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
Vitaphone Racing
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10123
Founded: Aug 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vitaphone Racing » Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:58 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Vitaphone Racing wrote:
I suggest you re-read criminal law. Manslaughter IS unintentional.

Then why is there such thing as VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER?


Because voluntary manslaughter is for cases where the crime was willingly committed however the perpetrator did not wish the crime to result in the death of the victim.
Parhe on my Asian-ness.
Parhe wrote:Guess what, maybe you don't know what it is like to be Asian.

ayy lmao

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:27 am

Unless there are any legal objections, I am planning on introducing this proposal soon.

Assuming it gains the requisite number of delegate approvals, this proposal would pass with about 51% support (according to the poll). :clap: :)

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

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:39 am

We've got lots of issues with it. However, since the kittens are not human, it doesn't apply to them, not to mention those in the Imperial Republic are also not human. We still intent on voting against.

As to your poll, considering only 41 representatives made their opinion known in it, I highly doubt that is a decent cross-section of the GA as a whole or how representatives will actually vote.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:45 am

Kulaloe wrote:You need to change it so that it applies to all sentient races. I suggest wording it so that it bans the last third of pregnancy.

But in some species, a developing offspring may not become viable until after the third trimester has begun, whereas, in Homo sapiens, a fetus is viable at the beginning of the third trimester.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:46 am

Rutianas wrote:We've got lots of issues with it. However, since the kittens are not human, it doesn't apply to them, not to mention those in the Imperial Republic are also not human. We still intent on voting against.

As to your poll, considering only 41 representatives made their opinion known in it, I highly doubt that is a decent cross-section of the GA as a whole or how representatives will actually vote.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

I believe 41 ambassadors is a decent cross-section. Even the most popular polls don't have more than a few hundred nations vote.

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

This is a BAD idea AND poorly thought out as well

Postby The Cat-Tribe » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:49 am

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?

Beginning of Life Act

Council: General Assembly
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong

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

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 person1,

DEFINING fetal age as the gestational age,

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

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,

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

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

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

NOTING that less than one percent of abortions occur after the 24th week of pregnancy2, and

BELIEVING that 24 weeks gives a person ample time to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy3,

HEREBY

REQUIRES member states to recognize a fetus' personhood before or during the 24th week of pregnancy4,

DIRECTS member states to prohibit ELECTIVE ABORTION after the 24th week of pregnancy unless such an abortion is performed because of severe fetal defects or abnormalities,5

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,

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

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


1. This entire resolution is counter-productive and unncessarily in light of GAR #44 (Reduction of Abortion Act). Laws prohibiting abortion empirically do not stop abortion, they only cause abortions to be performed through more dangerous, illegal procedures. The measures set forth in the Reducation of Abortion Act should eliminate almost all, if not all, of the ELECTIVE ABORTIONS this resolutions allegedly seeks to stop (and does so far more effectively than this resolution ever will.

2. As highlighted and footnoted there are grevious problems with the language and logic of the proposed resolution:

1 What about mental health of the mother? If a birth is going to cause severe mental trauma, you simply don't care? Similarly, I note no exception for RAPE or INCEST.

2Can you prove the statements highlighted in red preceding this fotonote are undisputably scientifically true?

As to the statement highlighted in blue, (assuming it is true) why are such abortions performed? How many (if any) are actually ELECTIVE and don't involve a severely deformed or abnormal fetus? In other words, how many abortions would your resolution actually stop? (Or is it a waste of the World Assembly's time to even contemplate?)

3Can you prove the highlighted statement is undisputably scientifically true?

Are there no circumstances under which an abortion may become wanted or necessary after 24 weeks?

What about cases of RAPE or INCEST where a victim may be in denial or ashamed until late in the pregnancy?

4This makes no sense. You make arguments that COULD be (but aren't necessarily) related to personhood AFTER 24 weeks and then MANDATE personhood BEFORE OR DURING 24 weeks!

Furthermore, AT BEST, ONLY ONE of your proceeding statements relate to one of FIVE necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:
  • being conscious, e.g. aware of one's surroundings.
  • being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
  • being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
  • being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
  • being able to have emotions

A case may be made that late-term fetuses meet some (or even all of these criteria). YOU haven't made it.

5 Again, this either makes no sense or involves a strange morality. You declare fetuses "at or before 24 weeks" to be persons, but then say they may be killed if they are severely defective or abnormal. Would this standard apply to born children? To adults? Can we kill those we think are defective or abnormal?

Don't get me wrong. I think severely deformed or abnormal unborn should be allowed (or even should be) aborted, but your resolution is structed in a way that such abortions are ELECTIVE abortions of PERSONS.

3. For the reasons stated above, this resolution is hopelessly flawed and hopefully doomed to fail. Even if it were not, The Cat-Tribe would strong oppose it on copious grounds. It violates national soveriegnty. It violates individual rights. It subjugates women. It is the first step towards taking away the right of bodily integrity and self-ownership. It is a form of tyranny. Etc, etc, etc.
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 9:51 am

Christian Democrats wrote:I believe 41 ambassadors is a decent cross-section. Even the most popular polls don't have more than a few hundred nations vote.


Are you forgetting that some Delegates have hundreds of votes at their disposal? You get those against the proposal and it will likely fail. Therefore, 41 representatives is not a decent cross-section.

Also, if you cannot make this work for non-humans, why bother for humans? Just pass the laws in your own nation and leave the rest of us alone. I will not vote for any proposal that affects only a portion of individuals in the GA.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:56 am

Rutianas wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I believe 41 ambassadors is a decent cross-section. Even the most popular polls don't have more than a few hundred nations vote.


Are you forgetting that some Delegates have hundreds of votes at their disposal? You get those against the proposal and it will likely fail. Therefore, 41 representatives is not a decent cross-section.

Also, if you cannot make this work for non-humans, why bother for humans? Just pass the laws in your own nation and leave the rest of us alone. I will not vote for any proposal that affects only a portion of individuals in the GA.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

Just Guy, who has the most votes and whose support or lack thereof is responsible for the passage or failure of most recent proposals, has commented on this thread, and he expressed neither opposition nor support.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:03 am

Christian Democrats wrote:Just Guy, who has the most votes and whose support or lack thereof is responsible for the passage or failure of most resolutions, has commented on this thread, and he expressed neither opposition nor support.


I find it very unusual as to why you're not really addressing the main concerns here anyway. Like the fact that you're leaving out non-human races. You're so sure this is going to pass. Should it pass, the kittens will likely withdraw from the WA, leaving me here as an observer ambassador. Passing laws that affect only one race when there are a multitude of races here would be a dangerous precedent. It would state, without doing so directly, that one race is more important than the others. If that is what you are attempting to do, then state that clearly.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:08 am

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.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:10 am

Just Guy wrote:May I remind you that this body has passed numerous highly popular resolutions that only apply to humans. Not all proposals can apply to your species, ambassador.

I believe this is the most well-worded statement to address the concerns of Rutianas.

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

Postby Urgench » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:12 am

This proposal duplicates or otherwise violates several preexisting WA resolutions. The Ambassador for Christian Democrats seems to be suffering from cognitive dissonance since it is clear that the Patient's Rights Act, the CoCR and other statutes which prevented the Ambassador from attempting to introduce other immoral and reprehensible measures depriving women of bodily autonomy also make this proposal illegal.


We will not bother to engage in a pointless back and forth on the matter, the Ambassador for Christian Democrats has shown themselves peculiarly incapable of comprehending plain English in the past, but suffice it to say we do not expect that the WA will ever be forced to vote on this barbarous measure.


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
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:14 am

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.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:19 am

Urgench wrote:This proposal duplicates or otherwise violates several preexisting WA resolutions. The Ambassador for Christian Democrats seems to be suffering from cognitive dissonance since it is clear that the Patient's Rights Act, the CoCR and other statutes which prevented the Ambassador from attempting to introduce other immoral and reprehensible measures depriving women of bodily autonomy also make this proposal illegal.


We will not bother to engage in a pointless back and forth on the matter, the Ambassador for Christian Democrats has shown themselves peculiarly incapable of comprehending plain English in the past, but suffice it to say we do not expect that the WA will ever be forced to vote on this barbarous measure.


Yours,

A) COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

Which of my ideas are conflicting? I want to reduce abortions.

B) What makes this proposal illegal? If fetal personhood has begun (under this proposal), then the developing child has bodily autonomy in his/her own right, that is, rights independent of and equal to those of the mother.

C) Late-term abortions are barbarous (in my opinion of course).
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Emmerian Unions
Minister
 
Posts: 2407
Founded: Jan 02, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emmerian Unions » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:27 am

Christian Democrats wrote:Which of my ideas are conflicting? I want to reduce abortions.


Actually, THERE is already a Resolution FOR reducing abortions!

Christian Democrats wrote:B) What makes this proposal illegal? If fetal personhood has begun (under this proposal), then the developing child has bodily autonomy in his/her own right, that is, rights independent of and equal to those of the mother.


Actually it's the glaring optionality of this piece of trash. this thing isn't even fit for the bathroom as toilet paper, or the damn shredder! I move that this thing and all copies as made into a great big bonfire!
The Cake is a lie!
<<Peace through Fear and Superior Firepower>>

STOP AMERICAN IMPERIALISM? America is ANTI-IMPERIAL!
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
For good Russian Rock Radio, go here.
Please note, I rarely go into NSG. If I post there, please do not expect a response from me.
ALL HAIL THE GODDESS REPLOID PRODUCTIONS!

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:27 am

I have repaired a possible contradiction and clarified that a defective fetus cannot be aborted simply for being defective; rather, the defective fetus must be causing an abnormality in the pregnancy itself.

This is in addition to the exception for physical maternal health because an abnormal pregnancy, while abnormal, may not actively be causing harm to the mother's immediate health.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:30 am

The Emmerian Unions wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Which of my ideas are conflicting? I want to reduce abortions.


Actually, THERE is already a Resolution FOR reducing abortions!

Christian Democrats wrote:B) What makes this proposal illegal? If fetal personhood has begun (under this proposal), then the developing child has bodily autonomy in his/her own right, that is, rights independent of and equal to those of the mother.


Actually it's the glaring optionality of this piece of trash. this thing isn't even fit for the bathroom as toilet paper, or the damn shredder! I move that this thing and all copies as made into a great big bonfire!

The resolution of which you are speaking does nothing to define personhood nor does it include any prohibitions on certain kinds of abortions.

Concerning optionality, your species is not an option. A person/thing cannot choose what species he/she/it wants to be nor can someone/something change his/her/its species.

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

Postby Cinistra » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:35 am

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.
"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: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:37 am

Seeing that the legality of this proposal seems less dubious than the legality of my previous proposal because of the provision for recognizing fetal personhood (i.e., fetal rights), I have yet to hear any legitimate concern about the licitness of this proposal.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:38 am

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?

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

Postby Rutianas » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:41 am

Recognising fetal personhood is a question for each nation to address on their own. It is not something the GA should address due to the differences in religion and spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof. You say personhood starts at 24 weeks. The Imperial Republic believes it begins at conception. I'm certain there are those out there who believe that life beings at birth. Who's belief is correct and how do we prove it?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

User avatar
The Emmerian Unions
Minister
 
Posts: 2407
Founded: Jan 02, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emmerian Unions » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:44 am

Christian Democrats wrote:The resolution of which you are speaking does nothing to define personhood nor does it include any prohibitions on certain kinds of abortions.


Yer point? There is still a resolution on abortion.

Christian Democrats wrote:Concerning optionality, your species is not an option. A person/thing cannot choose what species he/she/it wants to be nor can someone/something change his/her/its species.


That may be true, however a resolution must affect ALL member nations, not just one group of member nations. Plus if some nation of humans wants to get out of this, they could just say that they are not humans. Ok? Now Ambassador, please drop this, before I, or someone else with a more powerful nation, drop-kicks you into the Reflection Pool, or does something "worse" to your nation.
The Cake is a lie!
<<Peace through Fear and Superior Firepower>>

STOP AMERICAN IMPERIALISM? America is ANTI-IMPERIAL!
Ifreann wrote:"And in world news, the United States has recently elected Bill Gates as God Emperor For All Time. Foreign commentators believe that Gates' personal fortune may have played a role in his victory, but criticism from the United States of Gates(as it is now known) has been sparse and brief."
For good Russian Rock Radio, go here.
Please note, I rarely go into NSG. If I post there, please do not expect a response from me.
ALL HAIL THE GODDESS REPLOID PRODUCTIONS!

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:56 am

Rutianas wrote:Recognising fetal personhood is a question for each nation to address on their own. It is not something the GA should address due to the differences in religion and spiritual beliefs, or lack thereof. You say personhood starts at 24 weeks. The Imperial Republic believes it begins at conception. I'm certain there are those out there who believe that life beings at birth. Who's belief is correct and how do we prove it?

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

My nation, too, recognizes personhood from fertilization.

This proposal requires personhood to be recognized "before or during the 24th week of pregnancy."

User avatar
Just Guy
Envoy
 
Posts: 309
Founded: Sep 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Just Guy » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:57 am

The Emmerian Unions wrote:That may be true, however a resolution must affect ALL member nations, not just one group of member nations. Plus if some nation of humans wants to get out of this, they could just say that they are not humans. Ok? Now Ambassador, please drop this, before I, or someone else with a more powerful nation, drop-kicks you into the Reflection Pool, or does something "worse" to your nation.


FGM... I don't see any difference.
Elindra doing the Defenders' propaganda for the day:
Kshrlmnt wrote:
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Defenders are naturally disadvantaged in NationStates

One thing I like about raiding.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:58 am

The Emmerian Unions wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:The resolution of which you are speaking does nothing to define personhood nor does it include any prohibitions on certain kinds of abortions.


Yer point? There is still a resolution on abortion.

Christian Democrats wrote:Concerning optionality, your species is not an option. A person/thing cannot choose what species he/she/it wants to be nor can someone/something change his/her/its species.


That may be true, however a resolution must affect ALL member nations, not just one group of member nations. Plus if some nation of humans wants to get out of this, they could just say that they are not humans. Ok? Now Ambassador, please drop this, before I, or someone else with a more powerful nation, drop-kicks you into the Reflection Pool, or does something "worse" to your nation.

That resolution does not block future restrictions.

Your threats are not appreciated.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads