Page 4 of 36

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:01 am
by Quadrimmina
Christian Democrats wrote:
The Emmerian Unions wrote:
Yer point? There is still a resolution on abortion.



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.


The honored ambassador's point seems to be not that the resolution blocks future resolutions, but that it is a landmark legislation that reduces abortions not by restricting their availability but by restricting their need. This is a carefully crafted compromise that is as far as some nations are willing to go. Ours included.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:03 am
by Grays Harbor
Christian Democrats wrote: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: :)


And would be quite happy, as a delegate, to not offer our approval of this unecessary and intrusive bit of fluff.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:06 am
by Christian Democrats
Grays Harbor wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote: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: :)


And would be quite happy, as a delegate, to not offer our approval of this unecessary and intrusive bit of fluff.

Too bad. Your approval greatly would be appreciated so every WA member state can have a chance to voice its opinion on this important issue.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:06 am
by The Emmerian Unions
*pulls out an AA-12 and shoots the Ambassador from Christian Democrats until the 32 round mag filled with grenades is empty*

<<OOC: This has been an Ignore post>>

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:07 am
by Rutianas
Christian Democrats wrote:My nation, too, recognizes personhood from fertilization.

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


This proposal forces people to accept something they may not believe. Again, who are you to meddle in what people believe from a religious, spiritual, or lack thereof standpoint? You haven't answered that.

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:09 am
by Grays Harbor
Christian Democrats wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
And would be quite happy, as a delegate, to not offer our approval of this unecessary and intrusive bit of fluff.

Too bad. Your approval greatly would be appreciated so every WA member state can have a chance to voice its opinion on this important issue.


Our opinion is that it is an unecessary and intrusive bit of fluff. Why should we waste our approval on something we find to be laughable at its very core?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:13 am
by Christian Democrats
Rutianas wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:My nation, too, recognizes personhood from fertilization.

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


This proposal forces people to accept something they may not believe. Again, who are you to meddle in what people believe from a religious, spiritual, or lack thereof standpoint? You haven't answered that. [. . .]

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE ( :unsure: ): Even the then socially progressive U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that personhood begins at viability.

NOTE: I don't know if you are or are not American.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:14 am
by Grays Harbor
The Emmerian Unions wrote:*pulls out an AA-12 and shoots the Ambassador from Christian Democrats until the 32 round mag filled with grenades is empty*

<<OOC: This has been an Ignore post>>

*smirk*

Nice "ignore". :p

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:16 am
by Rutianas
Christian Democrats wrote:REAL WORLD EXAMPLE ( :unsure: ): Even the then socially progressive U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that personhood begins at viability.

NOTE: I don't know if you are or are not American.


Hmm? Real world? I live in the Real World. It's called the Imperial Republic of Rutianas. I am Rutian. I don't know what this U.S. Supreme Court is or what Roe v. Wade is. I also have no clue what an American is. Therefore, I am not American. These American decisions do not affect me or my people. Nor do they affect any nation here unless one of them is American or the U.S. Supreme Court. Then I suppose it would affect only them. So, your point is?

And I do rather find it amusing that you ignored the rest of my concerns, though I shouldn't be surprised. You've focused on the arguments that you feel are important and ignore the ones that would destroy your proposal completely.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas and Swarming Cute Kittens Ambassador

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:18 am
by Christian Democrats
Grays Harbor wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Too bad. Your approval greatly would be appreciated so every WA member state can have a chance to voice its opinion on this important issue.


Our opinion is that it is an unecessary and intrusive bit of fluff. Why should we waste our approval on something we find to be laughable at its very core?

I didn't realize abortion was a funny topic.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:20 am
by Linux and the X
Were it not for the clear loophole provided, this resolution would violate our constitution.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:23 am
by Christian Democrats
Christian Democrats wrote:REAL WORLD EXAMPLE ( :unsure: ): Even the then socially progressive U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that personhood begins at viability.

NOTE: I don't know if you are or are not American.

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.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:26 am
by Just Guy
The Emmerian Unions wrote:*pulls out an AA-12 and shoots the Ambassador from Christian Democrats until the 32 round mag filled with grenades is empty*

<<OOC: This has been an Ignore post>>


You still haven't answered my question: How is this resolution, by only targeting humans, any different from FGM, which I believe was the most popular resolution in this chamber's history?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:33 am
by Urgench
Christian Democrats wrote:
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).




The cognitive dissonance arises from the fact that your Excellency knows perfectly well by now that measures which restrict a woman's ability to control her own body and reproductive self-determination are in contravention of the CoCR, and that depriving patients of the right to obtain medical procedures which are legal within the jurisdiction in which they happen to reside is in clear contravention of the Patient's Rights Act, and a host of other conflicts with WA resolutions and yet seems convinced that a measure which violates these resolutions is viable..

There is no such thing as Fetal personhood, and this resolution does not create it, all this resolution does if force women to bear children they do not wish to bear. One orgnism does not have the right to live in the body of another organism against that organism's will. The characteristics which define an organism do not necessarily or even very probably indicate personhood.


Yours,

Ignored points, half-assed answers, and falsehoods

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:37 am
by The Cat-Tribe
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).

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:41 am
by Rutianas
Christian Democrats wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:REAL WORLD EXAMPLE ( :unsure: ): Even the then socially progressive U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that personhood begins at viability.

NOTE: I don't know if you are or are not American.

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

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:42 am
by Grays Harbor
:blink:

I believe I may actually, for the first time ever, actually agree with something T-C-T said.

scary.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:43 am
by Christian Democrats
Linux and the X wrote:[T]his resolution would violate our constitution.

The constitutions of individual WA member states are legally inferior to WA resolutions and must adhere to said resolutions.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:44 am
by Grays Harbor
Christian Democrats wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:
Our opinion is that it is an unecessary and intrusive bit of fluff. Why should we waste our approval on something we find to be laughable at its very core?

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.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:45 am
by Grays Harbor
Christian Democrats wrote:
Linux and the X wrote:[T]his resolution would violate our constitution.

The constitutions of individual WA member states are legally inferior to WA resolutions and must adhere to said resolutions.


You are not helping your case by pointing out yet more reasons to oppose this twaddle.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:46 am
by The Cat-Tribe
Christian Democrats wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:REAL WORLD EXAMPLE ( :unsure: ): Even the then socially progressive U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that personhood begins at viability.

NOTE: I don't know if you are or are not American.

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."

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:46 am
by Christian Democrats
Urgench wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:
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).




The cognitive dissonance arises from the fact that your Excellency knows perfectly well by now that measures which restrict a woman's ability to control her own body and reproductive self-determination are in contravention of the CoCR, and that depriving patients of the right to obtain medical procedures which are legal within the jurisdiction in which they happen reside is in clear contravention of the Patient's Rights Act, and a host of other conflicts with WA resolutions and yet seems convinced that a measure which violates these resolutions is viable..

There is no such thing as Fetal personhood, and this resolution does not create it, all this resolution does if force women to bear children they do not wish to bear. One orgnism does not have the right to live in the body of another organism against that organism's will. The characteristics which define an organism do not necessarily or even very probably indicate personhood.


Yours,

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)?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:49 am
by The Cat-Tribe
Christian Democrats wrote: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: :)


Your poll excludes cases of rape and incest. Your proposal does not.

Doublethink?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:51 am
by Just Guy
I am opposed, but not in my official capacity as Delegate.

Begging the very question at issue

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:53 am
by The Cat-Tribe
Christian Democrats wrote:
Urgench wrote:


The cognitive dissonance arises from the fact that your Excellency knows perfectly well by now that measures which restrict a woman's ability to control her own body and reproductive self-determination are in contravention of the CoCR, and that depriving patients of the right to obtain medical procedures which are legal within the jurisdiction in which they happen reside is in clear contravention of the Patient's Rights Act, and a host of other conflicts with WA resolutions and yet seems convinced that a measure which violates these resolutions is viable..

There is no such thing as Fetal personhood, and this resolution does not create it, all this resolution does if force women to bear children they do not wish to bear. One orgnism does not have the right to live in the body of another organism against that organism's will. The characteristics which define an organism do not necessarily or even very probably indicate personhood.


Yours,
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 already asked YOU this question. Apparently you think some women do it out of whimsy. Perhaps you should find out why the handful of such cases occur before wasting our time with a resolution about them.

I can virtually guarantee they are all due to medical necessity, fetal deformity, or very young victims of rape or incest.