regulations. This time I'm being more straightforward. I want to ban third trimester abortions. While I don't believe this is very controversial, I'm sure some of you will disagree.

Any suggestions on how I can improve the language of this proposal?
Comments?

Lovely, you're inviting comments? Excellent because we have quite a few qualms with the fashion in which this is written, including the wanton disregard for the bodily integrity of the female this so blatantly discriminates against.

Beginning of Life Act

Council: General Assembly
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong

----------------------------

Life begins when the first breath is drawn.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

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

DEFINING abortion as the intentional, or induced, termination of a pregnancy,

DEFINING elective abortion as abortion performed for reasons other than protecting the life or physical health of a pregnant person,

DEFINING fetal age as the gestational age,

How utterly disgusting that psychological wellbeing is dismissed so readily. It is just as real as physical health. It is just another part of a person's overall health. Even if they are physically sound, they can still not be a picture of perfect health if their psychological needs are ignored, especially if they clearly were pushed into carrying the pregnancy to term through coercion or were forced to undergo as a result of duress.

It is a large chunk of one's life to be forced to give up against one's will and a clearly violation of self-sovereignty. Other trespasses onto the individual are frowned upon, such as unwarranted searches, illegal surveillance. Why should this be any different. The person is clearly unwilling so they will feel severe psychological affects of having such conditions foisted unto them.

RECOGNIZING that many World Assembly member states have legalized abortion and that many nations currently have no restrictions whatsoever on abortion,

As is their prerogative.

EMPHASIZING that a human fetus has a 50 to 70 percent chance of survival after the 24th week of pregnancy and therefore can be considered viable,

That's an incredible stretch. For such a feat and for a nation of homo sapien sapien, they would have to be technologically advanced enough to provide the necessary care for a foetus born so pre-maturely. Even then, should it survive, that may only refer to their physical condition, regardless of any potential mental health issues that are often associated with pre-mature babies. These include developmental issues which may easily leave them struggling to keep up with their peers.

Christian Democrats wrote:RECOGNIZING that shortly after the 24th week of pregnancy, a fetus is able to feel pain,

...and if the foetus has [url=Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis]CIDA[/url]? Rare but entirely possible. After all, those with CIDA do not feel pain.

RECOGNIZING that most of a fetus' organs have developed by the 24th week of pregnancy,

Provided that they fit the current genetic make-up of the homo sapien sapien species you've shoe-horned this proposal for.

NOTING that after the 24th week of pregnancy, a fetus easily can be distinguished by most as a developing human offspring,

That is true of all homo sapien sapien foetuses, even those who pose a direct threat to the carrier, whether to the physical or psychological health.

NOTING that less than one percent of abortions occur after the 24th week of pregnancy,

Look, random, pointless statistics pulled out of the air. Care to substantiate that?

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

Your language is horribly patronizing and condescending, as if the reasonable majority doesn't already.

BELIEVING that 24 weeks gives a person ample time to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy,

Provided that ideal conditions are met and that the body gives early signs that it is carry a foetus. It is very possible for the person to not be aware of it until much time has passed. Of course, there are other concerns which have been raised but have yet to be adequately addressed.

HEREBY

REQUIRES member states to recognize a fetus' personhood before or during the 24th week of pregnancy,

That's if the gestation period even lasts that long...

DIRECTS member states to prohibit ELECTIVE ABORTION after the 24th week of pregnancy unless such an abortion is performed because of severe abnormalities in the pregnancy,

So, no exception for the psychological or physical health I see... Which would make such significant concerns secondary if not non-existent in your little world. Really, do the rest of the World Assembly a favour and keep this backward tripe in your borders.

AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent member states from banning abortion before the 24th week of pregnancy or from imposing additional restrictions on abortion, including complete prohibition,

Oh golly, gee, that's just swell. You know that resolution #44 already allowed for restrictions? You're duplicating part of that resolution.

AFFIRMS that this resolution does not prevent the General Assembly from imposing further restrictions on abortion (i.e., in the future), and

Because if it did, it would be a blocker proposal and hence, illegal. Oh but look at the next clause...

DECLARES that the provisions of this resolution apply only to the modern human species known taxonomically as Homo sapiens.

Optionality. Flat out illegal. Illegal. Illegal.
Last edited by Meekinos on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:43 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Urgench wrote:

This is an entirely irrelevant question, your Excellency is perfectly aware that forcing whole groups of people, in this case human females, to endure abrogations of their rights, in this case being forced to bear unwanted offspring, is discriminatory and therefore illegal under the terms of the Charter of Civil Rights.

You cannot force men to bear unwanted offspring therefore you cannot force women to bear unwanted offspring, as though women had less right to control their own bodies or their own reproductive self-determination than men.


Yours,

Men can also become pregnant. :eek: :eyebrow: :blink: :( :palm: :lol2:

If personhood is extended to late-term fetuses, then such rights equally apply to fetuses, and, once again, couldn't a woman just choose to induce labor (not procure an abortion)?

Cf. male abortions?




Your Excellency freely admits, indeed triumphantly taunts other delegations to this organisation with your assertion that this proposal only applies to humans, therefore your bizarre belief that human males may bear offspring is risible and nonsensical. In any case it hardly matters since this resolution discriminates against any person (of whatever sex, and whatever species) who is capable of bearing offspring, the CoCR clearly makes it illegal to use arbitrary and reductive categorisations of this kind to discriminate against anyone who inhabits a WA member state.

It is illegal under WA law to force anyone to obtain an inducement rather than an abortion because their right to obtain an abortion, where it is legal to do so, is protected by the Patient's Rights Act. The foetus is not a person by any credible definition and therefore does not have the same rights as the person within whom it is gestated.

Yours,
Last edited by Urgench on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:45 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Concerning your statistics, which I accept as valid, I was refering to the time immediately after Roe v. Wade.

Abortions decreased slightly after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (United States) was enacted.

You statistics are good only until 2008.

Since the recession began, the number of abortions has once again increased.


Again, you aren't responding to most of what I post.

Particularly telling is you completely ignore the copious evidence that abortion bans don't actually reduce abortions, but do kill women through unsafe abortions.

On the on thing you do address, U.S. statistics, your response is laughable. I give you reputable figures from the Centers for Disease Control from 1973 to 2008. You give ... no actual numbers.

You cherry-pick imaginary statitics for "immediately after Roe v. Wade" (whatever that means), after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and "since the recession began."

You give no reason why these alleged numbers for temporary periods would be relevant, let alone more relevant than my long-term statistics OR my worldwide studies.

This is just sad.

There aren't any reliable statistics for illegal abortions, and I don't want to cite unreliable sources or cite guesses.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:48 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Then you should have nothing to worry about.


Are you admitting that you are (a) completely wasting our time and/or (b) trying to force through a wedge issue?

No, this isn't a waste of time.

Of course this is a wedge issue, and, yes, I want my proposal to pass.

I'm not forcing anything. We'll let the WA decide in a vote.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9981
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:54 pm

Meekinos wrote:
DIRECTS member states to prohibit ELECTIVE ABORTION after the 24th week of pregnancy unless such an abortion is performed because of severe abnormalities in the pregnancy,

So, no exception for the psychological or physical health I see

Go read how elective abortion is defined at the beginning of the proposal.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Terran Abscon

Advertisement

Remove ads